Real Property

Memorandum

From:

Date:

Issue

The issue that is addressed within this case is the usage of Property by the owner of the land under the Ohio Law and also the legal requirements for the trespassers who have illegally trespassed the property of the landowner without having any legal justification towards it.

Rules

This case is regarding the un-lawful usage of piece of land by the neighbor that has given rise to some basic question that are properly addressed in the Ohio law of adverse possession. In order to have the acquisition of the land through the adverse possession, the party that is claiming the ownership over the land mush present with some solid evidence for having possession of that particular part of land that has been used dishonorably and in continuation for the period of 21 years. The time frame of 21 years is governed by the limitations of statute in order to make a recovery for the real estate. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) with Code Section2305.04 states that any particular action that is performed in order to make recovery for the title or to acquire the possession of the real property should be brought in front of the court within the 21 years of time after the event has occurred but if the person who has brought the case in front of the court lies within the minority of the age or is unsound mind i.e. has some kind of disability then that person has the right to claim the possession of the land within ten years of time period, after the disability has been removed, even after the expiration of the slab of twenty one years. In Video Shack, Inc. v. Smith, 2003 Ohio 5149 (Ohio Ct. App., 2003), the court confirmed that failing to provide with evidence upon any element of the adverse possession may result in the failure of acquisition of the land over which the claim has been made through the law of adverse possession. Adverse possession that has been proved to be successful occurs when the person who is legally the owner of the land forfeits from the ownership in against of the adverse holder without any kind of compensation. Such kind of policy should not be favored and because of this, the various elements of the adverse possession are strict in nature. In the case of Didday v. Bradburn, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 614 (Ohio Ct. ...