美国财产法(6)

t have

　　a claim against her.

　　Tacking runs on the owner's side once adverse possession has

　　begun the statute of limitations runs against the owner and

　　all of his successors in interest. Gives advantage to the adverse

　　possessor.

　　两个与Adverse possession有关的经典案例:

　　1. Howard v. Kunto （1970）； pg. 1393, briefed 9/19/94

　　Facts: AA-appellee sought to sell half of his

　　waterfront land to another party, and so had a survey performed

　　to determine the exact lay of his property. When the survey

　　was performed, however, it was found that the previous surveys,

　　which were used for determining the deeds that were recorded

　　for each plot in the neighborhood, were in error by 50ft. Thus,

　　each lot that was occupied actually belonged in deed to the

　　person's next-door neighbor. BB-appellant occupied a house on

　　property that was described in the deed acquired by AA-appellee,

　　who sued for recovery of the land described by the deed. BB

　　contended that a long string of previous occupiers of the house

　　adverse to AA constituted a new title in BB.AA argued t

hat BB

　　could not tack his adverse possession time onto that of his

　　predecessors because it was only a summer house, and therefore

　　not "continuously" occupied, and that the chain of

　　possessors was not in "privity" because the deed was

　　to the wrong tract of land. Trial court ruled for AA, BB appealed.

　　Issue: 1. Is a claim of adverse possession defeated

　　because the house was only used as a summer property？ 2. Can

　　a person who has recorded title to a tract of land adjacent

　　to his, but thinking that he has correct title to the land which

　　he possesses, tack his adverse possession onto the previous

　　periods of occupancy which went before his？

　　Holding: 1. No. To establish continuity of possession,

　　a person must only occupy the property for periods of time which

　　are consistent with the nature of the property. 2. Yes. Where

　　there are several successive bona fide purchases and recordings

　　of a deed to a tract of land adjacent to the tract of land occupied,

　　and the cumulative possessions are longer than the statute of

　　limitations for actions to recover property, there is sufficient

　　privity to permit tacking and thus establish adverse possession.

　　Reasoning: 1. The court reasoned that the rule

　　of continuity was not one requiring absolute mathematical continuity,

　　but rather if the land is occupied during the period of the

　　year when it is capable of use, that is sufficient. 2. The requirement

　　of "privity" is intended to keep chains of unrelated

　　squatters from voiding the title of the original owner, and

　　clearly those are not the facts in this case. Each possessor

　　was a bona fide purchaser from the previous one. Furthermore,

　　where a person claims more than his deed describes, the question

　　of privity is not defeated, so it should be the same for where

　　the deed describes an adjacent parcel of land.

　　Notes: 1. The privity requirement can be fulfilled

　　by a relation between disseisors of grantee/grantor, ancestor/heir,

　　or devisee/devisor. Possession need not be directly by the disseisin,

　　but may be by someone authorized by him. 2. A possessor can

　　claim title to a land which he occupied for the statutory period

　　under the mistaken belief that it was his own, even though he

　　may not have muniment of title. 6. Most statutes have disability

　　clauses that extend the period required for adverse possession

　　if the owner is a child, insane, incompetent, etc. However,

　　there can be no tacking of disabilities, the statute runs with

　　any change in ownership. 7. There has been opinion recently

　　that the disability clauses should be removed because they prevent

　　some cases from being settled in a reasonable time when there

　　is clearly no opposition from the disabled land owner. The theory

　　is that the disabled persons relatives/friends will look out

　　for him, and the occasional loss will be offset be the increased

　　security against latent claims by disabled persons suddenly

　　being brought forward.

　　2 O'Keeffe v. Snyder （1980）； pg. 145, briefed 9/27/94

　　Facts: O'Keeffe is the painter who painted several

　　paintings that she claims were stolen from her studio in 1946.

　　She did not advertise that they were missing until 1972 when

　　she registered them as stolen with an Art Dealers Association.

　　Snyder bought the paintings in question in 1975 from a dealer

　　who claims that they were in his family since perhaps as early

　　as 1941-194

3 （before the claimed theft）。 O'Keeffe discovered

　　the paintings in Snyder's gallery in 1976 and instituted an

　　action of replevin to recover them. Snyder claims both that

　　the statute of limitations for replevin of chattels had run,

　　and that he had held the paintings in adverse possession, through

　　tacking with the dealer's family, for over 30 years. Trial court

　　issued summary judgment for Snyder, holding that the statute

　　of limitations had commenced running on the date of the original

　　theft. Appellate court reversed and entered judgment for O'Keeffe

　　holding that Snyder had not proven the elements of adverse possession.

　　Issue: Who has best title to the paintings？

　　Holding: 1. Unlike in real estate adverse possessions,

　　in cases involving personal chattels, a cause of action will

　　not accrue, and thus the statute of limitations will not begin

　　to run, until the injured party discovers, or by reasonable

　　diligence should have discovered, facts which form the basis

　　of the action. （Discovery Rule）。

　　Dicta: 2. The expiration of the statute of limitations

　　bars the remedy to recover, and also vests good title in the

　　possessor. 3. In establishing adverse possession of personal

　　chattels, tacking of periods of possession between parties in

　　privity with each other is permitted in the same way as with

　　real estate.

　　Reasoning: 1. The literal language of the statute

　　of limitations results in harsh holdings when the property in

　　question is one which is easily concealed, or its display is

　　not visible broadly enough to put the owner on sufficient notice

　　of the identity of the possessor （analogy to jewelry worn）。

　　It would encourage larceny to hold that the strict letter of

　　the statute would prevent the owner from recovering an item

　　of which he never knew the identity of the possessor. 2. Before

　　the statute runs out, the possessor has a voidable title against

　　all others but the true owner. To leave the title in the original

　　owner after adverse possession would not put issues to rest

　　that were deserving of resolution because of their age and action

　　of the owner. 3. Not to permit tacking would enable the original

　　owner to have rights much longer than the statute of limitations,

　　and put a subsequent buyer in a worse position than the person

　　who took it wrongfully in the first place.

　　网友方明译:

　　这两篇好难翻译呀,硬翻了翻,欢迎大家一起探讨！

　　1. Howard v. Kunto （1970）； pg. 1393, briefed 9/19/94

　　案情: 被上诉人AA为了将一半属于自己的临水土地卖给他人,对所属土地的位置进行了一次准确测量。然而,测量结果出人意外:其地契所依据的前次测量存在错误,在于邻居相连的每一单位土地上都有50英寸的误差,也就是说标明在地契上的这些单位的土地,实际上应归其邻居所有。而上诉人BB有一套房屋却位于被上诉人AA地契所标注的土地上,于是AA起诉要求恢复行使地契上的土地权利。BB提出主张,认为长期占有该房屋已经构成了自己的一项新权利。AA提出反驳,BB在时间上不符合先占时效,理由是该房屋仅仅是避暑别墅,不能能构成连续占有。而且,这种连续占有不因为地契有误而构成一种“默示”。法庭判决AA胜诉,BB因此上诉。

　　问题:1.仅仅因为这套房屋是避暑别墅就能使时效先占的主张败诉吗？2.对于相邻的有契约记载的土地,如果认为自己是合法拥有者而占有该土地,那么能不能形成对该土地时效先占呢？

　　裁决:1.不能。对于连续占有的构成,只要占有财产的时间与该财产的一般用途相一致即可。2.能。如果一个相邻的土地,其上存在几个连续的真实交易,且有契约记载,持续被占有超过法令规定的诉讼时效,并且有充分的占有默示,那么这就构成了时效先占。

　　分析:1.法庭充认为连续占有规则并不是要求绝对精确的连续,而是只要该土地在一年中能够使用的期间被占有,这就足够了。2.“默示”要求有意排除交易链中的无关方,以避免使原所有人权利无效,并且表明在此种情况下的不实之处。每一个土地现持有者都是前持有者的正当购买人。此外,如果有人主张地契记载之外的土地,默示成立的话,那么对于地契记载的相邻土地,默示也应当成立。

　　注解:1.默示的要求可以通过受让人/被受让人、被继承人/继承人、接受遗赠人/遗赠人中的抢夺者之间的关系来实现。占有不必直接去侵占,通过授权人也可以。2.即使没有土地所有权凭证,占有人仍可以对其错误认识下占有的超过法定期限的土地主张权利。6.大多数法令都有限制条款,这些条款扩大了所有人是儿童、精神病患者、无能力人等的时效占有的期间。〈然而,残疾人不在其中,其任何所有权的变动依照法律规定。〉7.近来,有人提出废除限制条款的主张,理由是,当土地所有人是无能力人,而这些无能力人又没有明显的反对意见的话,这些条款成了案件在合理时间内解决的障碍。<理论上讲,无能力人的亲戚/朋友,可以代理其行为,况且特殊情况下的损失可以通过增加安全性以防止无能力人潜在的突然提前提出主张的可能性来抵消？gt；

　　2 O'Keeffe v. Snyder （1980）； p

g. 145, briefed

　　9/27/94

　　案情:O'Keeffe是一名画家,是几幅油画的作者。她认为她的这几幅油画是1946年从其画室盗走的。直到1972年,她向一家艺术经销协会注册这几幅油画时,才声明油画被盗,而此前她一直未做遗失广告声明。

┨网页设计特效库┠ http://www。z┗co⊙l。com/网页特效/