Adverse Possession: Case Study

Business 561
October 19, 2013

From the beginning of time, in the Garden of Eden, God created rules to help his people live, flourish, and succeed. At first it was a single rule, “ And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:16-17 (The Bible) Man could not seem to follow even one simple rule, so slowly but surely, more laws and rules were put into place including the Ten Commandments whereupon many of our current laws are based. In our current place in history, the variety and complexity of laws is quite overwhelming and, although they are meant to help and make getting
Opie will have to deal with the default of his loan because the lender will have no legal recourse for foreclosure action against Barney’s land. Unfortunately, there is another far more serious problem. As unfair as it seems, Ernest’s takeover of the land 20 years ago can now be considered “Adverse Possession”. According to North Carolina’s Statues and Acts:
“No action for the recovery or possession of real property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person in possession thereof, or defendant in the action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years; and such possession so held gives a title in fee to the possessor, in such property, against all persons not under disability.” (Twenty Years Adverse
Even though logic would lead us to believe that both the used car dealer and/or the man showing the car should have asked for the title of this tangible property before buying it, both men are protected by the “Uniform Commercial Code” which all states have implemented. Within this code, “a merchant may keep possession of goods that were bought from a seller who did not have title to the goods, if the merchant can show he or she was a good faith purchaser for value.” (Good Faith, 2013) Both men will have to prove before a court that they were unaware the car was stolen and that they are merchants who “have demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the transaction concerned, and must have observed reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.” (Good Faith, 2013) Both men did so, the first having traded the 1963 Galaxie for a 1967 Mustang convertible, and the second having paid $5,600.00 for the vehicle. Under this protection, and if the court is convinced of the purchaser’s “good faith defense, the person who claims title (in this case Barney) has recourse only against the fraudulent seller.” (Good Faith, 2013) Barney’s only way of getting his car or money back is by finding Carl, the thief, and having him pay for his expenses and