Although I wish the issues of Mr. Otis’ claim to Martin’s land was as simple and easy to resolve as Mr. Dickson has asserted, it is not. Both Mr. Dickson and I agree on Martin’s legal ownership the mountain property; however, our reasoning diverges over the status of Mr. Otis’ rights to the land and his rights under the state law. Mr. Dickson maintains “Martin[’s] possession of the property deed…[which proves]…he is the…legal owner of the land where Mr. Otis has chosen to settle. This deed should hold up in court and aid the eviction of Mr. Otis from the land” (Dickson, 2015). If adverse possession is considered theft; than the Scriptures support Mr. Dickson’s belief that justice should recognize Martin’s deed and property rights, by stating, “"You know the commandments…do not steal” (Luke 18:20, English Standard…show more content… Otis has as much right to the land as Martin. Under the North Carolina General Statutes §1-38 five requirements must be meet for an adverse possession claim to stand. First, the use of the property must be open - the land must be used openly not secretively. Second, the use must be notorious -it is used without the owner’s consent. Third, the use must be exclusive - the claimant acts as the true owner would through exclusive use of the property. Fourth, the use must be continuous - the land must be used continuously. And fifth, the claimant must have used the property for a period of 20 years (G.S. §1-38, 2006). Based on the facts of the case study, Mr. Otis’ claim satisfied all of these requirements. For example, Mr. Otis has lived on the property openly and without Martin’s knowledge or consent (notorious use). During that time he has built a cabin (exclusive use) and resided in the cabin (continuous use) for 20 years. Thus, under North Carolina’s laws, Mr. Otis holds a valid claim of adverse possession on Martin’s