DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17--------------------------------------------------
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: Mary and William Lutz, who were married in 1912, bought
at auction two wooded lots in Yonkers. The lots were numbered
14 and 15, and were situated high on a hill above Leroy Avenue.
To the west was a wooded triangular plot of land that consisted
of lots numbered 19, 20, 21. Instead of climbing the steep
grade from Leroy Avenue to reach their lots, the Lutzes found it
easier to cross the triangular lot which they did not own. Lutz
cleared a traveled way near the northern boundary of the tract
to reach Gibson Place on the west. The Lutz house was built on
lots 14 and 15, and a one-room structure was also built for Mr.
Lutz’s brother Charlie on lot 19. In 1928, the private water
line that lead to the main Lutz house was broken and Mr. Lutz
returned home from his job in New York City to fix it, thus
losing his job. Thereafter, Mr. Lutz remained at home tending a
garden on the triangular property, selling vegetables, and doing
odd jobs for neighbors.
In 1937, Joseph and Marion Van Valkenburgh bought lost west of
Gibson Place and built their home there. In 1946, Mr. Lutz
chased the Van Valkenburgh children from his garden screaming
that he would kill them. Mr. Lutz and Mr. Van Valkenburgh
proceeded to enter into an argument that resulted in Mr. Lutz’s
arrest for criminal assault. A year later in 1947, the Van
Valkenburgh’s purchased lost 19-22 from the city of Yonkers for
$379.50. On July 6, 1947, Mr. Van Valkenburgh was accompanied
to Mr. Lutz’s property by police officers and told Lutz that
they were to clear from the property all of their belongings.
The Lutz’s were sent a certified letter by the Van Valkenburgh’s
attorney informing them the triangular tract was now owned by
the Van Valkenburghs. Lutz proceeded to contact the attorney
and demanded proof of the Van Valkenburgh’s ownership and time
to harvest his vegetable crop.
Van Valkenburgh had the property surveyed and again sent a
certified letter to the Lutzes. Lutz then returned to the Van
Valkenburgh’s attorney with his own attorney and agreed to
remove his junk within 30 days but claimed a prescriptive right
to use the traveled way to reach his property. When the Van
Valkenburhg’s erected a fence to keep Lutz from traveling
through the property, Lutz brought action against them to enjoin
them from interfering with his right of way.
-
BELONG TO VALVALKENBERG (LUTZ GETS NEW TRIAL AND SUES FOR
PROPERTY RIGHTS)
PROCEDURAL FACTS:
-
of way over the traveled way
-
-
dismissed, judgment directed to be entered in favor of plaintiff
Van Valkenburgh for the relief prayed for in the complaint
subject to the existing easement, with costs in court
ISSUE: Whether there is evidence showing that the premises were
cultivated or improved sufficiently to satisfy the statute.
RULES:
-
-
founded upon a written instrument, it must be shown by clear and
convincing proof that for at least 15 years (formerly 20 years)
there was an ‘actual’ occupation under a claim of title, for it
is only the premises so actually occupied ‘and no others’ that
are deemed to have been held adversely. The essential elements
of proof being either that the premises (1) are protected by a
substantial inclosure, or are (2) usually cultivated or
improved.
ANALYSIS:
-
substantial enclosure, so the only issue to consider is whether
there is evidence showing that the premises were cultivated or
improved sufficiently to satisfy the statute.
-
-
or in such manner as to establish title.
-
(1)
Lutz has a good faith belief that he has claim of ownership then
he can claim adverse possession, BUT in the 1st suit he said he
didn’t own the property and that Lutz testified that he thought
the garage was built on his own property (By the time of
the 1st trial Lutz already had adverse possession of the
property b/c of the statute of limitations, so his mere
statement in trial one is irrelevant.)
(2)
open and notorious

used this property, chicken coops, Charlie’s house, garden—this
does not equal open and notorious under New York Statute

garden did not span the entire property, junk is not an
improvement, farming was intermittent
-
‘usually cultivated and improved’? Court says NO…his actions are
incidentally
-
operates, (2) Doesn’t meet the actual and open and notorious b/c
it is not substantial use of the land (incidental use)
-
common law (FOR OUR PURPOSES, USE COMMON LAW REQUIREMENTS)
CONCLUSION: A title was not established. Therefore, the trial
court’s decision should be reversed and a there should be a
directed verdict for the plaintiff.
*****************************************************