Ninth Circuit: Walter Primrose Adverse Possession Identity Claim Rejected

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Walter Glenn Primrose for identity theft, passport fraud, and conspiracy against the United States.
• Primrose had lived under the stolen identity of Bobby Edward Fort for over 30 years, appropriating the name of a deceased infant.
• The court unanimously rejected Primrose's defense that his long-term use of the false identity constituted a form of adverse possession.
• Judge Danielle J. Forrest clarified that personal identity is inseparable from personhood and cannot be legally acquired through prolonged use.
• Primrose and his wife, Gwynne Darle Morrison, were each sentenced to 34 months for their roles in the identity fraud.

The Ninth Circuit unequivocally stated that a person cannot acquire legal rights to another individual's identity simply through prolonged use, firmly rejecting the notion that personal identity can be subject to adverse possession.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the conviction of Walter Glenn Primrose, who had been living under the assumed name of Bobby Edward Fort for more than three decades. Primrose, along with his wife Gwynne Darle Morrison, who used the alias Julie Lyn Montague, resided in Hawaii for 30 years before their arrest. The couple was convicted in October 2023 on charges including identity theft, passport fraud, and conspiracy against the United States, stemming from Primrose's appropriation of a deceased infant's identity.

The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Primrose's central defense, which posited that his prolonged use of the Bobby Edward Fort identity effectively made it his own. This argument was presented as a novel application of the property law concept of adverse possession, typically used to gain ownership of real estate through long-term occupation. Primrose contended that his continuous embodiment of the identity meant he could not be found guilty of making false statements or identity theft, as he had, in his view, genuinely become Fort.

At the heart of the appeal was Walter Primrose's unique legal theory, which sought to extend the principle of adverse possession—a doctrine allowing non-owners to claim property rights after extended, open, and notorious use—to the realm of personal identity. Primrose argued that his continuous and long-standing use of Bobby Edward Fort's identity, dating back to 1987, should legally legitimize his claim to it. However, the Ninth Circuit unequivocally dismissed this argument.

U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, writing for the panel in a 14-page opinion, firmly stated that there is no legal or logical basis to conclude that one can adversely possess another person's identity. Judge Forrest emphasized that an individual's identity is an intrinsic part of their personhood, not a separate entity that can be acquired through prolonged use. The court's ruling makes it clear that no matter how long someone uses another's name, they do not legally become that person, thereby setting a significant precedent regarding the inalienability of personal identity.

Beyond the overarching identity theft, Primrose's conviction included specific charges such as conspiracy to make a false statement to the Department of Defense and aggravated identity theft. These charges arose partly from his application for a Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reports System (DEERS) identification card, where he falsely listed his name as "Fort, Bobby E." and his birth year as "1967," certifying the information as true despite its falsity. The appellate panel also rejected his similar argument against the passport fraud conviction, maintaining consistency with their stance on identity.

Both Walter Primrose and Gwynne Darle Morrison received sentences of 34 months for their respective identity theft and conspiracy charges. During the pre-trial phase, an intriguing side-story emerged when a raid on their West Oahu home uncovered photographs of the couple in what appeared to be authentic KGB uniforms, along with military maps and coded documents, leading to speculation of them being Russian spies. However, prosecutors ultimately chose not to pursue this angle during the trial. The appellate panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Jay S. Bybee and Ryan D. Nelson, alongside Judge Forrest.

Prior to their sentencing, both Primrose and Morrison had filed motions to legally change their names, which were denied by U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi. Despite the denial, Judge Kobayashi acknowledged that the couple genuinely considered their assumed names, Fort and Montague, to be their true identities. In determining the sentences, Judge Kobayashi noted the couple's lack of prior criminal convictions and their apparent financial and educational successes achieved while living under their false identities.

However, Judge Kobayashi echoed the government's concerns regarding their continued use of the stolen identities and highlighted their evident lack of remorse. She directly addressed Primrose, stating, “I understand that you feel that’s who you are in the core your being. No matter how sincere you believe, that has no place in this sentencing.” This ruling firmly establishes a US identity theft conviction precedent, clarifying that personal belief or prolonged use does not grant legal ownership of another's identity, thus reinforcing the legal framework against such offenses.

This Ninth Circuit ruling establishes a clear precedent that the legal concept of adverse possession does not apply to personal identity, firmly rejecting arguments that prolonged use of a false identity legitimizes it. Lawyers should advise clients that such novel defenses in identity theft or fraud cases are unlikely to succeed, and compliance officers should reinforce robust identity verification processes.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service