Adverse Possession: Chaplin v Sanders
<blockquote>
  <p>The “hostility/claim of right” element of adverse possession requires only that the claimant treat the land as his own as against the world throughout the statutory period. 183The nature of his possession will be determined solely on the basis of the manner in which he treats the property. His subjective belief regarding his true interest in the land and his intent to dispossess or not dispossess another is irrelevant to this determination. Under this analysis, <strong>permission to occupy the land, given by the true title owner to the claimant or his predecessors in interest, will still operate to negate the element of hostility.</strong> The traditional presumptions still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this ruling.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>Chaplin v. Sanders</em>, 676 P.2d at 436.</p>

<hr>

<p>My question is regarding the bolded portion of the case. Here, when it says negate does it mean that the hostility element no longer applies? Or does it mean that there is a failure to meet this element?</p>

<p>It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.</p>

united-states property