Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion Point: Avulsion

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion Point: Avulsion

    In Property law, avulsion refers to a sudden loss or addition to land, which results from the action of water. It differs from accretion, which describes a gradual loss or addition to land resulting from the action of water. This distinction becomes important where a river forms the boundary between two riparian owners. In many states (though not all), if the river changes channels by avulsion, the boundary does not change; it remains in the middle of the old channel. (This is why if you look at maps of the lower Mississippi river, you will find that some land on the east side of the river is part of Arkansas, and some land on the west side of the river is part of Tennessee. The river changed course quickly, so the state boundary did not change. See State of Arkansas v. State of Tennessee, 246 U.S. 158.) However, as a river gradually changes through accretion, the boundary changes with it.
    To prove that a change was avulsion and not accretion, it is sufficient for the owner of land which was washed away to point out approximately as much land added to the opposite bank as washed away from his bank (Goins v. Marryman, 80 P.2d 286.).

  • #2
    In Property law, avulsion refers to a sudden loss or addition to land, which results from the action of water. It differs from accretion, which describes a gradual loss or addition to land resulting from the action of water. This distinction becomes important where a river forms the boundary between two riparian owners. In many states (though not all), if the river changes channels by avulsion, the boundary does not change; it remains in the middle of the old channel. (This is why if you look at maps of the lower Mississippi river, you will find that some land on the east side of the river is part of Arkansas, and some land on the west side of the river is part of Tennessee. The river changed course quickly, so the state boundary did not change. See State of Arkansas v. State of Tennessee, 246 U.S. 158.) However, as a river gradually changes through accretion, the boundary changes with it.
    To prove that a change was avulsion and not accretion, it is sufficient for the owner of land which was washed away to point out approximately as much land added to the opposite bank as washed away from his bank (Goins v. Marryman, 80 P.2d 286.).

    Comment


    • #3
      The Maori claimed the land.
      --------------------
      "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. " - Thomas Jefferson

      Comment

      Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

      Home Page

      Immigration Daily

      Archives

      Processing times

      Immigration forms

      Discussion board

      Resources

      Blogs

      Twitter feed

      Immigrant Nation

      Attorney2Attorney

      CLE Workshops

      Immigration books

      Advertise on ILW

      EB-5

      移民日报

      About ILW.COM

      Connect to us

      Questions/Comments

      SUBSCRIBE

      Immigration Daily



      Working...
      X