Living in a Princess Castle
Alexia Ferraro & Rachel Freedman
Who has the right to use a princess castle located in one's backyard for their child, but used by another for housing? In the popular sitcom Modern Family, Mitchell and Cameron live in a two-unit apartment with their daughter Lily. The family lives in the lower unit with private access to backyard amenities, including a princess castle they built for their daughter and a hot tub. One day, they saw a stranger in their hot tub and confronted him to leave. The stranger introduced himself as Barry, informing the two that he had just moved in and thought he had access to the hot tub. Without asking any additional questions, the two welcomed Barry with open arms under their own belief that he moved in upstairs. They continuously asked him to join them for dinners and to consistently hang out in their home for Mitchell and Cameron's benefit.
Subsequently, Cameron saw the realtor putting out a for-sale sign and asked the realtor if Barry had moved out. The realtor had informed him that no one had ever moved in. Soon after, Cameron heard a rustling noise from the princess castle and saw Barry inside. Barry welcomed him into his home, where Barry and Cameron sat comfortably inside. Cameron noticed while inside that Barry had added his personal belongings. Cameron informed Barry that Cameron and Mitchell welcomed Barry into their home with the impression he was living upstairs, and that because he was not, he had to leave their daughters' Princess Castle. Barry refused to leave, arguing that this was his home and that he had never told Cameron and Mitchell that he had moved into the upstairs unit.
The essential question is whether Barry has gained ownership over the princess castle, gaining the right to live in it and exclude Cameron and Mitchell from it. The doctrine of Adverse Possession, which deals with disputes between persons with legal title to property and non-title trespassers claiming possession of property, will help resolve the dispute of ownership over the princess castle. In the case of Cahill v. Morrow, Morrow owned a lot of land and paid all the taxes associated with it, but stopped showing up at the property after a period of time. Cahill then started mowing the lawn, planting flowers and trees, and expressed interest by writing to Morrow about acquiring the property title. Under Adverse Possession, there are five elements required for a non-title claimant to gain possession of property: (1) hostile possession, (2) exclusive use, (3) open and notorious use, (4) actual use, and (5) continuous for the requisite statutory period. The parties in this case were in disagreement on the element of hostility. After a careful analysis, the court held that, under the element of hostility
even when claimants know that they are nothing more than black-hearted trespassers, they can still adversely possess the property in question under a claim of right to do so if they use it openly, notoriously, and in a manner that is adverse to the true owner’s rights for the requisite ten-year period…[however] Cahill went beyond mere knowledge that she was not the record owner by sending the offer-to-purchase letter.
Under the Court's analysis, Cahill would have had adverse possession of the property if she had not gone beyond mere knowledge of who had the true title and possession of the property in question. However, because she acquired permissive ownership of the property in writing to Morrow on three separate occasions, she broke an essential element of only having the intent to possess, a defining requirement of hostile possession.
This doctrine of adverse possession provides insight into resolving the dispute over whether Barry can continue to live in Mitchell and Cameron’s daughter's princess castle. Under the element of actual use, a claimant would have used the land in a way the owner would use it. Barry used the furniture and fake fire in the castle, pretending that he was living in a real castle, as Lily, a child, would have used the space for. Under the exclusive element of adverse possession, Barry was the only person using the Princess Castle, and the requisite requirement of this element is showing that the use of the land/property is not being shared or used by another, including the owners. For the open and notorious element, the use of the property must be visible and obvious to anyone. Barry was not hiding that he was living in the castle; it was Mitchell and Cameron’s fault for not verifying where Barry lived.
Moreover, under the element of continuous use, Barry does not meet the requirement of utilizing the property for a minimum of ten years under the episode's timeline. Barry hypothetically established a ten-year use period for a proper analysis of the hostility element. Hostile possession means that a trespasser must not admit to the property owner that they want to purchase the property. Under hostility, simply having the intent to acquire the property without permission is hostile possession, granting ownership to the trespasser if all other elements are met. Barry would argue that he has hostile possession because he never asked nor received permission to live in the princess castle, but instead argued his intent with Cameron, after the requisite statutory period, to continue living in the castle. Cameron and Mitchell would argue that they welcomed Barry to enjoy the benefits of their home, and that regardless of the miscommunication over where Barry was living, that Barry had continued permission to use the princess castle as his home given the fact that the princess castle is located on their privately owned and accessible backyard and under the adverse possession doctrine permitting a trespasser is not hostile possession, therefore, Barry would not have ownership nor a right to continue to use the princess castle. On balance, Cameron and Mitchell have the stronger argument because they gave Barry permission to use their property in any capacity, including the use of their private backyard, where the princess castle was located. Under the right circumstances, it is possible to live in a princess castle under the doctrine of adverse possession, but given the circumstances in this case, Barry cannot.
Alexia Ferraro is a first-year law student at American University Washington College of Law, interested in Criminal Prosecution, specifically in a Special Victims Unit or Juvenile Division.
Rachel Freedman is a first-year law student at American University Washington College of Law.
Image: Hubert Sattler, Hubert Sattler Schloss Neuschwanstein.
