B BarPrepPlay
Real Property sample analysis

MBE Real Property Adverse Possession Sample Essay

Study a fresh adverse-possession dispute with examiner-style real-property analysis, common traps, and a short quiz teaser.

Byline BarPrepPlay
Last reviewed March 12, 2026
Page type Static MBE topic page

Fact pattern

For sixteen years, Dana used a wedge-shaped strip of land along the edge of a neighboring coastal lot. Dana planted a hedgerow, installed a low fence, stored kayaks there year-round, and paid to regrade the strip after two storms. The record owner, Pierce, lived out of state and visited only twice during that period. When Pierce finally listed the lot for sale, a survey revealed that the fenced strip was part of Pierce's parcel. Dana now claims title by adverse possession. Pierce argues that Dana never had a deed, never paid taxes on the strip, and believed in good faith that the fence sat on the true boundary.

Quick answer

Dana likely acquired title by adverse possession because she openly, exclusively, and continuously occupied the strip without permission for longer than the statutory period, and her boundary mistake does not defeat hostility under the majority rule. At common law, adverse possession requires actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for the statutory period. The possessor need not hold under color of title unless a jurisdiction specifically requires it. Hostility usually means possession without the true owner's permission, not personal ill will. A mistaken belief about the boundary does not defeat hostility in the majority view so long as the possessor acted as an owner and not as a permissive user.

Canonical URL: https://www.barprepplay.com/mbe/real-property/adverse-possession-coastal-lot/

IRAC model answer

Issue

Has Dana acquired title to the strip by adverse possession despite lacking a deed and believing the fence marked the real boundary?

Rule

At common law, adverse possession requires actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for the statutory period. The possessor need not hold under color of title unless a jurisdiction specifically requires it. Hostility usually means possession without the true owner's permission, not personal ill will. A mistaken belief about the boundary does not defeat hostility in the majority view so long as the possessor acted as an owner and not as a permissive user.

Application

Dana has a solid argument on most elements. Her use was actual because she physically occupied and improved the strip for years. It was open and notorious because the hedgerow, fence, stored kayaks, and storm repairs were visible signs of dominion that a reasonably attentive owner could have discovered. The use was also exclusive because Dana treated the strip as part of her own property rather than sharing it with the public or with Pierce. Continuity is satisfied because Dana used the strip in an owner-like way for sixteen years, which exceeds the statutory period in the classic MBE analysis. Pierce's best arguments focus on hostility and the lack of taxes or color of title. But the majority rule does not require bad faith. Dana's mistaken belief that the fence marked the true boundary still counts as hostile if she occupied the land as if she owned it and without Pierce's permission. Likewise, taxes and a deed matter only in jurisdictions that add those requirements by statute; they are not general common-law elements. Unless the jurisdiction has a special statutory overlay not supplied in the problem, Dana satisfies the classic elements.

Conclusion

Dana likely acquired title by adverse possession because she openly, exclusively, and continuously occupied the strip without permission for longer than the statutory period, and her boundary mistake does not defeat hostility under the majority rule.

Numbered reasoning steps

  1. List every common-law element before applying the facts.
  2. Use the physical improvements to prove actual possession and open notoriety.
  3. Treat boundary mistake as a hostility issue, not as an automatic defeat.
  4. Separate common-law elements from extra statutory requirements such as taxes or color of title.
  5. End by explaining whether the record owner had enough visible notice of the occupation.

Why wrong answers fail

Dana loses automatically because she did not pay taxes on the strip.

Tax payment is not a universal common-law element. It matters only if a specific statute says so.

Dana loses because she honestly believed the strip was hers.

Under the majority approach, mistaken boundary possession is still hostile if it is without permission.

Dana loses because she lacked color of title.

Color of title can help, but ordinary adverse possession does not always require a deed or other defective instrument.

Pierce wins because he lived out of state.

The owner's absence does not stop the clock when the possession is visible and continuous.

Issue-spotting checklist

  • Write out actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous.
  • Use visible improvements to prove notice to the true owner.
  • Remember that hostility usually means non-permissive possession, not subjective bad faith.
  • Do not import tax-payment rules unless the problem gives a statute.
  • Check whether the possessor's use looks like an owner's use for that kind of land.

Primary law and source anchors

  • Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 106 N.E.2d 28 (N.Y. 1952) A leading case on the actual-possession and hostility elements in adverse possession disputes.
  • Howard v. Kunto, 477 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970) Seasonal but owner-like use of property can still satisfy continuity in context.
  • Restatement (First) of Property Section 458 Traditional adverse-possession principles focus on possession that is open, notorious, and hostile to the true owner.