Table of contents
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What were the facts?
- What were the issues before the UT?
- Is there authority that the mooring of a boat can establish factual possession and intention to possess?
- What did the UT decide on the question of intention to possess?
- Would the existence of public navigation rights have prevented acquisition by adverse possession?
- Case details
Article summary
Property analysis: Simply mooring a boat is not sufficient evidence of intention to possess for an adverse possession claim to succeed.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial