Adverse possession is a concept that should hardly be considered arcane. It appears in essentially the same form in each state, though the period of adverse possession required for title to pass varies from state to state.
I have read only this article on the subject - but from the way the paper phrased their use in this article - it would seem that all they gained by adverse possession was an easement to cross the property, not title to the property itself.
Here is the earlier discussion :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925997/posts
ht to beaversmom
They’ve gained, or are about to gain, title.
Another judge in Boulder did this same thing a few years back, and got away with it.
This is what happens in a secular society.
The scammers requested title to the property, not just easement to pass.
The ruling went to them despite testimony of neighbors and aerial photos showing no path existed there prior to October 2006.
I think it is the easement too. I think also ANY TIME during those 18 years they could have blockaded the property or at least sent a letter advising them they were not to tresspass.
ANYTHING TO SAY the tresspass was known and not welcome.
People forget the key to adverse possession is INACTION by the owner.