New Zealand has a Torrens government guaranteed title system.
It is possible under NZ law to obtain title by adverse possession.
But here's a case where the Registrar of Lands seems to have got it very wrong
It will be very interesting to see what happens.
Because the new owner now has a guaranteed title I expect the previous owners will need to sue the Registrar.
I would have thought that paying rates would have been evidence enough of legal ownership.
We don't have adverse possession in south Australia. Title in indefeasible evidence of ownership.
Quite an interesting post,which shows how Government (servants) Officers are able to connive with the ilk of Mr. Schmuck.
Hint follow the money.
Adverse Possession is enshrined from Roman Law and is fairly Universal, though time-spans and terms vary.
Squatting in "Domestic " properties" in England e.g my house, when I am on holiday is now a criminal offence, though commercial properties still have to go the Civil Court.
Previously I would have to go through a Civil Court at great expense to
get my home back.
Maybe the Law should be changed to put the onus on the potential new owner to put a sign reading
THIS WILL BE MINE IN 12 YEARS TIME on his "Proposed acquisition"
It's puzzling that the NZ Torrens system allows adverse possession to occur. By state statute, property with Torrens title here in Minnesota is not subject to adverse possession. Sounds as though it is much the same in Australia where the Torrens system originated.
Every Adverser Possession case I have ever had any dealing with, the winner was not necessarily right. They had the best lawyer. One that was learned on the subject and could out speak anyone in the courtroom.
Very few times have I seen a case that went to court to have any actual legal grounds to be there when it was about adverse possession. In most every incident the boundaries were clearly marked and the real owner visited the property many times a year and would call out any claiming parties and show them their ways of error..
One District Judge always settled claims the same way. He divide the land into two parts and each party got half.
Many of the judges had more questions and it appeared that they were taking instructions from the lawyers as their case went along.
Once judge threw a case out of court and openly admitted that he was not hearing the case because he would never decide against the person that had staked claim to the land in question because he was so and so.
All that was 30+ years ago and I am so glad this county had come out of the money talks and Squire of the Land era.
Still today a local attorney will not take any complicated case that involves hometown authority as the aggressor.
The only on going case I can think of is two neighbors that really hate each other.
One owner had some timber cruiser to run a line by compass from a point the owner picked out, North, for nearly a mile.
Soon afterwards the other owner had his land surveyed and it was found the compass line was off nearly 12deg and neither end was near any corner. He put up a fence based upon the surveyed line.
Then argument started, complaints filed against each other from threats to damages, and then lawsuit started. All this started at least 5yrs ago and still is in limbo.
I've never seen nor understood why it became a case to be heard in court because one guy was claiming his on the fact that somebody with a compass showed him where it should be and the other hired a surveyor. Nobody lost any land or was any part of the property any more valuable than any other part of the property.
Both are prominent parties and I reckon the attorneys and courts just wanted to take their money, which both have spent a mint.
BTW, I was not the surveyor nor did I run the compass.