What is the difference between a claim in adverse possession and a claim to an easement
by prescription? Why are both often argued at the same time and what would the
difference mean to the claimant if one or the other were successful in court?
A claim in adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a person to claim ownership of land that they have openly and notoriously occupied and controlled for a specified period of time, typically between 10 to 20 years, depending on the jurisdiction. Adverse possession is typically used when someone is wrongfully claiming ownership of land that belongs to someone else.
On the other hand, a claim to an easement by prescription is a legal concept that allows a person to claim a right to use another person's land for a specific purpose, such as accessing a road or a pathway, based on continuous and uninterrupted use for a specified period of time, also typically between 10 to 20 years.
Both adverse possession and easement by prescription involve long-term use and occupy a similar legal concept of acquiring property rights through the passage of time. However, the main difference lies in the end result. Adverse possession grants full ownership of the land to the claimant, while an easement by prescription grants only a specific right to use the land for a particular purpose.
Both claims are often argued at the same time because the claimant wants to maximize their chances of success. By arguing both adverse possession and easement by prescription, the claimant is essentially hedging their bets and increasing their chances of establishing some form of legal right over the land. If one claim is successful in court, it can provide a fallback position if the other claim fails.
The difference in outcome can be significant for the claimant. If the claim for adverse possession is successful, the claimant would become the legal owner of the land and would have full control and rights over it. On the other hand, if the claim for an easement by prescription is successful, the claimant would gain a specific right to use the land for a particular purpose, but the ownership would still remain with the original owner. Therefore, the claimant's rights and control over the land would be limited to the specific use allowed by the easement.