Also known as: use under claim of right · claimed use by right · claim of right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An element of adverse possession or prescriptive easement requiring that the claimant's use of land occur without permission from the owner and under an assertion of ownership or right. The use must be hostile in the sense that it proceeds from a good-faith belief that the land belongs to the claimant rather than from any grant or license.
A defense negating the intent element of theft offenses or limiting justification for the use of force when the actor honestly believes he or she is entitled to the property or is acting to protect a possessory interest. The belief need not be reasonable so long as it is genuine and held in good faith.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
An element of adverse possession or prescriptive easement requiring that the claimant's use of land occur without permission from the owner and under an assertion of ownership or right. The use must be hostile in the sense that it proceeds from a good-faith belief that the land belongs to the claimant rather than from any grant or license.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ulysses Usher and his predecessors farmed a narrow strip they believed belonged to their parcel because of a misplaced survey stake. They planted crops, grazed cattle, and maintained an irrigation ditch on the strip each growing season for more than the statutory period. When the true owner objected, the court allowed tacking of the successive periods because each possessor had used the land under a good-faith claim of right.
Ulysses Ulrich purchased a lot believing it included an adjacent strip already occupied by his seller. Both he and the seller had used the strip continuously under the same mistaken belief that it belonged to the purchased parcel. The court permitted tacking of the periods because each successive possessor had occupied the land under a claim of right.
A claim of right exists when the claimant uses the land without permission and under a good-faith belief of ownership. Permission from the owner defeats adversity, while a mistaken boundary belief supports the claim of right and allows tacking of successive periods.
Supporting sources
Yes. Use that is consistent with the nature and character of the property, such as seasonal farming or grazing, satisfies the continuity requirement when the claimant occupies the land under a claim of right.
Supporting sources
A defense negating the intent element of theft offenses or limiting justification for the use of force when the actor honestly believes he or she is entitled to the property or is acting to protect a possessory interest. The belief need not be reasonable so long as it is genuine and held in good faith.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Umeko Uchida returned from vacation to find her landlord had changed the locks on her apartment. Believing she had an immediate right to reenter and that delay would cause exceptional hardship, she forced the door open. Because she honestly believed the landlord had no claim of right to keep her out, the force was justified under the statute.
Ugo Ucelli tried to leave a store with unpaid merchandise. The security guard, wearing a marked jacket, blocked her path and grabbed her bag while stating he was detaining her for shoplifting. Knowing the guard was acting under a claim of right to protect store property, Ugo could not claim self-defense when she struck him.
Uliana Ustinova confronted her former employer over tools she believed were owed as back wages. When the employer asserted a claim of right and demanded their return, Uliana knew she could avoid force by simply surrendering the tools. She therefore could not justify using force to retain them.
No. The defense applies when the actor holds an honest belief in entitlement to the property, even if the belief is mistaken or unreasonable. Open and undisguised retention of the property supports the existence of such a belief.
Supporting sources
Force is justified only when the actor believes the other party has no claim of right to possession and the circumstances create exceptional hardship that makes waiting for a court order unreasonable. Immediate or fresh pursuit after dispossession is also required.
Supporting sources
…between Stieglitz and Dr. Frank so that the original possession of the paintings by the Frank family may have been under claim of right. III On the limited record before us, we cannot determine now who has title to the paintings. That determination will depend on the evidence adduced at trial. Nonetheless, we believe…
…of possession may not be established by summer occupancy, and that a predecessor’s possession may not be tacked because a legal “claim of right
…statute that prevented a landowner from recovering property on which the defendant had resided for more than seven years under a
…the context of First Amendment rights. It has been suggested that there is state action, not only when an individual asserts a
…only the right of government.” Leaming & Spicer 628, sec. 36. Now, unless this court is prepared to pronounce that the
Uma Underwood withheld rent after her landlord ignored repair requests. The landlord began eviction proceedings. Because Uma knew the landlord was asserting a claim of right to possession through lawful process, she could not justify resistance by claiming a superior possessory interest.
No. When the actor knows the other person is using force under a claim of right to protect property, such as a mechanic's lien, self-defense is unavailable absent narrow exceptions like threats of death or serious bodily harm.
Supporting sources