Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
in property law
A good-faith misunderstanding about the location of a boundary line between adjoining parcels. The error supports the hostility element of adverse possession because the claimant occupies under a claim of right. Successive possessors in privity may tack their periods of use to satisfy the statutory duration.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Tacking Seasonal Lake Use
Michael Miller purchased a lakeside lot and relied on an old subdivision map that placed a wooden dock and shoreline strip within his boundaries. He maintained the dock each summer and rented the property with private lake access. After eight years he sold to Mariam Mansour, who continued the same seasonal use for another twelve years. When the true owner demanded removal, the court allowed tacking of the successive periods because both owners had acted under the same mistaken boundary belief.
Rooftop Patio Under Claim of Right
Michelle Murphy leased space and built a glass-enclosed rooftop patio that extended several feet onto Frontier Code's parcel according to an erroneous site plan. She and her employees used the patio each summer for corporate events. A prior tenant had used the same area seasonally under the identical mistaken belief. When Frontier Code sued for ejectment, the court treated the good-faith boundary error as establishing the required claim of right and permitted tacking of the successive seasonal periods.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Smith v. Tippett569 A.2d 1186 (D.C. 1990)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does a good-faith boundary mistake defeat the hostility element of adverse possession?+
No. The hostility element is satisfied when the claimant occupies under a claim of right that is inconsistent with the record owner's title. A mistaken belief that the disputed strip lies within the claimant's own parcel supplies that claim of right even without any intent to take land known to belong to another.
Supporting sources
Can successive owners tack periods of possession when each relied on the same mistaken boundary?+
Yes. When each possessor acted under a good-faith belief that the strip was part of the conveyed parcel, privity exists through the successive conveyances and tacking is permitted so that the combined periods satisfy the statutory duration.
Supporting sources
Does seasonal use of a disputed strip satisfy the continuity requirement?+
Yes when the seasonal pattern matches the ordinary use a true owner would make of that type of property. For lakefront, garden, or festival land, consistent summer occupation with visible improvements is treated as continuous because it accords with the land's character.
Supporting sources
569 A.2d 1186 (D.C. 1990)Property
…to take irrespective of his right, which governs.” 7 Powell, supra , § 1013(2) at 91-17 (citations omitted).[^7] D. Mistaken Boundaries Claims of adverse possession frequently arise where, as here, an apparent misunderstanding as to the location of a property line is discovered many years after the fact. “The more widely…