Adverse possession makes it de facto

Adverse possession makes it de facto Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Adverse possession makes it de facto It is the policy of the Limitation Acts that those who go sleep upon their claims should not be assisted by the courts in recovering their property, but another, and I think equal policy behind these acts, is that there shall be an end to litigation. Irish law interprets a person’s right to land as being based on the fact that another person cannot claim a better title over it. Thus in Ireland the person usually with the best title to land, is the person whose title vests in possession. This is why the courts recognise a person who has had control of land for twelve years or more, even if it’s adverse possession to be the rightful owner. Adverse possession has been described as primitive and outmoded, however as this essay will show that it is still as relevant and important today as it was when it was created. Elements of adverse possession 1.1 To encourage owners not to sit on their rights Prevention of stale claims Quieten title s and facilitated conveyance Boundary disputes Adverse possession and registered land Economic impact of adverse possession Irish reactions to Pye, Law Reform Commission Reports. Possible ways to improve and enhance adverse possession. 5.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution. 5.2 Sharing the costs 5.3 Penalties To encourage owners not to sit on their rights The equitable maximum of, â€Å"Vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt† is seen as a way of encouraging paper owners to utilise their land to the best of its abilities, as land is seen as a vital natural resource, and if they fail or neglect to do this then a squatter who is prepared to make use of the land has a legal right to take possession from the paper owner. See the comments of Lyall.   [ 4 ]    The law cannot be expected to protect the interests of a landowner who either has failed or even has no interest in the current state of his land, or where the owner has just not taken action in time to prevent the li mitation period from running out. However there is a need to be careful when courts do apply this maximum strictly, as it can lead to unjust outcomes, particularly where the paper owner had in mind a future use for the land, because it can be difficult to figure out whether the adverse possessors use of the land or the real owners future use of the land will yield the most benefits. This is what happed in the case of Pye   [ 5 ]   and resulted in the loss of land worth around thirty five million. Nueberger J discussed the â€Å"sleeping Theory† and found there to be no justification in the circumstances, where the paper owner â€Å"was content to let another person trespass on the land for the time being.† The judge could find no logic in the court’s decision here. The case contradicted the previously held believe that there could be no adverse possession, once the paper owner had a future use in mind.   [ 6 ]