ouster

(redirected from Ousters)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Ousters: oysters

ouster

n. 1) the wrongful dispossession (putting out) of a rightful owner or tenant of real property, forcing the party pushed out of the premises to bring a lawsuit to regain possession. This often arises between partners (in a restaurant or store) or room-mates, when one co-owner or co-tenant forces out the other, changes locks, or makes occupancy intolerable. 2) removal of someone from a position or office against his/her expectations or will.

ouster

noun deprivation, dislodgment, dispossession, ejection, elimination, eviction, exclusion, permanent exclusion, removal, repudiation
See also: deportation, discharge, dismissal, disqualification, disseisin, eviction, expulsion, layoff, rejection

ouster

the act of dispossessing of freehold property; eviction; ejection. OCCUPATION ORDERS are sometimes known as ouster orders or ouster injunctions.

OUSTER, torts. An ouster is the actual turning out, or keeping excluded, the party entitled to possession of any real property corporeal.
     2. An ouster can properly be only from real property corporeal, and cannot be committed of anything movable; 1 Car. & P. 123; S. C. 11 Eng. Com. Law R. 339; 2 Bouv. 1 Inst. n. 2348; 1 Chit. Pr. 148, note r; nor is a mere temporary trespass considered as an ouster. Any continuing act of exclusion from the enjoyment, constitutes an ouster, even by one tenant in common of his co-tenant. Co. Litt. 199 b, 200 a. Vide 3 Bl; Com. 167; Arch. Civ. Pl. 6, 14; 1 Chit. Pr. 374, where the remedies for an ouster are pointed out. Vide Judgment of Respondent Ouster.

References in periodicals archive ?
The only problem with this reasoning was that it neglected the statutory component of ouster. The statute clearly provides that the ten year period runs unless there is an ouster of fellow cotenants.(168) However, although the arguments in the brief certainly supported the common law theory of a presumed ouster, the plaintiff never addressed ouster, either actual or presumed.(169)
of three things happens -- actual ouster of the non-possessory
Instead, the presumption existed for ten years or until there was an ouster. Obviously, the possessing cotenant must prove the ouster, whether actual or presumed.
The Table illustrates the confusion that pervades the common law of states which continue to employ the doctrine of a presumed ouster.(198) In the absence of an actual ouster, the question is always whether the cotenant in possession has acted in a manner to put his fellow cotenants on notice.
Although a common law presumption existed, the concept of a presumed or inferred ouster waited in the wings and was ready to ambush the unwary non-possessing cotenant.
RPAPL section 541 was a revolutionary statute which could have been an example to sister states to solve the common law problem of a presumed ouster. Instead, the statute has been transformed into a "mind-buster" with no apparent solution.
The Second Department's holding reinforces New York's common law requirements of ouster and notice.
New York common law recognized the conveyance of a whole interest in the property as an ouster of cotenants.
(39) Ouster requires some showing that the possessing cotenant intends to exclude or deny the rights of his fellow cotenants.
The defendant's "adverse" conduct was so strong that the Third Department might have been indicating that an ouster of the plaintiff occurred when the plaintiff failed to seek an accounting or possession.
The Third Department never addressed the question of ouster and perhaps it meant ouster, when it stated "adverse possession." See id.
at 484 (stating that even though one cotenant may adversely possess if he or she ousts the other cotenant, such ouster will not be inferred from sole possession "unless accompanied with some notorious act, or claim, which is sufficient to give character to the possession"); see also Clapp v.