Adverse against a Municipality

I am looking into a case here where a private party is claiming ownership of a portion of a municipal forest.  This forest is owned by Town "A".  It is located entirely in Town "B".  Record title seems fairly clearly to be with Town "A" well prior.  Here is the kicker.... Town "B" has shown on their tax parcel mapping that the land in question belongs to the private party and has been taxing them accordingly.

I've always operated under the idea that a municipality as an extension of the state is a sovereign entity and thusly immune.  What say you? 

It depends on what state you are in.  I know in Marylad you may adverse against cities.  It has happened in Baltimore. 

Matt

Seijack v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore  270 Md. 640,313 A.2d 843 (1974)

It depends... mostly on how the property was acquired and what the purpose was for acquiring it.  If it's land acquired for the public trust (use by the general public), then it has a claim of sovereign immunity.  If it's acquired for a corporate use (county shops, etc) no sovereign immunity might not apply.  Is it owned by the public, or owned by a corporation for business use?

You could also try looking at the estoppel doctrine.  It appears that there is evidence of recognition by a municipality of the private party's ownership.  Can get pretty fact intensive.

JBS

It's "Siejack" not "Seijack"

One of the key pointsof this case was deed to the municipal corporation was limited by the habendum clause to use as a "public park and parking for the use of the public and especially for the lot owners of the Town of Riverdale" and the property was never used for this purpose by the municipality.

I didn't remember all of the particular points of this case but I did know that they did aquire the property adversely from the city. 

Matt

I believe that a successful claim may be made if:
- The claim can be shown to predate the acquistion by the town, and
- The town bought, instead of taking , the property.