In Weeks v. Krysa, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, found that cultivating a garden on a disputed parcel was an “occasional encroachment[],” insufficient to show intent to “displace the owner of the disputed lot or put the owner on notice” of being at risk of adverse possession. Under the traditional common law of adverse possession, cultivation of a garden is one of the hallmarks of an open and notorious use that would put a record owner on notice. However, after Weeks v. Krysa, a question remains as to whether cultivation of a garden will be sufficient to support a finding of adverse possession in Maine. Although the Law Court's decision in Weeks v. Krysa can be read as a logical outgrowth of Maine precedents, it seems to mark a step away from the traditional law of adverse possession as it developed and is applied elsewhere in the United States. Thus, this Note will present the perspectives of economic theory and environmental theory as applied to adverse possession, and then synthesize the two approaches, using environmental economics, in order to assess how the decision in Weeks v. Krysa may impact the underlying law of Maine.

First Page