HB5385 deletes three named sections of the West Virginia Code that the bill identifies as relating to adverse possession: §55-2-1, §55-3-1, and §55-3-6. The text is a straight repeal; it does not substitute new language or add replacement procedures.
The practical effect, if enacted, would be to remove those statutory provisions from the state's adverse-possession framework and leave gaps that courts, title companies, landowners, and long-term occupiers will need to navigate. That creates immediate legal uncertainty around how possession-based claims and procedural steps are handled in West Virginia.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals three specific code sections identified by title as connected to adverse possession. It contains no replacing language, amendments, or clarifying definitions—only deletions of §55-2-1, §55-3-1, and §55-3-6.
Who It Affects
Record owners with boundary or occupancy disputes, people occupying land who might rely on possession-based claims, county courts and clerks that process property suits, and title insurers and underwriters who underwrite marketable title in West Virginia.
Why It Matters
Removing statutory text that governs adverse-possession procedures could increase litigation, cloud titles, and change how quiet-title and ejectment claims are prosecuted. Professionals in real estate, title insurance, and litigation need to identify whether other statutes or common law will fill the void.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB5385 is narrowly drafted: it lists three code sections by citation and title and directs the legislature to repeal them. The bill itself does not offer substitutive rules, transitional provisions, or an express effective date or savings clause.
In short, it removes statutory content without supplying alternative statutory guidance.
Because the three sections are titled to address entry and recovery of lands, issuance of summons, and equitable defenses/adverse possession, repealing them eliminates whatever statutory procedures and defenses those provisions supplied. That does not automatically erase all legal doctrines that relate to adverse possession in West Virginia—courts may rely on other statutes or on common-law principles—but it does erase the specific statutory hooks those citations provided.Practically, expect immediate uncertainty in a handful of areas: how to start and serve ejectment or quiet-title-like actions that previously referenced or relied on the repealed provisions; what procedural defenses remain for someone alleging long-term occupancy; and how title examiners and insurers will treat chain-of-title issues that were previously resolved by those code provisions.
Title searches and pending transactions may face delays while stakeholders reassess risk.Finally, because the bill contains no transitional language, important implementation questions arise: Do pending cases that cited the repealed sections proceed under the old rules? Will courts infer continuity from related statutes?
Absent legislative clarification, courts and market actors will supply answers—likely through litigation and revised underwriting practices—creating a period of legal and transactional friction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals West Virginia Code §55-2-1, titled “Entry upon or recovery of lands.”, The bill repeals West Virginia Code §55-3-1, titled “Issuance of summons.”, The bill repeals West Virginia Code §55-3-6, titled “Equitable defenses; adverse possession.”, HB5385 is a straight repeal: it contains no replacement provisions, no express savings clause, and no clarifying language about pending cases.
By removing those sections the statute-based framework identified by the bill disappears; how adverse-possession disputes proceed will depend on other statutes or judicial interpretation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Removal of statutory provision titled “Entry upon or recovery of lands”
Repealing §55-2-1 takes away the named statutory section that, by its title, governs entry and recovery remedies for land. For practitioners that means a previously available or referenced statutory route for recovery may no longer be on the books; litigants will need to identify alternate statutory bases or rely on common-law actions such as ejectment or quiet-title suits.
Removal of statutory provision titled “Issuance of summons”
Deleting §55-3-1 eliminates the specific statutory language for summons issuance in the article that the bill targets. The repeal potentially affects procedural mechanics—service, notice, and initiation of claims—when those procedures were incorporated by reference into property disputes. Courts and clerks may need to determine which procedural statutes now govern affected actions.
Removal of statutory provision titled “Equitable defenses; adverse possession”
Repeal of §55-3-6 removes a statutory reference to equitable defenses tied to adverse possession. That change could limit or at least alter the statutoryly-prescribed equitable arguments available to parties; defendants who relied on a statutory defense language will have to assert common-law equitable doctrines or other statutory defenses instead.
What the bill leaves unsaid—no replacements or transition rules
HB5385 deletes code sections but supplies no transitional rules, savings clause, or alternative statutory framework. The omission matters: pending suits, title searches, and procedural practices that cited the repealed provisions will face ambiguity about whether the old rules still apply or whether other statutes or common-law principles control. That gap is likely to prompt litigation and administrative adjustments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Record title owners opposing statutory dispossession — Repeal reduces the statutory text that could be used as a pathway for someone to perfect title by possession, making it harder for possessors to base claims on the repealed provisions.
- Owners and counsel preferring litigation-based resolution — Parties who prefer resolving disputed boundaries through quiet-title or ejectment litigation may benefit from courts relying on broader common-law remedies rather than narrow statutory pathways.
- Legislative drafters and policymakers — The repeal forces the legislature to re-evaluate or re-draft adverse-possession law if it seeks a coherent statutory regime, giving policymakers a clean slate if they want revision.
Who Bears the Cost
- Long-term possessors or adverse-possession claimants — Individuals or families who relied on the statutory provisions for a pathway to clear title lose a statutory mechanism and may face higher costs to resolve claims.
- Title insurers and real-estate buyers — Insurers and purchasers face greater uncertainty about marketable title and may require additional searches, endorsements, or quiet-title actions, increasing transaction costs.
- County courts and clerks — Increased procedural ambiguity and a likely rise in quiet-title and ejectment litigation will impose administrative and adjudicative burdens on trial courts and county record offices.
- Neighboring landowners and small landholders — Boundary disputes that were once resolved by statute may become costlier and slower to litigate, imposing economic and practical costs on owners with limited resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between statutory certainty for resolving long‑standing boundary and possession claims (which facilitates clear title and predictable procedures) and the political or policy desire to restrict possession‑based transfers of title; eliminating statutory provisions protects record owners from a statutory route but transfers the problem into courts and markets, where uncertainty and costs rise.
The most immediate implementation challenge is statutory silence. The bill deletes three provisions but supplies no guidance on pending cases, retroactivity, or how to handle procedures that previously referenced those sections.
That silence forces reliance on other statutes or on common-law doctrines, which courts will have to interpret—creating litigation risk and short-term market disruption.
A second tension is practical: removing statutory language may shield some owners from procedural dispossession but also eliminates an established, predictable statutory route for resolving stale title problems. Title examiners and insurers price risk tightly; absent clear statutory rules they will likely demand additional litigation or endorsements to insure title, increasing transaction costs.
There is also uncertainty about whether the repeal was intended to eliminate the doctrine of adverse possession entirely or merely to excise certain statutory procedures—courts will probably be asked to reconcile the legislature’s intent with surrounding law.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.