No, the title insurance did their job. The title ins co would have verified the survey, and noted that no claims were on the property. It was up to the owners to keep the guy from using their property, which they did not do.
Why should it be up to the owners to tell someone they have no right to be on his land?
A burglar knows he cannot steal someone's stuff, and does not need to be reminded by the owner that stealing stuff is illegal.
The tresspasser also knows he's stealing use of someone else's land--the tresspasser shouldn't need the owner to tell him he's tresspassing.
How can you prevent someone from using your property if you don't know they're using it, your other neighbors don't see them using it, and the land itself does not show use? That property was closely monitored, other neighbors testified that no one used the property on any open, continuous, exclusive, adverse or notorious basis.
Judge Klein ignored that testimony and ruled M/S had more "attachment" to the land than the people paying taxes and HOA fees on it. When the Kirlins tried to put up a fence to stop any claim of adverse possession, which was well within their rights to do so, an emergency restraining order signed by Judge Morris Sandstead at 5:20 p.m. on a Friday stopped them...after the court was closed.
There was a path that Edie Stevens testified was there the whole 18 years, but the satellite maps as recent as one year ago show there were no paths at all, anywhere.
A satellite picture is worth a thousand lies.