Talk:Adverse possession

Shouldn't there be a discussion of the progression?

It would be nice to include a discussion of AP from Roman law. Additionally, it seems inappropriate to discuss AP without explaining that it can be used as a defense to a claim of trespass, or an eviction. Finally there should be applications for AP as it applies to tenants and landlords as well as a discussion of AP of chattels. I'm not willing to take this on, but this article seems far from even scratching the surface.

Intake

How does this relate to "intake" where someone had built their home on common land and were allowed to keep it after the enclosures in England 09:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Chevin

Did this confer freehold title? Even though the land would have been property of the Lord of the Manor? 08:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Chevin

WP:SQUAT

There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting to help write articles about squatting in every country, or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Adverse possession, usucaption, hævd ...

Enwiki has this article on [[Adverse possession]] as well as Usucaption and Usucapio. The separation seems to be that this article is about the concept in common law, whereas usucaption deals with the civil law and usucapio is about the principle in Roman law.

I see two problems with the current split/contents:

- The article about usucaption does not really describe the concept in civil law, but only the historical use in Roman law and Rabbinic Judaism. This could of course be fixed by describing how the concept has evolved, and how it is in use today.

- More importantly, for the layman, this is really ONE concept, which has evolved in parallel in those two legal traditions. This concept is called "adverse possession" in English. Usucaption is only used when explicitly referring to the concept in civil law. Each article should be about one concept. We don't have two articles for the concept of "Murder". The fact that they would have the same name is not really a good reason - we could have Murder (civil law) and Murder (common law).

My problem with this arose, when trying to determine the correct interlanguage link for da:Hævd - the similar concept in Danish/Nordic laws, currently linked to usucaption. Since this article is explicitly about the common law, linking this and "Hævd" would be confusing.

My modest proposal: Eliminate the "in common law" from the lead, and add that this is called usucaption in civil law. Change interlanguage links from other languages with similar concepts to point here. Either gut Usucaption completely, or make it a "For more detail" article. For this to make sense, it would need to actually have more info than it does currently.

I expect someone with more knowledge and probabl stronger feelings to tell me why my proposal is wrong. NisJørgensen (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I could make your prediction come true by making up a bunch of reasons your proposal is wrong, but really it's a great idea.

We often have law-related pages that are U.S. or U.K. based, for obvious linguistic reasons, and when they are "globalized" they get as far as the commonwealth and former possessions and then lose steam. A truly comparative view would be fantastic.

Usucaption seems to be an obscure term that doesn't link up to English language concepts. Instead, I think we should focus on "acquisition by prescription" or "prescriptive acquisition". Here are my reasone:

• the term prescription has ties to common law property law concepts (prescriptive period, easement by prescription, etc.)
• the Louisiana section (its laws are rooted in the French Code Civil), talks about acquisitive prescription but that links to Prescription_(sovereignty_transfer) which is not the same concept.
• the French Code Civil Art. 2258 talks about " la prescription acquisitive"

We could easily:

• change the lede to say something like "adverse posession in common law, and its related civil law concept acquisition by prescription..."
• add information about the French Civil Code and a summary of Danish Law, etc.
• when the content is complete, make Usucaption either (a) a redirect that leads to this page or (b) a redirect to Usucapio which would then have a hatnote saying something like "this relates to the roman law term, for the modern law concept see "Adverse Possession". I prefer (b).
• create redirects for the terms acquisition by prescription

Happy to hear any other/further views. Oblivy (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)