Also known as: honest claims of right · claim of right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A good-faith belief by a possessor that land belongs to them. This belief satisfies the hostility element required for adverse possession and permits tacking of successive periods of possession.
A sincere belief that one holds a legal right to property or to act with respect to it. This belief negates the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement or theft and limits the justification for using force against another who asserts a competing possessory right.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A good-faith belief by a possessor that land belongs to them. This belief satisfies the hostility element required for adverse possession and permits tacking of successive periods of possession.
Harold Hunt and his father before him farmed a narrow strip along the edge of Highland Farms believing a misplaced survey stake marked their true boundary. They planted crops, maintained irrigation, and grazed livestock on the strip for more than twenty years. When the true owner objected, the court permitted tacking of the successive periods because the good-faith belief supplied the required claim of right.
1 common questions
An honest claim of right satisfies the hostility requirement when the possessor believes in good faith that the land is their own. This belief permits tacking of successive periods of possession by predecessors who shared the same mistaken understanding.
Supporting sources
A sincere belief that one holds a legal right to property or to act with respect to it. This belief negates the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement or theft and limits the justification for using force against another who asserts a competing possessory right.
Hassan Hakim returned to his former apartment after an unlawful lockout and used minimal force to open the door. He believed the landlord had no right to retain possession and that delay for a court order would cause exceptional hardship. The honest claim of right permitted the entry under the applicable defense provision.
Hope Howard shoved a maintenance worker who was removing her furniture from a storage closet at the direction of the property manager. She knew the manager acted under a claim of right to protect the items. Because she recognized the possessory claim, her use of force could not be justified as self-defense.
Hugo Hart brandished a weapon when a former employee demanded return of a console. He knew he could safely place the item on the floor and retreat. The honest claim asserted by the employee triggered the duty to surrender the property rather than resort to deadly force.
4 common questions
An honest claim of right negates the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement when the defendant converts property while sincerely believing it belongs to them or that they are entitled to retain it as payment for a debt. Open retention of the property supports the existence of the defense.
Supporting sources
An honest claim of right permits limited force to effect re-entry only when the actor believes the other party has no claim of right and circumstances create exceptional hardship in waiting for a court order. The claim must be evaluated from the actor's perspective at the time of the entry.
…“1. For the purposes of this Act— “(1) A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof: “Provided that a person…
…upon the manner in which the States may enforce their penal codes. Accordingly, in reviewing a State criminal conviction under a claim of right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, from which is derived the most far-reaching and most frequent federal basis of challenging State criminal justice, "we must…
…made material by the definition of the offense include a legal element. So, for example, it is immaterial in theft, when claim of right is adduced in defense, that the
…is to be taken of excuses offered by an apparent felon. For example, "[i]n cases of larceny, may the citizen be satisfied by any claim of right that is made, or must it be weighed, and where suspicion remains this communicated to the police? ... The [ Sykes ] recognition of misprision means, therefore, the imposition not of a duty…
Harriet Hamilton removed scrap metal from a government site believing it had been abandoned and therefore belonged to anyone who took it. She openly hauled the material away without concealment. The honest claim of right prevented the taking from constituting a knowing conversion of government property.
In December 1948, Morissette went hunting on a large tract of land in Michigan that the Government had used as a practice bombing range for the Air Force. Spent bomb casings from the range had been dumped into heaps and left exposed to the weather for four years or more. Morissette collected three tons of the casings, flattened them at a nearby farm, and sold them for eighty-four dollars. Morissette worked as a fruit stand operator in the summer and as a trucker and scrap iron collector in the winter. He was an honorably discharged veteran of World War II who had a good reputation among his neighbors. He loaded the casings onto his truck and transported them in broad daylight without any effort to conceal what he was doing. When authorities began an investigation, Morissette voluntarily and candidly told them the whole story, explaining that he believed the casings were abandoned and that he had no intention of stealing them. He was indicted for unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly stealing and converting property of the United States valued at eighty-four dollars in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. At trial, the District Court refused to permit Morissette to show that he thought the property was abandoned or to argue that he lacked criminal intent. The court instructed the jury that if it believed the government testimony, Morissette was guilty, and the jury convicted him. The court sentenced him to two months in prison or a fine of two hundred dollars. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseHannah Hughes posted messages demanding repayment of a debt she honestly believed a former client owed her. She stated she would publicize the debt if payment was not made. The honest claim of right meant the communications lacked the culpable mental state required for a threat offense.
Anthony Douglas Elonis was an active user of the social networking website Facebook. In May 2010, Elonis’s wife of nearly seven years left him, taking with her their two young children. Elonis began listening to more violent music and posting self-styled rap lyrics inspired by the music under the pseudonym Tone Dougie. The lyrics Elonis posted included graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. This material was often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were fictitious with no intentional resemblance to real persons. Elonis posted a photograph of himself holding a toy knife against a co-worker’s neck with the caption I wish, after which the chief of park security fired him. Elonis posted an adaptation of a satirical sketch in which he substituted his wife for the President. The posting described firing a mortar launcher at her house from the cornfield behind it. After viewing some of Elonis’s posts, his wife felt extremely afraid for her life and obtained a three-year protection-from-abuse order against him. Elonis posted about the order and referenced having enough explosives to take care of the State Police and the Sheriff’s Department. Elonis posted an entry stating he had enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. After park security informed the FBI, agents monitored Elonis’s Facebook activity and visited his house. Elonis then posted Little Agent Lady describing slitting an FBI agent’s throat and detonating a bomb. A grand jury indicted Elonis on five counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §875(c). At trial Elonis requested a jury instruction that the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat. The District Court instead instructed the jury that a statement is a true threat when a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury. The jury convicted Elonis on four of the five counts. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSupporting sources
Knowledge that another person is using force under a claim of right to protect property bars the actor from justifying resistance as self-defense. The limitation applies unless the actor was unlawfully dispossessed and is making a justified re-entry or recaption.
Supporting sources
When another asserts a claim of right to property, the actor must avoid deadly force if they know they can do so with complete safety by surrendering the item or retreating. Failure to use that safe alternative renders the use of deadly force unjustified.
Supporting sources