1. The starting titles
Andrew validly conveyed the north twenty acres to Elmo in 1988. His later will could convey only property he still owned. Accordingly, the will initially made Bobby, Carol, and Dylan joint tenants with survivorship in the south twenty acres, each holding an undivided one-third interest. It did not make them owners of Elmo's northern land merely by describing the devise broadly as all Andrew's real estate.
Subsequent title depends on two different doctrines. Bobby may have acquired rights against Elmo through adverse possession of the north, while the south involves the more demanding rules governing an occupying cotenant's claim against other cotenants. Treating the whole forty acres as one inherited joint tenancy would obscure both issues.
2. The north half: Elmo and adverse possession
Adverse possession generally requires actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile possession continuously for the statutory period. Some jurisdictions additionally require payment of taxes. The question does not expressly direct use of California law or identify a limitations period, so the analysis should state the requirements without silently assuming a particular state's period.
Bobby entered without permission in 1990, cut trees, developed campsites, rented them to others, and kept the proceeds after taxes. Those are visible acts of dominion consistent with treating wooded recreational land as one's own. His use of tenants does not defeat possession; their occupancy is attributable to him. There is no indication that he acknowledged a license from Elmo or shared control with him.
Spring and summer use can satisfy continuity when that is the ordinary use of land of this kind. Constant year-round camping is unnecessary if the seasonal pattern reflects the nature of the premises. The course continued for approximately twenty-eight years before Bobby died and then continued under Sam. That exceeds ordinary adverse-possession periods, though the governing statute must ultimately be satisfied. Bobby's payment of all taxes supports the claim and meets an additional tax requirement if one applies.
The extent of possession remains important. The question says campsites were prepared on both halves, rather than that every part of the north half was enclosed or occupied. Without effective color of title, actual adverse use of isolated campsites does not necessarily confer constructive possession of every unused acre. The broad devise of property Andrew owned is a weak basis for claiming color of title to Elmo's previously conveyed parcel. If Bobby's visible campsite operation asserted dominion over the northern parcel as a whole, he likely acquired that parcel; if his actual possession was confined to particular sites, the acquired area may be correspondingly narrower. Elmo retains any northern land not lost through a completed adverse-possession claim.
Once the claim ripened, Bobby owned the acquired land and could devise it to Sam. If additional time were needed, the will supplies privity allowing Sam to tack Bobby's qualifying possession to his own. Sam therefore likely owns the adversely possessed northern land, subject to the geographic qualification, rather than a one-third inherited interest there.
3. The south half: occupation and severance
Every cotenant initially had a right to possess the entire south half. One cotenant's occupation and collection of rents ordinarily are not hostile to the others' title without an ouster or an unequivocal hostile claim adequately brought home to them. Bobby's improvements, tax payments, and retention of profits did not automatically start adverse possession against Carol and Dylan.
His 2017 response to Dylan is more confrontational, but the statement that the land would be his in the end may actually recognize the joint tenancy and expected survivorship. Even if the rejection of Dylan's inquiry amounted to notice of an exclusive claim or ouster, only about a year passed before Bobby's death. The facts do not establish a completed limitations period beginning with that event. Bobby consequently did not acquire Carol's and Dylan's shares merely by managing the land for many years.
Dylan's valid deed to Fred severed the joint tenancy as to Dylan's one-third share. Fred became a tenant in common with the remaining owners. Bobby and Carol initially retained survivorship between themselves in their combined two-thirds, but Carol then validly conveyed her own interest from joint tenancy to tenancy in common. The express validity of this deed removes any question about a jurisdiction's requirements for self-conveyance.
After both severances, Bobby, Carol, and Fred each owned an undivided one-third of the south half as tenants in common. Bobby's death therefore did not transfer his share to Carol by survivorship. His will transferred that one-third to Sam. Carol, Fred, and Sam currently hold equal undivided shares in the south, while Elmo's and Sam's northern rights depend on the separate adverse-possession analysis.
4. Taxes, rents, and claims involving Sam
A cotenant collecting rent from third parties must account to the other cotenants for their proportional shares, ordinarily after appropriate expenses and credits. Sam cannot keep all southern campsite rents simply because he performs the management. Carol and Fred can seek their respective shares of net rental income attributable to the south. Allocation matters because northern rents from land Sam owns individually are not common southern income.
Necessary taxes paid on the common property ordinarily support proportional contribution or a credit in the accounting. Sam may credit proper southern tax payments against the rents being divided; he cannot charge the entire forty-acre tax bill to the southern cotenants. He also cannot obtain reimbursement twice by deducting taxes before sharing net rent and then demanding the same amount separately. His occasional personal use does not ordinarily require rent to cotenants absent ouster or an agreement, although the facts and any exclusion of their possession rights could change that result.
Claims for Bobby's earlier retained rents principally concern Bobby's estate and applicable limitations periods, rather than automatically becoming Sam's personal liability for every predeath receipt. Sam is accountable for his own collections, and estate or successor-recovery rules may affect assets he inherited. Similarly, expenses of Bobby's voluntary improvements are not automatically a personal debt of the other cotenants; necessary expenditures and improvement credits in a partition or accounting require separate treatment.
If Elmo retains northern title, he may seek possession and appropriate rental or use remedies subject to limitations and the adverse-possession defense. If Bobby already acquired the northern land, Elmo has no ongoing owner's right to its later rents. Sam ordinarily bears the taxes on northern land he owns alone and cannot demand that former owner Elmo reimburse the costs of an adverse ownership claim. The essential accounting therefore follows actual title, location, time of receipt, and legitimate expense credits.