Adams v. Parks

6 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. August

    125 P.3d 1243 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005)

    ¶ 12 Plaintiffs contend their interest in the property, which was acquired by prescription, is superior to any interest conferred by the tax resale deed because the 15-year occupation period required to obtain title by adverse possession passed before the tax resale deed was issued. Plaintiffs cite Adams v. Parks, 1967 OK 217, 435 P.2d 122 in support of their argument. We find Adams distinguishable on its facts and thus reject this proportion of error.

  2. Mount v. Curran

    631 P.2d 496 (Alaska 1981)   Cited 5 times

    Further authority for this position is given in the footnote.Wood v. Mayo, 240 La. 109, 121 So.2d 503, 506 (1960) (although acquisitive prescription does not run against the state, that rule is inapplicable where party's predecessors in title had already possessed the property continuously for 33 years before the adjudication to the state and were already the owners at the time of that adjudication); King v. Fasching, 234 S.W.2d 549, 551 (Mo. 1950) (law recognizes the right of one claiming title by adverse possession to question a tax deed where the adverse possession antedated the lien for taxes); Adams v. Parks, 435 P.2d 122, 125-26 (Okl. 1967) (tax deed could not defeat adverse possession claim where party's predecessors had perfected prescriptive title to the strip, and had been in adverse and exclusive possession of it for more than fifteen years prior to the tax sale and resale upon which other party's deed was based); Harvey v. Peters, 227 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Civ.App. 1950) (if title by limitation was perfected before judgment rendered in tax suit brought by municipality, limitation owners were not bound, nor was their limitation title affected, by the tax suit to which they were not parties); Reusens v. Lawson, 91 Va. 226, 21 S.E. 347, 352 (1895) (if adverse possession is long enough to bar original owner's right of recovery before forfeiture to commonwealth takes place, original owner has lost title by adverse possession and commonwealth does not acquire it through the foreclosure). Contra, Whiteman v. Mattson, 446 P.2d 904, 908 (Colo.

  3. Picerne v. Sylvestre

    122 R.I. 85 (R.I. 1979)   Cited 25 times
    In Picerne, 122 R.I. at 91-92, 404 A.2d at 479-80, we focused on the narrow issue of whether a taxpayer who lost a home in a tax sale could prove hostile use for purposes of adverse possession.

    Norman did not testify. In his decision the trial justice likened the Picerne-Sylvestre dispute to the controversy detailed in Adams v. Parks, 435 P.2d 122, 126 (Okla. 1967), and then went on to refer to the following portion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's opinion: "'"'A party in actual possession of real estate cannot be ousted from such possession or his title divested by merely recording a tax deed of which he may not be aware and under which nothing is claimed.

  4. Samson Resources v. Ok. Corp. Com'n

    859 P.2d 1118 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times
    Holding the Corporation Commission is a body of limited jurisdiction and does not have jurisdiction to determine title in vested property interests

    It makes no difference whether the instrument fails to pass an absolute title because the grantor had none to convey, * * *"Adams v. Parks, 435 P.2d 122, 125 (Okla. 1967). Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, further provides color of title is "that which is a semblance or appearance of title, but is not title in fact or in law."

  5. Leciejewski v. Sedlak

    110 Wis. 2d 337 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 25 times
    In Leciejewski, the true owner gave the adverse possessor permission to build a chicken shed and dynamite part of the disputed property, but in spite of these facts of permissive use, the court found that the adverse possessor established a claim based on other activities that improved and cultivated the disputed property.

    The judgment foreclosing the tax lien was rendered on April 26, 1976.See, e.g., Mount v. Curran, 631 P.2d 496 (Alaska 1981); Lyndel, note 5; Adams v. Parks, 435 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1967).See, e.g., Whiteman v. Mattson, 446 P.2d 904 (Colo.

  6. Attorney General Opinion No

    95-25 (Ops.Kan.Atty.Gen. Feb. 23, 1995)

    This view has been followed by at least one neighboring state and seems to us the proper view because of the simple notion that the county cannot convey more than it has a right to. See Adams v. Parks, 435 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1967). See also Palm Orange Groves Inc. v. Yelvington, 41 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1949).