Intermittent use of land as overflow parking, even where the land is physically incorporated into the claimant's lot, is insufficient to establish continuous exclusive possession for adverse possession purposes. Enclosure of land effected by a common owner before subdivision does not demonstrate the requisite intention to possess on the part of a subsequent owner claiming adverse possession. The doctrine of constructive possession cannot extend a claim to the whole of a strip of land where the northern portion has no identifiable physical boundary.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.