Sale did not reset adverse possession limitations period

Where appellant claimed a portion of the subject property by adverse possession, the statute of limitations for adverse possession was not reset when appellee purchased the property.

The trial court’s contrary order is reversed. On remand, appellant must prove that she has satisfied the elements of adverse possession.

Statement of the case

“Pui Ho (‘appellant’) appeals the Prince William County Circuit Court’s (the ‘circuit court’) order sustaining Ebne Rahman’s (‘appellee’) plea in bar that the 15-year statute of limitations period for adverse possession (‘possessory period’) could not run against him because he had not owned the property for 15 years.

“Appellant contends that the possessory period runs against the property, not the owner, and therefore the intervening sale to appellee is of no consequence to her adverse possession claim. …

[T]his Court finds, as a matter of law, that the intervening sale to appellee did not affect the possessory period. Accordingly, the circuit court’s order sustaining the plea in bar is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.”

Background

Appellant bought her home in 2005.

“At the time of her purchase the survey plat map showed ‘[a] solid black line depict[ing] the property boundary as noted in the land records’ on the west side of appellant’s property and ‘a thinner line with perpendicular “dashes” at regular intervals [depicting a] “wire fence”’ to the west and outside of appellant’s boundary line.

“This wire fence separated appellant’s property from the undeveloped lots to the west and had been installed by a prior owner at some point in the 1970s. …

“After appellant purchased her property, multiple single-family homes were constructed to the west, including appellee’s home.

“Appellee purchased his home in 2010. He purportedly knew the wire fence was on his property but made no entry onto the part of his property east of the wire fence until March 2021 when he tore it down and removed the nearby trees.

“Appellee’s actions constitute the first time an owner of appellee’s lot disturbed the fence since its construction.

“In September 2021, appellant brought this action to quiet title for the land between the surveyed property line and the wire fence.

“She asserted that she had acquired the land by adverse possession, or, in the alternative, that her use of it had established a prescriptive easement by which she should be allowed to continue using the disputed land in the same manner she had been since acquiring her property in 2005. …

“[A]ppellee filed a plea in bar, arguing that the possessory period could not have started until he took ownership of the disputed property, less than 15 years prior.

“In opposition, appellant argued she had been in exclusive possession of the disputed land for the possessory period and that the length of time appellee personally owned the land is irrelevant to her claim on the property itself.

“Following full briefing from both parties, the circuit court sustained the plea in bar.”

Adverse possession

“The effect of adverse occupancy is the ‘vesting in an adverse occupant … a new, independent and indefeasible title—one paramount to and good against that of all other persons ….’ …

“This language suggests that adverse possession primarily focuses on the possessor’s occupation of the invaded interest and the nature of such occupation, rather than on the rights of the owner whose interest have been invaded. …

“Because adverse possession requires the occupancy of an interest for a defined period before a prior owner’s title may be extinguished and vested as new title in the adverse possessor, the possessory period is paramount to determining when title transfers by adverse possession. …

“In effect the possessory period will not begin to run against an interest owner until the interest owner has the right to eject the adverse possessor. …

“Moreover, the possessory period will not begin to run until the interest has been sufficiently invaded and possessed to satisfy all the elements of adverse possession. …

“With these principles taken together it is clear that the adverse possession statute of limitations begins to run when the present possessory interest is sufficiently and continuously invaded, thus allowing its owner to defend the interest.”

Effect of sale

“[T]his Court now considers the novel question of what effect, if any, the sale of sufficiently invaded property has on the possessory period. …

“[A]dverse possession focuses on the invasion of the interest itself, as hostile to someone else’s present possessory interests, not on a trespasser’s possession against any specific owner of the land. …

“And the possessory period begins to run only once the land has been sufficiently invaded — i.e., meets all the elements of adverse possession — and the person with a present possessory interest in the land, most commonly the interest’s owner, is able to defend his rights in the interest. …

“Based on those principles, this Court finds that the mere sale of property during the 15-year period of adverse possession does not disrupt the running of the statute of limitations because the land remains sufficiently invaded by the possessor and the invaded ownership interest continuously has a person (or succession of persons) properly situated to defend it for the entire possessory period — first the seller as the previous owner and then the buyer as the new owner who steps into the shoes of the transferor, his successor in interest.”

Trial court reversed

“[T]he circuit court sustained appellee’s plea in bar that the 15-year statute of limitations for appellant’s adverse possession claim could not have run against him because he owned the disputed property for fewer than 15 years. As a matter of law, that broad assertion is incorrect.

“The statute of limitations began to run if and when appellant sufficiently invaded the property rights of whomever owned the land between appellant’s property line and the wire fence to the west.

“When appellee purchased his property in 2010, he acquired the same property interests as the previous owner, including an already purportedly invaded interest.

“While ownership of that property interest may have shifted to appellee, the interest itself remained both unchanged and invaded insofar as already done.

“Further, and most importantly, the invaded interest always had an owner situated to defend it. Therefore, as a matter of law, appellee’s 2010 purchase of the disputed property did not restart appellant’s possessory period.

“Nevertheless, appellant bears the burden on remand of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, when her invasion of the disputed land began and whether it originated under a claim of right and was actual, hostile, exclusive, visible, and continuous for 15 years so as to ripen into good title.”

Reversed and remanded.

Ho v. Rahman, et al., Record No. 1585-22-4, Feb. 6, 2023. CAV (published opinion) (Huff) From the Prince William County Circuit Court (Farris). J. Chapman Petersen (Ibnul Ali Khan; Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC, on brief), for appellee Ebne Rahman. (Lisa M. Ernest; Fidelity National Law Group, on brief), for appellee Truist Bank. VLW 024-7-040, 15 pp.