Purple Line ROW article misstates adverse possession ruling

The Post had an article today about how Montgomery County asked homeowners adjacent to the Purple Line/Capital Crescent Trail ROW to remove structures built on County land (for which the County was generously offering to reimburse them). But it included this mistake.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s highest court is considering the case of the group’s president. Ajay Bhatt successfully argued to a lower court judge that a fence behind his home since at least 1960 allowed him to take adverse possession of that 14-foot strip of trail land from the freight railroad company that owned it at the time. The county bought the land for $10 million in 1988 to preserve for a transitway. Montgomery County, which had fined Bhatt $500 for allegedly building a new fence on county right of way, appealed the lower-court decision. The Maryland Court of Appeals is expected to issue a decision this spring.

Bhatt did not successfully argue that he was allowed to take adverse possession. Bhatt successfully argued that he built a structure on county-owned land that was not a ROW, but was given a ticket for building on county-owned ROW and so that ticket is not valid. The judge offered that Bhatt "may" be able to exert ownership via adverse possession.

Comments

[SJE]

Even if there WAS adverse possession the state may retake it for a public right of way. I see the offer of money as a way to remove obstacles.

[Crickey7]

I go back and forth on the wisdom of the County's move here. On the one had, it's clearly premature given the ongoing court case, even though in truth the lower court ruling hinged on some facts that are likely to be unique to his property or at most a small group of properties. On the other hand, sparking a broader outcry from affected homeowners based on adverse possession claims will allow the County to conceptually frame the issue for the appellate court in terms that fit more neatly into the way adverse possession suits against railroads almost always come out. Which is for the railroad or, in this case, the entity that succeeded to the railroad.

[antibozo]

What i find almost comical about people like Bhatt is how they extol the parklike virtues of the ROW, demanding it remain untouched, but still have no problem building structures of their own on it.

[Smedley Burkhart]

Hey, we're living in a time when a crew of lightly armed and educated yahoos can overrun federal property with complete impunity. The concept of public ownership--perhaps common goods in general--is in something beyond eclipse. If Mr. Bhatt and his neighbors are serious, they ought to stock their basements with survival supplies and resort to 2nd Amendment remedies. They'll be hailed as patriots in Congress.

[SJE]

Perhaps we should go have a picnic on the furthest back of Mr Bhatt's back lawn.