It’s a case of adverse possession pure and simple. Where was the adversity as pointed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Adverse possession doesn’t work here. Especially item number 2.
For the judge to have rights he must have been holding the land adversarially - keeping others out to retain exclusive use, etc. during the time of his “possession”. Looks like he was using it but there is no evidence he was keeping others from using it - until now. That is not enough time for the adversarial part to have been taking place.
And this from wikipidia: “In simple terms, this means that those attempting to claim the property are occupying it exclusively (keeping out others) and openly as if it were their own. Some jurisdictions permit accidental adverse possession as might occur with a surveying error. Generally, the openly hostile possession must be continuous (although not necessarily constant) without challenge or permission from the lawful owner, for a fixed statutory period in order to acquire title. Where the property is of a type ordinarily only occupied during certain times (such as a summer cottage), the adverse possessor may only need to have exclusive, open, hostile possession during those successive useful periods, for the required number of years.”
All that said, there is a reason you want to maintain connections to property you own. Adverse Possession laws were created for a reason.
No. the Wiki explaination is bad. All that's required is that the possessor use it openly and notoriously, and that the owner did nothing to stop it. Only te following part nof the Wiki explain is good:
"Generally, the openly hostile possession must be continuous (although not necessarily constant) without challenge or permission from the lawful owner, for a fixed statutory period in order to acquire title."