Which of the following is an example that does not qualify for adverse possession?

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions, which typically require the use to be continuous, open, notorious, and adverse to the interests of the true owner. The correct answer reflects a scenario that does not meet these criteria.

In the case of someone entering an orchard and taking apples, this use is not sufficiently exclusive or permanent. Simply taking fruit from someone else's land does not demonstrate continuous and open possession; it is more akin to a temporary or casual trespass rather than a claim to ownership. For adverse possession to apply, the person must exhibit a clear intent to treat the property as their own, which taking apples does not establish.

In contrast, the other scenarios involve actions that could contribute to a claim of adverse possession. Building a fence indicates a clear intention to possess and define the boundaries of land. Paying taxes on the land shows a recognition and acceptance of responsibility for the property, which strengthens the claim. Cultivating the land for years illustrates continuous and active use, reinforcing the assertion of ownership.

Thus, taking apples from an orchard fails to satisfy the necessary criteria for a valid claim of adverse possession, making it the only appropriate option in the context of the question.