Page 34
WisconsinChristianNews.com Volume 26, Issue 4 How Adverse Possession Can Change Property Ownership
By Attorney Mike Jerominski, McLario, Helm, Bertling & Spiegel Law Offices (See display ad on Page 40 of this issue of WCN) August 2025 We have all heard the ex- pression “good fences make
the property must be inconsistent with the rights of the property’s owner. The adverse possessor need not have had any animus against the original owner. However, the adverse possessor must have had a subjective intent to adversely possess the property. Permissive uses of land, such as uses under a lease or uses otherwise authorized by the original owner, are not a valid basis for adverse posses- sion. As long as the original owner of the property has allowed the party attempting adverse posses-
of adverse possession is defeated. Once the claim of adverse possession is defeated, the statutory time period begins again. Courts will interpret intermittent uses as continu- ous if the use of the property is essentially intermit- tent. For example, land which is possessed for grazing purposes each growing season may be held to be continuous, even though the land is not used during the winter. Possession by successive adverse claimants can be combined to meet the required period of pos-
ers, including the owner, from using the property. For example, if someone attempting to adversely possess part of another’s property fenced in part of that property but still allowed all comers to hunt and fish on the fenced-in land, that would not be evidence of trying to “exclude others.” The attempt to adversely possess the land would almost cer- tainly fail. What can be done to make sure property you own is not subject to adverse possession? While the doctrine of adverse possession is very old, in 2014 the Wisconsin legislature passed a law to make stopping adverse possession of one’s land fairly simple. In order to stop adverse possession, you can file with the Register of Deeds what is called an “affi- davit of interruption.” This affidavit must contain (1) a legal description of the parcel of land that contains the real estate that is being adversely possessed or adversely used, (2) a statement that the person executing the affidavit is the record title holder of the parcel, (3) a general description of the adverse possession or adverse use that the record title holder intends to interrupt by recording the affidavit, (4) a statement that the adverse possession or ad- verse use of real estate is interrupted and that a new period of adverse possession or adverse use may begin the day after the affidavit is recorded, and (5) a statement that the record title holder will provide notice as required. The affidavit of inter- ruption must also include a survey of the parcel of land which is no more than five years old. Notice of the affidavit of interruption must also be provided to the parties. If you believe you have acquired title to land through adverse possession or wish to stop some- one from doing so to you, The McLario Firm is here to help. Our experienced attorneys can guide you through the adverse possession process, ensuring that your rights are fully protected. Contact us today to learn more. McLario.com
good neighbors.” Most know it from Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall,” but throughout many cul- tures and times in history, some version of this ex- pression has been used. It conveys the idea that it is important to have clear property boundaries in order to reduce the potential of conflict between neighbors. In practice, however, clear property boundaries are not always the case. Neighbors may be unsure about where to stop mowing the lawn, where to graze their livestock, or where they can erect a fence or wall, to name a few examples. This is where the concept of adverse possession comes in. Adverse possession is a legal doctrine by which a person who occupies another person’s property for a specified period of time may gain title to that property. In most instances, that period of time is 20 years. In order to make a claim for adverse possession, one must show that the five following conditions exist: 1). Actual Possession An adverse possessor must take actual, physical possession of land. Courts will consider the nature of the activity on the land to determine whether ac- tivity constitutes actual possession. Property is ac- tually possessed if either of the following applies: (1) the property has been protected with a substan- tial enclosure, such as a fence or wall, or (2) the property has been usually cultivated or improved. 2). Hostile Use Second, the use of property must be “hostile” to the rights of the property owner against whom ad- verse possession is claimed. Put another way, the acts of the party attempting to adversely possess
sion on the property, there will be no adverse pos- session. 3). Open and Notorious Use Third, the use of property must also be “open and notorious.” In other words, the use must leave vis- ible evidence on the property and must be sufficient to give the owner notice that the owner’s rights have been invaded. Any uses which are hidden or concealed, such as occasional tree cutting, are not a valid basis for adverse possession. 4). Continuous Use Fourth, the possession must be continuous. The property need not be in use every moment of every day, but if there is a break in possession, the claim
session, but only if there is evidence that the earlier possessor intended to transfer possessory interest to the successor. This combining of previous own- ers’ uses of the land is known as “tacking.” In prac- tice, it means if you have bought a property from someone who was using the property in such a way as to make a viable adverse possession claim, you can add the time they owned the property to the time you have owned the property in order to meet the requirement of 20 years of use of the property. 5). Exclusive Use Finally, the use of property must be “exclusive.” This means the landowner attempting the adverse possession must show an intent to exclude oth-
Woe Unto Those Who Withhold the Truth
SonsOfLibertyRadio.com
By Bradlee Dean, Sons of Liberty August 2025
of God, and on the primacy of grace for, and you’re teaching them of the human will, these issues will cre- ate all kinds of fury said he, a floodgate of iniquity will be open.” So, he cautions Luther, and pleads with
Recently, our radio affiliations representative told me a story regarding feedback from him representing
“The Sons of Liberty.” A radio station owner had told him that “Bradlee Dean is too direct.” In re- sponse, our representa- tive responded with “Why, because he tells the truth?” Our representative then went on to tell me that he also represents a “doctor so and so” and his radio broadcast. He
him not to be teaching about these things. In response, Luther be- comes indignant and said, “There cannot pos- sibly ever be the pres- ence of the Word of God in this world without an uproar following it any- time the truth of God is proclaimed.” “Clearly,” Luther said, “no matter how gently, no matter
said that during what was labeled by the mainstream media as the “pandemic” that “doctor so and so’s” radio stations did not like him using the word “jab” and would like him to stop doing so. Apparently, he obeyed his radio affiliates despite the facts. Did you know that because he took heed to his radio affiliates in withholding the truth that the state where he was broadcasting from suffered the highest casualty mortality rate in the country? This is the fruit of those who refuse to tell the truth, regardless if it costs lives. Beware. How about when it comes to the truth concerning the souls of men? This reminds me of a story told of Desiderius Eras- mus contending with the Reformer Martin Luther. Luther is crossing swords with Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus is taking the position during this great controversy of the 16th century of the rec- onciler, of the peacemaker, and he’s pleading with Luther not to be teaching his doctrines openly be- cause they will cause an uproar. For example, Eras- mus said, “Luther you’re teaching on the sovereignty
how winsomely, no matter how charitable, when the Word of God is clearly proclaimed, Hell itself rises up in fury and controversy follows. Luther said to Erasmus, “It’s a terrible burden for him that he hates the controversy that surrounds his teaching.” He said, “I am not a stone, I’m not a per- son without feelings, I know that people hate me and say vile things about me, but it is my duty to preach the Word of God.” (Hosea 6:5; John 7:7). People do not relate to that in this day and age. The whole philosophy is “Don’t rock the boat, avoid controversy and fail to bear witness to the truth and avoid preaching the Gospel.” Here’s where we have to look to Christ, Who de- fined His entire mission in terms of bearing witness to the truth! Friends, if Jesus was born to bear witness of the truth, then it would be ours to do the same. We are not called to sacrifice the truth at the altar of peace, for if that were the case, we would settle for that which denies the sacrifice of Christ and only ends in a false peace.
Made with FlippingBook Converter PDF to HTML5