Also known as: oust · ousts · ousted · ousting · ousters · dispossession
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A wrongful dispossession or exclusion from possession of real property.
Omar paid off his backhoe loan and received a lien release. A bank crew removed the machine without authority. Omar tracked the crew to a nearby lot, blocked the trailer with his workers, and pushed the bank's agent aside to regain control. Because Omar acted immediately after the dispossession and believed the bank had no claim of right, his conduct satisfies the conditions for justified recaption.
Olivia stored her specialized tools at a shared warehouse. Ophelia removed the tools without consent and placed them in her own facility. Olivia discovered the removal the next day and demanded return. The taking constitutes a dispossession that exposes Ophelia to liability for any resulting damage to Olivia's interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Owen left his vintage tractor with a co-owner for joint use. The co-owner sold the tractor to a third party. Owen located the buyer and demanded return. The sale after dispossession subjects the co-owner to trespass liability for damage and potential conversion liability because the interference destroyed Owen's control.
Octavia purchased coastal lots for residential development. A new state statute barred all construction on the parcels. Octavia sued, claiming the regulation left the land economically idle. The complete prohibition functions as a practical ouster of possession that triggers takings scrutiny.
Odilia leased commercial space from Orchard Farms. Persistent flooding from unrepaired roof leaks made the premises unusable. Odilia vacated after repeated demands for repair went unmet. The landlord's failure to restore habitability amounts to an ouster that excuses further rent obligations.
Oskar operated a chain of service stations under long-term leases. A federal price-control statute capped his rental income. Oskar challenged the statute as a taking. The regulation reduced profits but left Oskar in possession and able to operate, so it did not constitute an ouster of his property rights.
The cotenant must show that the possessor refused a specific demand to share possession or otherwise made an unequivocal claim of exclusive right. Mere sole occupancy or use does not constitute ouster.
Yes. Once ouster is established, the ousted cotenant is entitled to a proportionate share of the fair rental value of the property for the period of exclusion, regardless of whether the possessor actually collected rent from third parties.
Ouster converts permissive possession into adverse possession. The statute of limitations begins to run only after the ouster provides clear notice to the excluded cotenant that the possessor claims exclusive ownership.
Yes. Courts recognize constructive ouster when circumstances, such as strained relations or impracticality of joint use, effectively prevent shared possession even without an affirmative physical act.
…"direct appropriation" of property, Legal Tender Cases , 12 Wall. 457, 531 (1871), or the functional equivalent of a "practical ouster of [the owner's] possession," Transportation Co. v. Chicago , 99 U. S. 635, 642 (1879). Mahon was the first case to recognize that a regulation could effect a taking. It is well settled…