Some states require a \u201cclaim of right\u201d to obtain property by adverse possession. This supposed element of the claim is confusing because it is not clear what it adds to the other requirements: nonpermissive visible continuous exclusive possession for the statutory period. In general, this phrase simply differentiates ordinary adverse possession cases from ones based on \u201ccolor of title\u201d where a deed or other granting instrument is defective (and thus does not pass title to the grantee) while the grantee occupies the property for the statutory period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Alabama Supreme Court clarified the claim of right idea by stating that it means that \u201can adverse possessor has an intention to claim title to the disputed property.\u201d Phoenix East Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Perdido Dunes Condominium Owners Ass\u2019n<\/a>, 2024 WL 1514608 (Ala. 2024). And how does one show that? By showing that the adverse possessor \u201cpossessed\u201d the property without permission\u2014in other words by proving the other elements of the claim. The claim of right requirement does not require notifying the record owner of an intent to take title; nor does it require proof of a state of mind. Things would be simpler if courts did not treat \u201cclaim of right\u201d as an element that needs to be proven.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Some states require a \u201cclaim of right\u201d to obtain property by adverse possession. This supposed element of the claim is confusing because it is not clear what it adds to the other requirements: nonpermissive visible continuous exclusive possession for the statutory period. In general, this phrase simply differentiates ordinary adverse possession cases from ones based on \u201ccolor of title\u201d where a deed or other granting instrument is defective (and thus does not pass title to the grantee) while the grantee occupies the property for the statutory period. The Alabama Supreme Court clarified the claim of right idea by stating that it means that \u201can adverse possessor has an intention to claim title to the disputed property.\u201d Phoenix East Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Perdido Dunes Condominium Owners Ass\u2019n, 2024 WL 1514608 (Ala. 2024). And how does one show that? By showing that the adverse possessor \u201cpossessed\u201d the property without permission\u2014in other words …<\/p>\n