IRAC Analysis- court case

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceIRAC Analysis-court case

IRAC: Adverse Possession

 

ISSUE

  • The main issue of contention is whether there is a viable claim of adverse possession on Donald’s side.
  • There is need to examine the requirements for adverse possession to be reviewed with reference to the case in order to make such an establishment.

 

RULE

For adverse possession to be ascertained before the law, there are various requirements for common law that ought to be met. Such will be analyzed with reference to Donald and Hillary’s case.

  1. Continuous

According to the establishment of the judges in Ewing v. Burnett, for one to make a claim of adverse possession, they must have maintained the property’s possession for a continuous period (Ewing v. Burnett, 1837). In this case, Donald has had continuous possession of the 20 feet strip of land that actually belongs to Hillary for a continuous period since the fencing of the land, for a period of eight years.

  1. Hostile

The possession ought to be an infringement of the rights of the actual owner of the land, as opposed to be out of consent (Blickenstaff v. Bromley, 1966). In this case, Donald is in infringement of Hillary’s right to own the piece of land, an aspect that is evidenced by her decision to sue him for trespassing.

  1. Open and Notorious

This requirement provides that the possession ought to be obvious and easily notable to any individual who observes (Robin v. Brown, 1932). In the case of Donald, the possession was not clear to both parties, including Hillary and Donald, until after the survey. Nevertheless, the possession has currently been known by the parties and the surveyors, an aspect that has brought Hillary on notice that Donald has trespassed into her property and is in possession.....GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY