Hi there! Ever wanted to steal your neighbor’s property? One of my oldheads has been living in this big Frigidaire box in Germantown…one of the nice ones too, with the bubble wrap, aluminum foil, and a bunch of those little foam things inside to keep it nice and insulated in the Winter. I’VE BEEN EYING THAT JAWN FOR YEARS!!!

But if I were to hit him with a brick and take it, as I’ve dreamt of doing SO MANY TIMES (SOOOOO MANY TIMES!!!), then I’ll probably get hit with an assault charge and go to jail. Jail or brick? Jail…or brick? What a moral quandary!

Fortunately, if you’re like me, and every day is a never-ending struggle not to take that damn brick and go right upside Lamarr’s big head–err…um…I mean…luckily, the law provides a simple solution to our dilemma: wait ’til he leaves, sneak inside, change all the locks, THEN WAIT TEN YEARS FOR THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT TO EXPIRE! At that point, I will LEGALLY own his property under the doctrine of Adverse Possession.

Easy, right?

(And yes, his Frigidaire box has locks on it. It’s got pretty good wifi too. The reception is marvelous.)

About nine years ago, some wonderful young law student wrote a rap song called “The Open and Notorious Biggie Bird,” (embedded above), which runs down the elements of Adverse Possession as they apply to the state of North Carolina. He did a great job with it, and if I ever meet him, I’d be glad to shake his hand and subscribe to his newsletter. But what about Philly?! What does Adverse Possession mean to the Pennsylvania resident?!

Let’s backtrack! First and foremost, property ownership is a fundamental right in the United States. The right to property is specifically laid out in the Constitution as something that (on the surface) every one of us is entitled to, and is a right that’s been deemed so important and engrained in the national consciousness that generally, courts will go to great lengths to protect it from being infringed upon. And yet here we are discussing a legally recognized means to infringe on that very right–by literally taking away a person’s land to hand over to a trespasser. While often described as “squatters rights” in lay tongue, Adverse Possession more accurately speaks to a statute of limitations on the landowner’s ability to enforce his own property rights–namely his right to file suit and kick any squatters off his land. Using our Frigidaire box as an example: the moment I trespass and lock Lamarr out of his property, he has right to file an ejectment action against me to put me on the street. If he sleeps on his rights and fails to file his claim within the time required by law (ten years under the 2019 Clear Title Act (see below), but twenty-one years in other cases), then he’s got to give his property up.

Despite what we’ve discussed, property ownership is a fundamental right, and courts see Adverse Possession as an extreme measure. As such, even when a landowner fails to file his ejectment suit within required time period, the spotlight is then shone upon the trespasser to see if his possession of the land lives up to the standards set by the court for him to become the new owner (otherwise known as the “elements” of Adverse Possession). The “Biggie Bird” song covers the elements as recognized under North Carolina law, and in Pennsylvania, the elements are mostly the same. A person attempting to claim ownership through Adverse Possession must prove “actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession” of the premises in question. He must actually possess the land, either by actually living on the land, or using it in a way that shows dominion and control over it (e.g. changing the locks, erecting a fence around it, paying taxes, or otherwise maintaining upkeep of the premises). The possession must be continuous for the statutory period, meaning that the trespasser and/or any successors in title (e.g. heirs, or anyone claiming ownership under the trespasser’s color of title) must cumulatively hold onto the property for the entire time required by law. Pennsylvania’s requirement that the possession be visible and notorious is basically the same as North Carolina’s “open and notorious” requirement, meaning that the land use must be out in the open. The trespasser needs to be so flagrant in his trespassing that if the landowner were to come out to check on his property, he’d realize (i.e. be put on notice) that someone else had taken over. The requirement that the possession be distinct and exclusive has been interpreted as meaning that the trespasser uses the land in the same manner as one who actually owns the property (i.e. that he uses it for himself and keeps others, especially the true owner, out). Finally, the requirement that the possession be hostile and under a claim of right means that the trespasser’s use of the land would interfere with and hinder the true landowner’s property rights (e.g. his right to the quiet enjoyment of his property). Only when all of these elements are met and maintained for the full statutory period may the squatter become the true owner of a property. It’s as if the court’s saying to the landowner “if this guy was able to do all of that stuff for that long and you still didn’t exercise your rights, you deserve to lose your land”! (Those interested in a detailed court analysis of the elements can check out Brennan v. Manchester Crossings, Inc., 708 A.2d 815, 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)).

The Clear Title Act

Those of you familiar with PA’s longstanding twenty-one statute of limitation may be surprised to learn of the relatively new ten-year provision. Codified in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527.1, as of 2019, the Commonwealth has shortened the time period to ten years for land with the size of one-half acre or less (a max of approximately 21,780 square feet according to our delicious Google overlords. I love you, Google!), as long as that land is used for a single-family dwelling (for example, your average row home in Philly). This provision specifically excludes condos, property owned as part of a cooperative, those “relating to planned communities,” and most government-owned property. 5527.1(b) specifically addresses vacant lots that adjoin a person’s land. For example, a house gets leveled on a block of row homes, and one of the neighboring homes begins using the lot for parking, gardening, parties, stabling horses, etc. Yet the lot is in the name of another person. Here, if that neighboring family can show that its use of the lot meets all of the elements of Adverse Possession, and is maintained over a ten-year period, then the neighbor can take ownership of the lot. The same old twenty-one year statute applies to those properties that were specifically excluded from 5527.1.

Honestly, this change troubled me a bit when I first learned about it, given what can be described as (frankly) the predatory nature of the housing market in Philly during a time of revitalization and gentrification. While ten years is still a healthy cushion, and one-half acre does encapsulate a lot of land, it still isn’t applicable across the board, and is structured in a way in which the impact will probably be most felt on the lower end of the income spectrum. That said, 5527.1 tempers any apparent inequality with its requirement that a notice of intent (found in 231 Pa. Code § 1065.1) be sent out to the the true landowner, giving him one additional year after the statute has run out to file his ejectment action and remove the adverse possessor from the land. If the landowner still fails to do anything after the additional year, the trespasser must then file a quiet title lawsuit against the landowner in court in order to become the new legal owner of the property.

Adverse Possession and YOU!!!!

So maybe you’re not a sociopath like me, and bricking your friend for his real estate isn’t your thing. That’s fine (lame). But Adverse Possession is applicable in a variety of circumstances. A common example comes in a dispute over family property in which the “trespasser” is actually a person who lived on the premises with the now-deceased landowner (either a boyfriend/girlfriend, a caretaker, roommate, etc.) whose name wasn’t added to the deed or any property records prior to the death, and now the heirs want him off the land so that they can take back the property for the family. There’s also the example of a person who purchases the land under the belief that the seller had right to transfer the land in question, only to find out that this isn’t the case. Less dramatically, Adverse Possession is useful in boundary disputes, where a neighbor erects a fence on the property, only to find out later that it was placed too far over onto the neighbor’s land. And of course, the vacant lot situation addressed in 5527.1. Providing that all of the elements of Adverse Possession are met, then each of the aforementioned parties may be eligible for ownership, and could take the appropriate steps to securing title.

I gotta go. I just found out my friend Lamarr’s in the hospital and I wanna make sure he’s ok (somebody hit him with a brick last night! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??!?!). Made it this far? Like what you read? Be sure share this content, subscribe to my Youtube channel, and stay tuned here for more from JustMisterESQ!!!