Definition
Privity of possession is the legal relationship between successive occupants of the same parcel of land arising from a transfer of actual possession from one to another. It does not require a formal deed or written instrument. What it requires is that the later occupant's possession derives from the prior occupant — that is, the later party entered under, or obtained possession through, the earlier one, whether by purchase, deed, or parol bargain accompanied by actual delivery of possession.
The concept operates most prominently in the law of adverse possession, where a claimant seeking to satisfy the statutory period may "tack" their period of possession onto that of a predecessor. To do so, the claimant must demonstrate privity of possession with that predecessor — a sufficient nexus showing the possession was transferred, not merely that two people occupied the same land at different times.
Privity of possession is thus distinct from formal legal privity (privity of contract, privity of estate). It asks a narrower question: was this possession handed from one person to another in a connected, voluntary chain?
---
Common Confusion
Privity of possession is frequently conflated with privity of estate. The two overlap but are not identical. Privity of estate is the formal tenure relationship between landlord and tenant or grantor and grantee arising from a conveyance of a property interest; it typically requires a written instrument and creates mutual obligations running with the land. Privity of possession is a looser, factual concept centered on the transfer of actual physical control. A parol sale of a squatter's claim can establish privity of possession for tacking purposes without ever creating privity of estate. Conversely, a formal assignment of a leasehold creates privity of estate but the assignee's liability under covenants runs only while possession continues — a point at which the two concepts intersect but remain analytically separate.
---
Core Elements
For privity of possession to connect two periods of adverse possession (enabling tacking), courts generally look for:
1. Voluntary transfer. The later occupant must have entered under the prior occupant — by sale, gift, devise, or descent. An independent, hostile entry breaks the chain even if the same land is involved.
2. Actual delivery or transfer of possession. In the absence of a deed, a parol bargain accompanied by delivery of possession suffices. The law does not require writing where possession is actual and continuous.
3. Continuity through the transfer. The successive periods must together form an unbroken chain. Any gap in possession — where the land was abandoned or relinquished before the next occupant arrived — severs the privity and restarts the clock.
---
Why It Matters in Research
For researchers working in property law materials, privity of possession is a term that appears most frequently in adverse possession and tacking doctrine, and its treatment varies enough across time and jurisdiction to require care.
In historical sources, the term surfaces in the context of landlord-tenant law as a component of privity of estate analysis — particularly regarding when an assignee's obligations under covenants begin and end. Bouvier's entries draw this out: the assignee is liable only while in possession under the assignment, and that possession is the operative fact. Researchers reading older landlord-tenant materials should note that "privity" was used loosely to cover both the formal tenure relationship and the factual possession relationship, sometimes without distinguishing them.
In adverse possession research, the critical question is how strictly a court requires the transfer of possession to be documented. Many nineteenth-century courts accepted parol transfers as sufficient. Some modern courts have tightened the requirement, demanding at minimum a written instrument evidencing the intent to transfer. Researchers should not assume that a jurisdiction that liberally permitted tacking in historical cases will maintain that standard today.
The connection to equitable servitudes is indirect but worth noting: unlike restrictive covenants enforceable at law (which traditionally required horizontal privity of estate between original covenantor and covenantee), equitable servitudes dispensed with that privity requirement. This doctrinal divergence explains why some property law sources discussing privity use the term in a way that appears to exclude possessory relationships entirely — they are operating in the covenant-and-servitude context, not the adverse possession context. Researchers moving between these areas of property law should keep the contexts distinct.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses privity of possession indirectly across two related contexts. In the landlord-tenant materials, Bouvier emphasizes that an assignee in privity of estate is liable on covenants only while in possession — framing possession as the operative limit of liability rather than the source of the privity itself. This reflects the classical view that privity of estate was created by the formal conveyance, while possession determined the duration of enforceable obligations under it.
In the adverse possession materials, Bouvier is more direct: the later occupant must enter under the prior one, obtaining possession by purchase or deed; but where possession is actual, it may commence in parol and be transferred by parol bargain and sale accompanied by delivery. The explicit acknowledgment that writing is not required — that parol delivery suffices — is an important data point for researchers. It reflects the practical, possession-centered approach that dominated nineteenth-century American property law, particularly in jurisdictions with active land markets and frequent informal transfers among settlers and small landholders.
What the historical dictionaries do not address clearly is the modern doctrinal question of how much connection is required. Bouvier states the rule but does not grapple with borderline cases: what if the transfer is involuntary? What if possession was temporarily interrupted? Modern treatises and case law have developed more granular tests that historical sources leave unaddressed.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Jurisdictions differ on how rigorously they enforce the privity requirement for tacking. Some states require a written instrument conveying the land or at least the possessory claim; others accept parol transfers as historically sufficient. A small number of jurisdictions have effectively abandoned a strict privity requirement for tacking, focusing instead on whether the combined possession was continuous and hostile. Researchers should verify controlling state law before applying historical rules.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia — Equitable Servitudes: Creation and Requirements (property_80): Directly relevant for understanding why privity — including possessory privity — is not required for equitable servitudes, which clarifies the concept by contrast.
---