My neighbor filed an adverse possesion case against me to take a
portion of my property and the court has ruled in his favor.  The
neighbor said he had a "mutual understanding" with the original owner
and the trail judge said he believes this neighbor had an agreement
with the original owner.  The original owner is deceased and his
family has no knowledge of this agreement.

The orginal owner sold the proeprty to his daughter in 1979, the
daughter sold the property in 1986 to the owners that I purchased from
in 2000.  Sometime after 1986, this neighbor constructed a 37 x 4 feet
planter, about 75% of which crosses over onto my property.  Although
the planter has not been in its location for the 30 years as required
by NJ, the neighbor said he had hedges in this location prior to the
planter.

I am confounded as to how the Court rules in favor of this neighbor
without any proof other than his word that he had some understanding
with the original owner.  In fact, the talk in the neighborhoood is
that there were very bad rleationship between this neighbor and the
original owner.

The Appeal Court rejected my efforts to reclain my land.  What is the
route to take when the Courts keeps making it more and more difficult
for me but yet makes it very easy for this neighbor to take land based
on his so call understanding with someone that is deceased.  Also, the
planter was installed many years after the original owner sold the
property.

Fenley,

Unfortunately, if the N.J. Superior Court rejected your appeal, you
have no other remedy but to appeal your case further to the Supreme
Court of N.J., but their review of your case is by discretion only
(i.e., you are only entitled to a single appeal).

The doctrine of adverse possession has four requirements.  Possession
must be: (1) open and notorious (i.e., trespass is reasonably
discoverable by true owner upon inspection); (2) adverse/hostile
(without owner's permission), (3) continuous and uninterrupted ... (4)
for the statutory period (typically 30 years in NJ).

With respect to requirement (2): It appears from the limited facts I
have here that the allowance to plant hedges by the original owner of
your property would be more properly described as an "easement" (an
affirmative grant that allows someone to use another's land). 
Easements by "mutual understanding" are not "adverse", that is, they
are WITH the permission of the owner.  Where possession starts
permissively (e.g. by lease or "mutual understanding"), possession
does not become adverse until the possessor makes clear to the true
owner that they are claiming "hostilely."  So you see, if there were
poor relations between the original owner and your neighbor at some
point after the neighbor was granted permission to use the land, and
the neighbor claimed the land hostilely at that point, that fact would
actually work against you provided 30 years has passed since that
time.

This "non-adverse" argument is likely your best bet if you decide to
file a further appeal.  It appears to me that the other requirements
for adverse possession are reasonably satisfied.  Good luck, and I
hope this information is helpful.

-James J. Aquilina, J.D.

(The information provided herein is for educational purposes only, and
is not intended to be relied upon in making future legal decisions. 
The reader is advised to retain independent legal counsel with respect
to any decisions he or she might make regarding their real property
dispute(s).)