Huge victory for Woźniak Legal as the adverse possession claim is dismissed

A case considering the acquisition of a multiple occupancy tenement building in Lublin by adverse possession collapsed last week as the District Court in Lublin dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs. This brought an end to the four years of court proceedings and Filip Kowalczyk, who is representing the legitimate owners of the property, said “It is really uplifting and encouraging that the Courts took the position that the ownership of real estate should be protected by the legal system and that gaining ownership of someone else’s property should be verified with utmost care .” Last week’s verdict of the District Court in Lublin is an important decision on the highly controversial topic of adverse possession in relation to the property whose legal owners are entered into the land and mortgage register and where there is no ambiguity as to the ownership title. 
 
Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows an individual to acquire ownership of real estate belonging to another person, provided they have been using the real estate for a certain period without the permission of the legal owner. This principle is grounded in the belief that land or buildings should not remain unused or neglected while others could make productive use of it. 
 
The requirements for adverse possession under Polish law are stringent and must be met before a claim can be successful. There are three most important factors: 
 

1. Uninterrupted and exclusive possession: the adverse possessor must demonstrate that their possession of the property has been continuous and uninterrupted for a specific period, which is 30 or 20 years (depending on good or bad faith); 

 

2. Open and notorious possession: the possession must be open, obvious, and without secrecy; it should be clear to any reasonable observer that the possessor is using the property without the owner’s permission and 

 

3. Adverse intent: the possession must be hostile or adverse to the interests of the true owner; this means that the possessor is using the property as if they are the owner and not with the owner’s permission. 

 
The case in Lublin involved a claim by local individuals to acquire ownership of a historical townhouse, at Bernardynska street in Lublin, belonging to the heirs of the pre-war owners (currently living in America), under the rules of adverse possession. The plaintiffs argued that they (together with their predecessors) occupied the property for the uninterrupted period of 30 years and that they have been using the property as if they were the owners and not with the owner’s permission. The application made by the local individuals was very well prepared and included testimonies of witnesses who were going to confirm the possession. It provided comprehensive evidence that the possession of that townhouse met the necessary criteria. 
 
The defendants (i.e. the rightful owners currently living in America) filed for the application to be dismissed. They argued that the multi occupancy tenement building at Bernardynska belonged to their family for many decades (even during the communist era) and - most importantly - the possession of the property did not last 30 years because part of this period cannot be regarded as owner-like possession due to the fact that the rental agreement was in place. The rental agreement indicates that there was a landlord – tenant relationship and this excludes the adverse intent. Although the defendants live in America and visit Poland rarely, they want to keep this property as part of the Jewish heritage in Poland. 
 
After the four year proceedings and a number of fierce court hearings, the Court dismissed the adverse possession claim and held that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence which is clear and convincing, especially as regards adding time of possession by the possessors’ predecessors. The Court explained that the adverse possession is a very complex legal concept and that the rules allowing an individual to acquire ownership of real estate belonging to another person should be applied with utmost care. Any doubts should be interpreted in the legal owners’ interest. For this reason, the disputed townhouse should remain the ownership of the defendants.
 
The plaintiffs decided they would file a statement of appeal.