Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Fulkerson v. Van Buren

    Uploaded by

    Mar Fer
    The plaintiff owned land including a church building since 1949. In 1985, a congregation began using the building without consent. In 1994, the plaintiff demanded they vacate but they refused and claimed adverse possession. The trial court found for the church but the appeals court reversed. The reverend acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership as late as 1991. He also said the congregation did not decide to take the land by adverse possession until 1994. As seven years had not passed, the congregation could not prove their adverse possession claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fulkerson v. Van Buren

    Uploaded by

    Mar Fer
    111 views1 page
    The plaintiff owned land including a church building since 1949. In 1985, a congregation began using the building without consent. In 1994, the plaintiff demanded they vacate but they refused and claimed adverse possession. The trial court found for the church but the appeals court reversed. The reverend acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership as late as 1991. He also said the congregation did not decide to take the land by adverse possession until 1994. As seven years had not passed, the congregation could not prove their adverse possession claim.

    Original Description:

    Case Brief

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff owned land including a church building since 1949. In 1985, a congregation began using the building without consent. In 1994, the plaintiff demanded they vacate but they refused and claimed adverse possession. The trial court found for the church but the appeals court reversed. The reverend acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership as late as 1991. He also said the congregation did not decide to take the land by adverse possession until 1994. As seven years had not passed, the congregation could not prove their adverse possession claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views1 page

    Fulkerson v. Van Buren

    Uploaded by

    Mar Fer
    The plaintiff owned land including a church building since 1949. In 1985, a congregation began using the building without consent. In 1994, the plaintiff demanded they vacate but they refused and claimed adverse possession. The trial court found for the church but the appeals court reversed. The reverend acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership as late as 1991. He also said the congregation did not decide to take the land by adverse possession until 1994. As seven years had not passed, the congregation could not prove their adverse possession claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Fulkerson v.

    Van Buren
    961 S.W.2d 780 (1998)

    Facts:
    The plaintiff, Floyd Fulkerson, has owned his land, which includes a church building, since 1949.
    In 1985, the congregation of the Progressive Church inc. began using the church building on the
    property without the plaintiff’s consent. The congregation improved the building and took care of
    the land. In 1994, the plaintiff sent Revered Van Buren, of the congregation, a letter demanding
    that they vacate the church building. When they did not vacate, the plaintiff filed a complaint
    asking for the congregation to be ejected, and the congregation responded that it owned the
    land by adverse possession. The trial court found in favor of the church. The present court
    reversed the county court’s ruling.

    Key Facts:
    The reverend testified that as late as 1991 he acknowledged that the plaintiff owned the land. “I
    didn’t know how or what possession they had.” The reverend also testified that the congregation
    did not decide to take the land by adverse possession until 1994. As this appeal was in 1998,
    not enough time had passed to meet the seven year possession requirement.

    Rules: 3. In order to establish title by adverse possession, appellate had the burden of proving
    that she had been in possession of the property continuously for more than seven years and
    that her possession was visible, notorious,distinct, exclusive, hostile, and with intent to hold
    against the true owner.
    4. Hostile
    5. For possession to be adverse, it is only necessary that it be hostile in the sense that it is
    under a claim of right, title, or ownership as distinguished from possession in conformity with,
    recognition of, or subservience to the superior right of the holder of title to the land. Possession
    of land will not be ordinarily presumed to be adverse, but rather subservient to the true owner of
    the land.

    Analysis: In this case, the reverend himself admitted that the congregation recognized the
    ownership right of the plaintiff. The reverend’s testimony shows that from the time the
    congregation occupied the church building until November 1994, the church was unsure of the
    precise nature of its interest in the land. Given that the proof of the possessor's intention to hold
    adversely must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal, the congregation of the Progressive Church
    cannot prove their claim of adverse possession.

    Issue: Under adverse possession, did the church meet the requirement for hostile possession
    when they acknowledged the ownership of the land by Mr. Fullerton, and did not decide the
    wanted the land until 1994 or 1995.

    You might also like