RULE:

According to the laws established by Franklin people can claim their ownership of estate through possession if they meet specific requirements. These criteria include open, and notorious possession, along with certain other elements, over a specified period.

Continuous Possession: The individual must consistently hold onto the property without breaks.

Exclusive Possession: They should treat the property as if they are the owner except for the real owner and others.

Notorious Possession: The possession must be visible and known to the public without any attempts at secrecy.

Hostile Possession: The target is to claim ownership without permission from the real owner.

Claim of Right Possession; The person must believe that they have the right to own and occupy the property.

Statutory Period: The possession needs to endure for a specified period as outlined in state laws.

ANALYSIS:

In Adler v. Auslander, Adler claims to have grazed his cows on the "Scrub Lot 40" tract for nine months each year since 1999. However, before Mr. Adler claimed possession, Ms. Auslander possessed a registered deed. To establish whether Mr. Adler can properly claim title to the property through adverse possession, we must examine each aspect of the rule.

- Continuous Possession: Mr. Adler claims to have used the property for nine months each year since 1999. While this may suggest continuous possession, a gap in possession could potentially defeat his claim.

- Exclusive Possession: Mr. Adler's use of the property, grazing his cows on it, implies exclusive possession to some extent. However, he admits to not using the land during the winter months. Ms. Auslander's behavior over the winter months will be critical in deciding whether Mr. Adler's possession was exclusive.

- Open and notorious Possession: Grazing cattle is often considered an open and infamous possession because it is visible to the public and known by others in the community.

- Hostile Possession: Hostility requires Mr. Adler to possess the land with the claim that it is his own, not with Ms. Auslander's permission. Although Mr. Adler mistakenly believed he purchased the property, the courts may consider this sufficient hostility.

- Claim of Right Possession: Mr. Adler's belief that he owned the property due to his purchase from Mr. Pryor could satisfy the claim of right element, even if the purchase was ultimately invalid.

Please make sure that the rule and analysis sections above contain citations from the case file provided below.

Coward v. Hunto Franklin Court of Appeals (2003) Defendants appeal from a decree quieting title in the plaintiffs of a tract of land in Franklin County, in the State of Franklin. The following issuc s presented by this appeal (1) Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy? In approaching this question, we point out that the evidence, largely undisputed in any material sense, established that defendant or his immediate predecessors did occupy the premises, which we have called tract B. as though it was their own for far more than the 10 years as prescribed in the Franklin Code Sec. 1.1. This statute provides \"Actions for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof shall be commenced within ten years: and no action shall be mamntained for such recovery unless it appears that the plaintiff. his ancestor, predecessor or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within ten years befere the commencement of the action.\" We start with the oft-quoted rule that, to constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession which is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period. We reject the conclusion that summer cccupancy only of a summer beach home destroys the continuity of possession required by the statute. Tt has become firmly established that the requisite possession requires such possession and dominion "as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general in holding. managing. and caring for property of like nature and condition " Wheeler v. Jones (Franklin Sup. Ct. 1918). We hold that occupancy of tract B during the summer months for more than the 10-year period by defendant and his predecessors, together with the continued existence of the improvements on the land and beach area, constituted 'vninterrupted possession within this rule. To hold otherwise is to completely ignore the nature and condition of the property. We find such rule fully consonant with the legal writers on the subject. In F. Clark. Law of Surveying and Boundaries, s. 561 (3d ed. 1959) at 565 \"Continuity of possession may be established although the land is used regularly for only a certain period each year \" Further, at 366! \"This rule 1s one of substance and not of absolute mathematical continuity, provided there is no break so as to sever two possessions. [t is not necessary that the occupant should be actually upon the premises continually. If the land is occupied during the pertod of time during the year it is capable of use, there is sufficient continuity. Judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss plaintiffs\" action and to enter a decree quieting defendants\" title to the disputed tract of land in accordance with the prayer of their cross-complaint. Franklin Oil Company v. Herder Franklin Court of Appeals (1947) This is an action to quiet title to 160 acres of land in Franklin County. in the State of Franklin The land in question was owned in 1914 by the appellant in this case, Franklin Ol Company (Company). Limited. a corporation chartered in the State of Franklin. The Company regarded the land at the time of purchase as of little value. This property was rough and arid and was situated in what was, until about 1929, a sparsely settled country used only for grazing purposes. The appellee in this case, Robert Herder. asserts that he has established title to this land by adverse possession under claim of title, as found by the trial court The appropriate portion of the Franklin Code Sec. 2.1 reads as follows \"For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by any person claiming a title founded upon a written instrument, or a judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases: * * * \"3. Where, although not enclosed, it has been used for the supply of fuel, or of fencing timber for the purposes of husbandry, or for pasturage. or for the ordinary use of the occupant.\" To establish adverse possession. it is only necessary that land be put to such use as can reasonably be made thereof, and such a use is sufficiently continuous if, during the required time, it be so used at all times when it can be used for the purpose to which it is adapted. Posey v. Myers (Franklin Sup. Ct. 1889). It is well settled in this state that pasturing during the entire grazing season of each vear duning which feed is available, if done to the exclusion of others, s a sufficient use and occupation of land which is reasonably fit only for pasturage purposes. to constitute the occupation and possession necessary to establish a title by adverse possession. It is sufficient that the use is in accordance with the usual course of husbandry in the locality. Folfv. Lamb (Franklin Sup. Ct. 1934). The possession and use being made of this land by appellee Herder was well known throughout all that territory, and physical evidence existed which would have given notice to anyone who visited the land. even at times outside of the grazing season, that the land was bemng occupied and used. Under the principles of law established 1n this state and the facts here shown. the appellee has established his title to this land by adverse possession under claim of title, as found by the trial court. So ordered. Eves v. Amicable Franklin Court of Appeals (1974) This action was commenced by the appellant fo quiet title o an eighty-acre tract of land in Franklin County, Franklin. The respondents counterclaimed seeking to have fifle fo the realty quieted in themselves In their counterclaim, the respondents claimed title to the land in dispute by virtue of over ten vears' adverse possession. The lower court found that the respondents had been in open, hostile, exclusive and continuous possession of the land in question for over ten years prior to the commencement of this action on March 5, 1970; that they had paid all the taxes which had been evied against the property during that period time; and that consequently possession had ripened into title. The evidence the eighty-acre tract in question consisted of unbroken and brush lands suitable only for grazing. The property was unenclosed, although there was fencing along part of one end of the tract. It appears that the respondents during the winter grazed all of the eighty acres. They were actually upon the lands for about five to six months each year, entering thereon in November and remaining until April, at which time they moved their sheep onto higher grazing lands in Franklin for the summer and early avrumn. The respondents did not leave anyone upon or i charge of the eighty acres during the summer months while they were away. The State of Franklin Code Sec. 2.1 pro \"For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by any person claiming a title founded upon a written instrument, or a judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases: * * * \"3. Where, although not enclosed, it has been used for the supply of fuel, or of fencing timber for the purposes of husbandry, or for pasturage. or for the ordinary use of the occupant.\" In Woif v. Lamb (Franklin Sup. Ct. 1934), it was held that pasturing during the entire grazing season of each year during which feed is available, if done to the exclusion of others, is a sufficient use and occupation of land which is reasonably fit for grazing purposes only, to constitute the occupation and possession necessary to establish title by adverse possession. "The question is whether the pasturage must continue throughout the whole year. As stated above, the defendant's pasturage was only during the grazing season, that is, from February to July, the land during the balance of the vear being 'not pasturable.' We think, however, that this was sufficient, there being no one on the land meanwhile. It is a settled rule with reference to cases of this character that it is sufficient if the dominion and control is by appropriate use and according to the particular locality and quality of the property " Now. we think that pasturing during the pasturing season is "appropriate use according to the particular locality and quality of the property.\" To pasture the land when it was "not pasturable would not only not be an appropriate use, but an impractical one. In the case of cultivation, there is an interval of several months between the harvesting of one crop and the preparation of the s0il for another. And there will be just as much sense in holding that the interval destroved the continuity of possession in the one case as in the other Thus we conclude that the respondents had continuously claimed, occupied, and used the unbroken brush lar spute for at least 10 years prior to the commencement of this action on March 5, 1970, and therefore hold title to the land acquired by adverse possession