Case for discussion: Witt v. Miller, and answer the question about the case. Edward and Mary Shaughnessey purchased a 16-acre tract in St. Louis county in 1954. Subsequently, they subdivided12 acres into 18 lots offered for sale and retained possession of the remaining 4-acre tract. In 1967, Charles and Elaine Witt purchased lot 12, which is adjacent to the 4- acre tract. The Witts constructed and moved into a house on their lot. In 1968, they cleared an area of land that ran the length of their property and extended 40 feet onto the 4-acre tract. The Witts constructed a pool and a deck, planted a garden, made a playground for their children, setup a dog run, and built a fence along the edge of the property line, which included the now-disputed property. Neither the Witts nor the Shaughnesseys realized that the Witts had encroached on the Shaughnesseys' property. In February 1988, the Shaughnesseys sold the 4-acre tract to Thomas and Rosanne Miller. When a survey showed the encroachment, the Millers demanded that the Witts remove the pool and cease using the property. When the Witts refused to do so, the Millers sued to quiet title. The Witts defended, arguing that they had obtained title to the disputed property by adverse possession. The trial court held that there was no adverse possession and ruled in favor of the Millers. TheWitts appealed.

Questions:

1. What does the doctrine of adverse possession provide? What elements need to be proven?

2. Had the elements for adverse possession been met?

3. Did the Witts act ethically in claiming title to someone else's land?

4. Should they be allowed to benefit from their own mistake?

5. What should owners of property do to protect themselves from adverse possession claims?