New Jersey Lawyers BlogNew Jersey Real Estate Law Decision Examines Difference Between Analysis of Adverse Possession and Proscriptive Easements
It’s easy to think that under New Jersey real estate law, “squatter’s rights” is a thing of the past. However, it is very much alive, although very difficult to prove. There are two similar ways to obtain an interest in property owned by another, through either adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. While the requirements for each are similar are similar, they are still different. These requirements were recently examined in a New Jersey appeals court decision in the case of Shea vs DiPopolo.
Kenneth and Catherine Ann Shea purchased a home on Columbia Turnpike in Florham Park, New Jersey in 2003. The survey showed that their horseshoe shaped driveway, both ends of which connect to Columbia Turnpike, ran onto the edge of the neighboring property. The Shea’s house was built in 1981, and aerial photographs show that the driveway was in use and going over the neighbor’s property since at least April 19, 1990. It was originally gravel, but the Sheas paved it between 2005 and 2007. They .used it until 2021 when their neighbors Romo and Dolores DiPopolo, sent a letter telling them to stop using it and then put a fence up barring their access.
The DiPopolos bought the neighboring property in 2001. It vacant until they built a house there and moved into it in 2016. The DiPopolos also owned the property behind it. They developed that property in 2004 and 2005, using the disputed driveway – which ran on both properties – to move the construction equipment used in the development.
complaints”), particularly during the increased patient load and decreased staffing caused by Covid. He also complained about the temperature and humidity levels in the operating rooms and electrical work in the sewage ejector pit (“the safety complaints”). He alleged that he was told to ignore the violations and threatened with discipline if he did not, and that he was yelled at and false accusations were made about his work performance. Eventually he was fired on October 16, 2020. He claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints about the defendants’ legal and regulatory violations.
many Federal courts imposed a higher burden of proof on the employee. In cases of reverse discrimination, employees in New Jersey state courts and many federal courts had to satisfy the “Background Circumstances Rule,” which requires that the employee prove that he “has been victimized by the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” However, in 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Background Circumstances Rule in 
additional items to be included. A written change order to the original signed contract was drafted, but the change order was never signed. In January 2020 the home passed final inspections, and EMC’s owner, Edward Morgan, advised Dattolo that he could not continue working on the project. Dattolo refused to pay “one additional cent,” and complained that there were numerous construction defects which would cost him thousands of dollars to remediate.