Even if the Torrens bar were absent, IRA’s recreational use fails the “adverse and hostile” requirement. Jurisdictions are split. This Court follows the “permissive use presumption” for unenclosed wildlands (see Goddard v. Milligan, 2005). The Strip, being unfenced and located on a barrier island with only seasonal human traffic, is analogous to a “public recreational passage.” Without evidence of enclosure, cultivation, or explicit warning to the owner, such use is presumed to be licensed by the owner’s silence — not adverse. The removal of Coastal’s 2002 sign strengthens IRA’s conduct as disruptive, but does not retroactively convert 39 prior years of passive recreation into adverse use.
Based on the analysis, propose a plan to address and resolve the issue. This may include: ls-land.issue.19-911.08
| Party | Description | |-------|-------------| | Applicant (the Developer) | Greenfield Developments Ltd., a private corporation engaged in mixed‑use residential‑commercial projects. | | Respondent (the Landowner) | Miller Family Trust, owners of the parcel designated Lot 12, Plan 34‑B. | | Agency | Landside Planning Authority (LPA), a statutory body responsible for zoning, permits, and land‑use regulation. | | Tribunal | Land Services Tribunal (LST), the adjudicative body authorized to hear disputes arising under the Land Management Act (LMA) and related statutes. | Even if the Torrens bar were absent, IRA’s
This paper (LS-Land.19-911.08) reinforces three critical doctrines in registered land jurisdictions: Milligan , 2005)