Texas Squatter's Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Texas Squatters Rights - Essay Exampleresult, each house was increasingly shifted to the atomic number 99 side of its lot, until the house on Lot 5 was build attached to that lots eastern boundary with Lot 6. This case concerns a driveway built on a 20-foot publicize of land just east of that boundary a strip everyone assumed was on Lot 5, but was actually on Lot 6.When Lillian Haliburton bought Lot 5 in 1970, Lot 6 was owned by her brothers family, the Buddes. For many years, both families used the driveway on the disputed strip. The driveway led to a garage built on both lots, which Haliburton used for parking and storage. Although Haliburton was no longer living at the time of trial, there was testimony that family members all presumed mistakenly that the driveway and garage belonged to her Lot 5.In 1995, the Buddes sold Lot 6 to the defendants, Minh Thu Tran and Norman L. Roser. In 2001, Haliburton sold Lot 5 to the plaintiffs, William and Nita Macha, who already owned Lot 4 to the west. During the latter(prenominal) transaction, a survey revealed that the driveway was not a part of Lot 5, so the Machas secured a quitclaim deed conveying any interest Haliburton world power have acquired in the strip by adverse possession. When Tran and Roser learned of the survey, they obtained a permit and erected a fence around the strip. This suit ensued.A jury lay down the strip had passed by adverse possession to Haliburton, and thence to the Machas. The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding in a divided opinion that Haliburtons use of the strip and everyones mistaken belief that she owned it were legally sufficient evidence of adverse possession. See 176 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. App.Houston 1st Dist. 2004). We disagree.Under Texas law, adverse possession requires an actual and visible annexation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 16.02 1(1). The statute requires visible appropriation