New Hampshire’s Requirements for Adverse Possession
There is no single statute in New Hampshire that dictates the elements a trespasser must establish in order to prove adverse possession. Rather, the courts have set forth a variety of such factors over many decades of issuing decisions in individual cases.
As in most states, adverse possession in New Hampshire is established from the nature of a trespasser’s possession and the length of time the person possesses the land.
A trespasser’s possession must be (i) hostile (against the right of the true owner and without permission); (ii) actual (exercising control over the property); (iii) exclusive (in the possession of the trespasser alone); (iv) open and notorious (using the property as the real owner would, without hiding his or her occupancy); and (v) continuous for the statutory period (which is 20 years in New Hampshire, under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:2).
In addition to these factors, New Hampshire courts have repeated certain pieces of evidence that are likely to weigh in favor of granting a trespasser adverse possession. These include whether the trespasser purchased the land in good faith; whether the trespasser paid taxes on the property; and whether the trespasser holds a deed that indicates that he or she owns the land. As you can see, these mainly address situations where there was confusion over ownership rather than an outright attempt to take over another person's land. None of these factors instantly turn the case into a “slam dunk,” but they seem to weigh on the minds of New Hampshire judges.
To illustrate these concepts, let's take a hypothetical. Imagine that Amanda and Bob live next to one another in a suburb outside of Manchester. Without a wall between their properties, Amanda begins to put lawn furniture on what is technically Bob’s land. Eventually, Amanda builds an entire patio there. Bob never says anything. The years pass—20 years, in fact. Under New Hampshire’s adverse possession framework, Amanda will likely be successful in establishing an ownership claim to that portion of Bob’s property. Note that she won’t be able to take over all of Bob’s lawn—only the portion upon which she constructed the patio and which she actively used for those two decades. New Hampshire courts would be reluctant to suddenly eject Amanda and her patio after so much time has passed.
|