Title Insurance Alert - Court of Appeals of Virginia Affirms Circuit Court Order Establishing Adverse Possession of Land by Clear and Convincing Evidence

On February 25, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued an unpublished opinion affirming an order entered by the Circuit Court of Amelia County concerning adverse possession and ownership of an 8.26-acre parcel of land located in Amelia County (“the Disputed Land”). Sanders v. Easter, No. 0062-25-2, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 120 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2026).

CIRCUIT COURT OPINION

In 2017, Amos and Patricia Easter (the “Easters”) filed a complaint to quiet title and a motion for declaratory judgment. By letter opinion and final order entered December 3, 2024, the circuit court found that the Easters had satisfied each element of adverse possession. First, the Easters actually possessed the Disputed Land because they regularly cultivated the open portion, maintained an existing woods road and built additional roads, periodically harvested timber, and constructed permanent tree stands for hunting. Second, the Easters’ possession was hostile because, based on the description of the property being conveyed to Lewis Easter, Amos Easter’s father, in the 1938 deed from Emily Jackson to Lewis Easter, and an erroneous Amelia County tax map, Amos Easter and his parents mistakenly believed that the Disputed Land was part of their property. Third, the Easters exclusively possessed the Disputed Land because, according to the circuit court, it had “received no evidence that anyone other than the [Easters] used the disputed land.” The court added that Bessie May Sanders (“Sanders”), who was a legal owner of the Disputed Land, had apparently made no use of either the Disputed Land or her adjoining undisputed property. Fourth, the Easters’ possession was visible, open, and notorious because the decades-long cultivation of the open land, the twice-yearly cutting of hay, the timber harvests, the “no trespassing” signs, and the stack of bricks from an old house on the Disputed Land Amos and his father tore down, were all reasonably visible (and in the case of the timber harvests, audible) from the public road. Fifth, the Easters possessed the Disputed Land continuously for the statutorily required 15 years. Importantly, the court held that the Easters’ period of ownership, “especially the period from 1998 to the present,” established their continuous possession. It then tacked Lewis Easter’s possession of the Disputed Land onto Amos and Patricia Easter’s possession. Finally, the Easters’ possession of the Disputed Land was under a claim of right because, as already mentioned, Amos and Patricia Easter mistakenly believed the Disputed Land was part of their property.

The circuit court did not discuss in its letter opinion the evidence that had come in about the payment of taxes on the property. That evidence tended to show that Sanders and her predecessors in title paid taxes on the Disputed Land for over 100 years while the Easters paid taxes only on their undisputed 30 acres.

APPEAL

On appeal, appellant[1] Bessie May Sanders appealed the circuit court’s judgment that appellees Amos and Patricia Easter, acquired title to the Disputed Land by adverse possession. Sanders argued that the circuit court erred by (1) tacking prior use of the Disputed Land to the Easters’ uninterrupted period of possession beginning in 1998; (2) failing to weigh Sanders’ payment of, as well as the Easters’ nonpayment of, taxes for the Disputed Land as evidence that the Easters failed to make an adequate claim of title; and (3) concluding that the Easters had established all the elements of adverse possession.

FINDINGS

In the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the Court agreed with the findings of the final order rendered by the trial court based on the following:

• Sanders failed to properly preserve her first argument.
• The circuit court did not err in its weighing of the evidence of the payment of taxes, and if it did, any error was harmless.
• The circuit court correctly determined that the Easters established all the elements of adverse possession.

In sum, the Court of Appeals held the circuit court correctly found that the Easters established adverse possession of the Disputed Land by clear and convincing evidence and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals does an excellent job of laying out each of the required elements of adverse possession and the proof needed to satisfy such elements.

Jim would like to thank his long-time friend, Jim Hart, with the law firm of Hart & Horan, P.C., located in Fairfax, Virginia, for promptly bringing this opinion to his attention yesterday when it was issued.

If you have any questions regarding this new, unpublished appellate opinion or questions regarding Virginia real property law in general, please contact Jim Windsor at 757.873.6308 or jim.windsor@kaufcan.com, or John Chappell at 757.491.4022 or john.chappell@kaufcan.com.

[1] Sanders was one of two defendants. The co-defendant, Victor Bailey, is a joint owner of the subject property, but did not participate in this appeal.

The contents of this publication are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on specific facts and circumstances. Copyright 2026.