Also known as: usucapio · prescription · usucaption
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle that continuous adverse use of land for the statutory period quiets title disputes. The doctrine supplies finality by ending litigation over ownership or servitudes once the required period of uninterrupted possession has run.
Ugo Ucelli walked daily across a neighbor's field to reach a public road. He did so openly for the full statutory period without permission or interruption. The neighbor later fenced the path. Ugo's long use satisfied the continuous requirement and created an easement that the fence could not block.
Urban Logistics purchased a lot in a new development whose recorded declaration imposed shared driveway easements on every parcel. The buyer later objected to a neighbor's use of the drive. Because the declaration complied with the statute of frauds and created servitudes by recorded conveyance, the easement bound the objecting owner.
Una Ueda crossed a vacant parcel daily to reach her own land. She did so openly and without permission for the full prescriptive period. When the owner later blocked the route, the court recognized an easement by prescription because the maxim requires finality after uninterrupted adverse use.
Ulric Unger and his neighbors used a path across adjoining land for the prescriptive period. When Ulric sold his parcel, the buyer continued the same use. The easement created by prescription accrued to both the original user and later owners of the benefited land.
Umeko Uchida used a private road across neighboring property openly for the statutory period. After her death her heirs continued the identical use. The maxim supplied finality so the easement by prescription bound the servient land for the benefit of successors.
Usha Upton maintained a fence and cultivated a strip of adjoining land for the full prescriptive period. The record owner later sued to eject her. The court applied the maxim and quieted title in Upton because continuous adverse possession supplies the required litigation-ending finality.
Sibbach initiated an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages for bodily injuries that occurred in Indiana. Wilson & Co. filed an answer denying the complaint's allegations and moved for an order compelling Sibbach to undergo a physical examination by a court-appointed physician to assess the nature and extent of her injuries. The district court granted the motion and directed Sibbach to submit to the examination. Upon Sibbach's refusal to comply, Wilson obtained an order requiring her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Sibbach responded by contesting the court's authority to issue the examination order, pointing out that Indiana courts permitted such orders while Illinois courts did not, and that neither state had a governing statute. The district court found Sibbach in contempt and ordered her committed until she obeyed the examination order or was otherwise discharged. Sibbach appealed the contempt adjudication to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the question involved. The proceedings centered on Rules 35 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which had been promulgated pursuant to congressional authorization in the Act of June 19, 1934.
View caseThe use must be adverse, open, and continuous for the full statutory period without subordination to the servient owner. Once those elements are met, the law recognizes an easement to provide finality to title disputes.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a developer records a declaration imposing servitudes on lots within a common scheme and then conveys lots subject to that declaration, the servitudes are created by operation of the recorded instrument.
Supporting sources
The benefit accrues to the adverse user alone unless the use also satisfies the elements for an easement appurtenant that runs with the dominant estate.
Supporting sources
…people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process? Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):…