What if one day your long-time neighbor comes to you and says that he had a survey of his property, and it turns out that your driveway is encroaching upon his land? Despite your explanation that the driveway has been there ever since you moved into the house in 18 years ago, and was there at least since 1937, your neighbor now claims the land as his own. What are your rights?
Well, these are the simplified facts of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case in 2002. The trial court held that, for a period of 21 years, the owners of the driveway (the Zeglins), their neighbors (the Gahagens) and their predecessors in interest had recognized and “acquiesced” in a boundary line marked by a hedgerow. This legal theory is referred to as the acquiescence doctrine. Although the Zeglins had only owned the property for 18 years, the court allowed them to “tack” the period of ownership by their predecessor in interest, Ms. Murphy, in order to meet the 21-year period needed for acquiescence.
However, upon appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The problem was the fact that Ms. Murphy had not specifically conveyed her interest in the driveway to the Zeglins in the deed, therefore, there was no privity of estate. Privity of estate in this context basically means a successive relation to the same right in property, generally comprised of specific and formal conveyance of the predecessor’s interest in the disputed tract. In other words, because the driveway wasn’t described in their deed, the Zeglins were not entitled to it. Privity of possession (a successive relation of possession) was not enough; the Superior Court held that privity of estate was required for acquiescence.
Finally, the case makes its way to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which reinstates the decision of the trial court. It held that when a claim of ownership of land is made under the acquiescence doctrine, privity of estate is not required. Two elements are necessary for the establishment of a boundary line under this legal theory in Pennsylvania: (1) each party must have claimed and occupied the land on his side of the line as his own; and (2) such occupation must have continued for the statutory period of 21 years. It also presumes that the record title holder has not consented to any encroachment. According to the Court, the “reason why privity of estate should not be deemed necessary to support tacking in this case is, simply, because a prospective purchaser will see the fence or similar marking; given its ‘obvious presence as apparent boundary,’ he is therefore put on notice to inquire about its origin, history, and function.” Therefore, the Court found that only privity of possession was necessary to tack the previous the period of ownership by predecessors in interest under a claim of acquiescence in a boundary line.
The moral of the story is if you fail to maintain your rights in land, you could end up losing ownership of it.
— Denise Ciampitti