With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to ultimately claim title. Respondents’ argument would not allow this later period of adverse possession to be “tacked” with the period during which petitioners’ possession was adverse due to mistake. We are not persuaded. Tacking has long been accepted as a means of aggregating related periods of adverse possession into one for the purpose of satisfying the statutory minimum period necessary to ripen title in the adverse possessor. E.g., Beam v. Kerlee, 120 N.C. App. 203, 212, 461 S.E.2d 911, 918-19 (1995) (allowing a father’s period of adverse possession to be tacked with his son’s period of adverse possession in an attempt to satisfy the prescriptive period), disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 651, 467 S.E.2d 703 (1996); Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 585, 201 S.E.2d 897, 903 (1974) (<HOLDING>); International Paper Co. v. Jacobs, 258 N.C.

A: holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences
B: recognizing that successive adverse users in privity with prior adverse users can tack successive adverse possessions of land so as to aggregate the prescriptive period of twenty years
C: holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action
D: holding that termination is an adverse employment action
B.