The Neglected History Behind Preble v. Maine Central Railroad Company: Lessons from the 'Maine Rule' for Adverse Possession

30 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2016

See all articles by Luke Meier

Luke Meier

Baylor University - Law School

Date Written: March 22, 2016

Abstract

Under the “Maine Rule” for adverse possession, only possessors having the requisite intent can perfect an adverse possession claim. The Maine Rule has been consistently criticized. The history behind the adoption of the Maine Rule, however, and the purpose it was to serve, have been ignored. This Article fills that void. This inquiry leads to some surprising revelations about the Maine Rule. The Maine Rule was originally adopted so as to distinguish prior Maine cases rejecting adverse possession in mistaken boundary situations. The purpose behind the Maine Rule, then, was to enable — rather than prohibit — adverse possession. The history surrounding the adoption of the Maine Rule has contemporary value; this history powerfully demonstrates the pitfalls of using a claimant’s state of mind as part of an adverse possession analysis.

Keywords: Adverse Possession, Bad Faith, Maine Rule, Maine View, Maine Test, Maine, Preble, Mistaken Boundary, Good Faith, Claim of Right, Claim of Title, Hostility, Van Valkenburgh, Lutz, Meier

Suggested Citation

Meier, Luke, The Neglected History Behind Preble v. Maine Central Railroad Company: Lessons from the 'Maine Rule' for Adverse Possession (March 22, 2016). Hofstra Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2753237

Luke Meier (Contact Author)

Baylor University - Law School ( email )

Sheila & Walter Umphrey Law Center
1114 South University Parks Drive
Waco, TX 76706
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
119
Abstract Views
480
rank
236,525
PlumX Metrics