Paul Blay wrote:
> "Louise Bremner" <dame_zumari@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> 
>> Akkerchally, we're wondering if they'd realised they'd placed the wall
>> too far within their own side of the boundary.
> 
> 
> Aha.  Over here in good old イギリス (however you define it)
> I think there's some rule that if your boundary has been at a certain 
> point for a long enough period of time unchallenged whoever might be 
> said to own that land on paper doesn't get to get it back.*

Correct in essence. There are nuances about whether your occupation was
open and notorious, whether you honestly believed that you had
possession, and other things that can throw a small monkey wrench into
the works, but adverse possession will ultimately change title. My law
books are still in my storage container (I haven't felt much of an urge
to go rout them out), and my Westlaw password was finally disabled, so I
can't give much detail anymore.

KWW