Also known as: claim of right · claims of right · claim-of-right doctrine · claim-of-right defense
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A requirement for adverse possession that the claimant's occupation of land occur without permission from the true owner and with an assertion of ownership rights. The element is satisfied when the possessor acts under a good-faith belief that the land belongs to them, even if that belief rests on a mistaken boundary. Successive periods of such possession may be tacked together when privity exists between claimants.
A requirement for adverse possession that the claimant's occupation of land occur without permission from the true owner and with an assertion of ownership rights. The element is satisfied when the possessor acts under a good-faith belief that the land belongs to them, even if that belief rests on a mistaken boundary. Successive periods of such possession may be tacked together when privity exists between claimants.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A defense that negates the intent element of theft or embezzlement when the defendant honestly believes they hold a right to the property or to dispose of it as they did. The defense applies when the defendant converts property as payment for a debt they genuinely believe is owed or otherwise acts under an honest though mistaken claim. Open retention of the property tends to support the defense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A limitation on the use of force in defense of property or re-entry that applies when the actor knows the opposing party is acting under a claim of right to the property. The limitation requires retreat, surrender of possession, or compliance with the demand when safe retreat is possible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A defense that negates the intent element of theft or embezzlement when the defendant honestly believes they hold a right to the property or to dispose of it as they did. The defense applies when the defendant converts property as payment for a debt they genuinely believe is owed or otherwise acts under an honest though mistaken claim. Open retention of the property tends to support the defense.
A limitation on the use of force in defense of property or re-entry that applies when the actor knows the opposing party is acting under a claim of right to the property. The limitation requires retreat, surrender of possession, or compliance with the demand when safe retreat is possible.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Catherine Carter and her predecessors fenced and farmed a six-foot strip they believed belonged to their parcel because of an erroneous plat. Successive owners mowed, gardened, and maintained the strip seasonally for more than the statutory period. When the true owner demanded removal, the court allowed tacking of the periods because each possessor had occupied under a good-faith claim of right.
The claimant occupies under a claim of right when acting on a sincere belief that the land is theirs, even if the belief stems from an erroneous survey or plat. This belief supplies the required hostility without needing permission from the true owner.
Supporting sources
Yes. A bona fide claim of right defeats the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement when the defendant honestly believes the property constitutes payment for a debt or extra compensation owed by the owner. Open discussion of that belief with coworkers further supports the defense.
Supporting sources
Clifford Cox returned to his former rental after the landlord changed the locks without notice. Believing the landlord had no right to exclude him, Cox used minimal force to regain entry because he thought delay would cause exceptional hardship. The belief that the landlord lacked any claim of right supported the justification for the entry.
Curtis Cannon used force to prevent a neighbor from removing a shared fence that Cannon believed marked his own boundary. Knowing the neighbor asserted a claim of right to protect the property, Cannon could not rely on self-defense unless an exception applied. The neighbor's claim of right triggered the limitation on justifiable force.
Connor Clark brandished a weapon when a person demanded return of a disputed tool. Clark knew he could safely surrender the tool to the person asserting a claim of right. The availability of that safe retreat barred justification for deadly force under the claim-of-right limitation.
Retreat or surrender of possession is required when the actor knows the opposing party is asserting a claim of right to the property and safe retreat is possible. The limitation prevents force used against a person protecting property under such a claim.
Supporting sources