holding that title by adverse possession may mature where possession has been claimed under a mistaken belief of ownership; hostile intent not necessary
How later courts described this case
- holding that title by adverse possession may mature where possession has been claimed under a mistaken belief of ownership; hostile intent not necessary
- plaintiff who had occupied defendant’s land and maintained lawn up to fence for more than 21 years established title by adverse possession
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Myers v. Beam, 551 Pa. 670 (1998)
Burns, however, is factually distinguishable.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that the service of process in the appellees' quiet title action was ineffective to bind appellant. In addition, however, I think that in questioning whether appellant fulfilled the requirements for adverse possession, the majority should acknowledge a long established rule: a person in possession of land has a claim to it that is superior to that of any other claimant except the rightful owner. Green v. Kellum, 23 Pa. 254 (1854), Hoey v. Furman, 1 Pa. 295, 300 (1845), Garlock v. Fulton County, 116 Pa.Super. 50 , 176 A. 38 (1935); 3 Am.Jur.2d § 237. Here, the rightful owners (prior to the execution of the quit claim deed) were the heirs of the 1917 grantor, who mistakenly granted ten feet less than he thought he was granting, or anyone who may have established adverse possession before appellant herself took possession of the land. Appellees may not use jus tertii, the right of a third party, to get appellant out, and cannot win on any other basis except adverse possession of their own, which they never had.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this opinion.