statutory period will generally, satisfy the traditional elements of adverse possession. Decisions involving acquiescence are frequently distinguishable from adverse possession cases only in that possession in the former are often based on a mistake as to the location of property lines. See generally Annotation, Adverse Possession Involving Ignorance or Mistake as to Boundaries — Modern Views, 80 A.L.R.2d 1171, 1173 (1961 & Supp.2002). This confluence between acquiescence and adverse possession principles militates against the Zeglins’ position, in light of this Court’s determination, presently recognized by both the Superior Court and the common pleas court, that privity of estate is a prerequisite to tacking under adverse possession theory. See Baylor, 540 Pa. at 441, 658 A.2d at 746 (<HOLDING>). Even so, the contrary analysis reflected in
holding that termination is an adverse employment action recognizing that independent analysis is  the only means by which the defendant can defend against expert testimony by the state  holding that lands held by a municipality in its governmental capacity may not be lost by adverse possession holding that the only method by which an adverse possessor may convey the title asserted by adverse possession is to describe in the instrument of conveyance by means minimally acceptable for conveyancing of realty that which is intended to be conveyed holding that congress intended the qta to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the united states title to real property emphasis added