Hey, thanks for the response.

The purpose of property rights is to avoid the initiation of violence, therefore property title can't be legitimately transferred through the initiation of violence.

That sounds sensible. Though in this case B could object that it wasn't the violence that triggered the ownership change, but the subsequent use and improvement. Would his objection hold?

I think I agree with what your list of questions implies: that this hypothetical situation is very artificial, unlikely to obtain in the real world - absolutely. I hope you'll excuse me not trying to contrive plausible answers to them!