Opinion ID: 1701473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: adverse possession against wife

Text: This action was instituted in the same year, but after the death of plaintiff wife, Clara, in 1972. As pointed out above, the trial court found that her one-half interest in the property in question devolved equally according to the laws of intestate succession to her plaintiff husband and to her son by her first marriage, Gerald Bogart. Plaintiff, in his appellate brief, quotes 3 Am.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession, § 58, page 147, as follows: Where the successive possessions of those in privity with each other, when tacked together, constitute one continuous adverse possession for the statutory period, it will be sufficient, provided, of course, the other elements of adverse possession are also present. This statement or principle of law has no application to the instant case. The appellant, Brooks, cannot consistently claim privity and hostile holding at the same time with the same party. The plaintiff also argues that proof of adverse possession against the deceased wife should not be required to support a claim of title to the entire estate. [9] We have earlier herein held that the trial court's finding of no adverse possession against the Clementich defendants was not clearly erroneous; therefore, the encyclopedia quotation, supra, is rendered irrelevant, if it was not already so. Such is dispositive of the issue in light of the evidence.