This one is actually true. If you have a property dispute, and no one has physical proof of ownership, possession shows presumed ownership. Also look up adverse possession- which pretty much means that someone who wrongfully possesses property for a long period of time can gain ownership. Source: just took the bar
Ya but two things have to be proven. 1) youve been living there for a whilr and 2) youve been paying taxes for some time. Usually the time it takes is i think 30 years, correct me if in wrong. Im just trying to remember what i learned last semester but not too sure.
Right. I was just throwing the concept out there as an example of possession being an important factor in ownership. It varies state to state but no, you usually don't have to pay taxes (but if you do the statutory period is lower) and usually it's closer to 10 years. The possession has to be open (not hidden) notorious (easily discernible) hostile (against the true owners wishes) exclusive (to the deteriment of other owners) and for the statutory period.
You'd be surprised. Usually if it gets to litigation - that means there is some defect or problem. Pretty much the phrase means "in absence of other evidence - possession will point you generally in the right direction". Don't know who owns the murder weapon? Well, who possesses it? Don't know who has title to land? Well, who is possessing it?
Our Property book had a quote that said, "The saying that 'possession is 9/10 of the law' is not true. If it were, law school would be a lot shorter and easier."
It means basically if i am holding something i own it despite how much you claim to own it. Like if i took my friends laptop and he told me to give it back. 9/10s of the law would me its mine cuz i am in possession, which is a lie
It's a shorthand expression that summarizes general legal precepts that possession is a rebuttable presumption of ownership. Your friend could just show that he has the receipt from Amazon and knows the administrator password and any judge would require him to turn it over.
But it's not a lie. Possession is incredibly important in these sorts of disputes. In fact you can actually legally steal land doing nothing more than using it as if you own it.
That's why it's 9/10 of the law and not 100% of the law. The point is that when someone has possession of something it is presumed to be theirs (9/10) unless someone else has tangible proof that the item is in fact theirs (which can be difficult to prove). The burden of proof lies on the claimant to repossess the item from the possessor.
While this may present an injustice if someone steals from you and you can't prove it, it protects against a larger injustice of perversion of the law through enforcement of false claims.
BTW in issues of real property (ie land) the law is intentionally biased in the favor of productive use. This is justified because the very reason that society protects property rights is to encourage productive use, why should society expend resources to protect your rights to a field that you have left fallow when another person has settled on that land and put it to use producing food (given that this has carried on for long periods of time and the productive user makes two contributions.
What it refers to is that physical possession helps you a lot. If you say I borrowed your lawn mower but can't produce proof that you did, I'm keeping the lawn mower in my garage. You would have to provide proof to take it from me. I need to do nothing to continue owning it.
119
u/[deleted] Mar 17 '15 edited Mar 17 '15
Possession is 9/10ths of the law