Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court of Appeals Clarifies Adverse Possession Doctrine
Despite its ancient origins, adverse possession doctrine retains considerable contemporary importance. Disputed questions of fact explain the continuing volume of adverse possession litigation, but unfortunate statements of law have also been a factor. This past spring, in Walling v. Przyblo, the Court of Appeals took a significant step toward clarifying and simplifying adverse possession doctrine in New York.
Background
As the Court of Appeals recognized nearly a century ago, adverse possession 'is a necessary means of clearing disputed titles and the courts adopt it and enforce it, because, when adverse possession is carefully and fully proven, it is a means of settling disputed titles.' Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 NY 296, 308 (1920). Long-time use of land as an owner would use it vests the user with title, even if someone else has better 'paper title.' The doctrine protects purchasers by permitting them to rely on long-term use as evidence of title, rather than requiring them to track down deeds that may be difficult to find or nonexistent. To establish title, an adverse possessor must prove actual, exclusive, open and notorious possession (which the New York statute defines to require enclosure or usual cultivation or improvement), but the possessor must also prove that possession was 'hostile and under claim of right.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?