Regarding adverse possession, do you know what the justification is for such a heavy-handed approach?
The theory I see mentioned there is:
> Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to his land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property.
But I don't see why they wouldn't exclude the actual owner from this and limit it to just former owners/heirs/etc... and frankly it seems even those should only have to go through this process once before they're recognized as the current owners and not have to put up with this possibility again.
You mistakenly assume that the actual owner can always be identified. Part of the point of adverse possession law is to moot cases of "the McCoys and the Hatfields both claim they owned this land 100 years ago and nobody can offer substantive proof as to which is right (and in the meantime the Johnsons have been living there for six generations)".
Well then why not limit it to cases where there's no proof? I seriously don't see why someone with proof of ownership losing their property is necessary to solve any other problem.
> Well then why not limit it to cases where there's no proof?
Because abandonment of real property is a real phenomenon with externalized costs, so resolving disputed against an owner that has effectively abandoned real property was itself viewed as desirable. The time and openness of possession requirements mean that, in practice, adverse possession doesn't adversely impact anyone who hasn't effectively abandoned property.
Because you can have many concurrent proofs of ownership.
For example someone sells a land twice, the first buyer leaves for 20 years and them come back with a better proof of ownership than the farmer that worked there 19 years.
But in your case the second buyer has proof too. The law says they still own it even if they don't have proof and even if the first one does. Why is that necessary?
> But I don't see why they wouldn't exclude the actual owner from this and limit it to just former owners/heirs/etc
They are referring to potential actual owners: the heirs of a past owner are relevant because of their putative inheritance of actual ownership. Adverse possession settles claims on favor of the putative owner openly occupying property for the required period over other putative owners.
Also it is a matter of ownership and its justification. Part of the implied bargin is the responsibility over the land to be its steward in /some/ sense. Ownership isn't unconditional and society would rather have someone making some use of it than an irresponsible owner who leaves it useless and only comes back to stop those from making it useful.
If their abdication was forced by the claimanint said claims the absense is far more justified but that gets into other concepts like damages and the fact they never intended to let it lapse but were forced to.
The theory I see mentioned there is:
> Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to his land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property.
But I don't see why they wouldn't exclude the actual owner from this and limit it to just former owners/heirs/etc... and frankly it seems even those should only have to go through this process once before they're recognized as the current owners and not have to put up with this possibility again.