Author: Patrick G. Murphy 

Indiana Code § 32-21-7-1 provides a party claiming title through adverse possession must demonstrate that he or she paid taxes on the disputed land.Wetherald v. Jackson, 855 N.E.2d 624, 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). There is an exception if the adverse possessor believes payment was made, but the belief must be reasonable. Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476, 493 (Ind. 2005).

In Fraley, the Supreme Court reiterated that Indiana law requires that a claimant comply with the adverse possession tax statute. It is not enough to demonstrate all the common law elements of adverse possession (control, intent, notice, duration). Moreover, the party attempting to claim adverse possession must demonstrate the elements by the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard, not the typical “preponderance of the evidence” standard, usually applicable to civil cases. In Fraley, the parties claiming adverse possession had met all of the elements but had not demonstrated that they had paid taxes on the disputed parcel.

Read more: Paying Property Taxes is a Prerequisite to Obtaining Real Estate Through Adverse Possession


  • Relationship between Arbitrability and Public Policy in Light of the Decisions of the Court of Cassation
  • Challenging Decisions of the Regional Courts of Appeal
  • Soft Law in International Arbitration

Read more: Turkish Litigation & ADR Update

Schnader’s Richard A. Barkasy and Daniel M. Pereira authored “Will other courts give ‘disclosure only’ settlements closer scrutiny like Delaware?” published in Westlaw Journal Delaware Corporate in January, 2017.

Shareholder complaints quickly followed by disclosure-only settlements have become standard operating procedure in the corporate merger context. These suits typically result in modest supplemental disclosures in exchange for a broad release of claims and attorneys’ fees for plaintiffs’ counsel.

Read more: "Will other courts give 'disclosure only' settlements closer scrutiny like Delaware?"

Contact: Andrew Shute, Partner and Ben Hall, Special Counsel

Lawyers (and judges) have sometimes been accused of being Luddites, concerned about the pace of technological change, and what this might mean for the practice of law and the administration of justice. Increasingly however, courts and legal practitioners have been embracing technology, aware of its important role in facilitating the efficient, timely and cost-effective conduct and resolution of civil litigation.

To read the full article click here, or visit

In issue 13 of the State Gazette dated 07.02.2017 was promulgated an Act supplementing the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It establishes chapter fifty-sixth "a" in connection with the implementation of Regulation (EU) № 655/2014.

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters applies from 18.01.2017. It should be borne in mind that the UK and Denmark are not participating in the adoption of the Regulation and are not bound by it nor are they subject to its application.

Read more: Creditor protection in cross-border cases and the introduction of a procedure for a European...