I would caution tinkering with A.P. Statutes. It has a relevant use today as JB Stahl has explained a number of times.
Washington's Adverse Possession statutes could probably use some modification. They are a bit complicated.
There are places that don't have AP and they get on very well. Washington's neighbor to the north, British Columbia, has no AP. Torrens Title and all that.
You will have to get past the common law and the legal profession.
In BC the attorneys have rolled over and accepted torrens law. Just try that here in the US and you will see what you are up against. We had it for a few years here in Ohio but it had the potential to eventually cut way down on legal cases regarding boundaries. Now just a memory.
Are chapters 5309 & 5310 O.R.C. still on the books?
Oregon had a Torrens Title system for a while but as it was not required for property owners to participate, pretty much only those properties with title problems were entered into the system. Claims vastly exceeded the receipts from registering and the fund soon went broke. It was repealed.
About 20 years ago, Adverse Possession was incorporated into the Oregon Revised Statutes rather than being left to common law. Of the normal elements, payment of taxes was not required, however
(b) At the time the person claiming by adverse possession or the person’s predecessors in interest, first entered into possession of the property, the person entering into possession had the honest belief that the person was the actual owner of the property and that belief:
(A) By the person and the person’s predecessor in interest, continued throughout the vesting period;
(B) Had an objective basis; and
(C) Was reasonable under the particular circumstances;
There were attempts about 10 years ago to amend the law to require payment of taxes on the claimed property, and defeat the claim if the subject property was contained in the recorded deed of someone else. The bills did not pass in the legislature.
Your claim of ownership is adverse to any claim made by any one else in the world.
There is no 'legalized land theft' connected with adverse possession.
The consequence of allodial land is that the agency gov't we have in the US has no authority over the disposition of land, only the types of use.
Remember, we have a gov't 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.
In every level of our gov't, the 'officials' are our employees and they have no 'soveriegn' authority.
Protecting our land ownership is our individual responsibility with the gov't limited to helping us protect our rights but they cannot 'take over' any responsibility of the citizen.
Under our form of land ownership, you have a generous period of years to eject trespassers.
The deed does not 'convey' title, it merely identifies who has standing to ask the gov't for help in protecting their ownership rights.
Title to allodial land, as opposed to feudal land, is established by unchallenged occupation and control by the one holding title.
Check Black's law dictionary definitions of 'Fee Simple' and 'Alienation' before you try to destroy the basis for your own land ownership rights.
Richard Schaut
I would certainly support that law. I agree with the intent completely.
I agree that Washington should change their law as it is one of only a couple of States left that allow "legalized land theft". But the proposed changes do not address the problem very well. These "squatters rights" type statutes (and common law counterpart) have definitely outlived any justification for them. But they shouldn't be taken as a valid argument for doing away with AP altogether. AP still serves a useful and justified purpose if the requirements are reasonable. But one should not be able to merely occupy land they know does not belong to them, with the hope that the law will someday give it to them if they improve it and stay long enough.
We have a homestead patent dated 1939 signed by FDR, the president. 2 years ago we were removed at gunpoint by law enforcement. Local court overrode and awarded federal granted land to local water entity and a non-profit organization. First lawsuit by water entity filed in 56' was decided in 60's was decided original homestead patent was valid and awarded all rights, mineral and water forever. We have all documents and maps supporting and superseding all current claims. This non-profit organization has history of such court cases and have successfully fraudulently acquired land and stolen the land from other families and pioneers of this county. The non-profit organization is a surrogate to the water entity to initialize these cases due to the law they are unable to lawfully sue any individual.
Thus bringing the reason we are contacting you. In hopes you may be able to help us. I was born in 1961 into this lawsuit, 5yrs after the first lawsuit filed by water entity. So every step of my life has been trying to protect and hold onto my families land. Please guide us to anyone that will listen and read the fine line which was passed in congress on May 20 1862 to secure homestead to the pioneers. We know you might know of a person that isn't scared or influenced by public entities and non-profit organizations. Look forward to hearing from you & appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Clinton J. Guidry
760-505-9620
7559 Sturgess Ave
La Mesa, Ca 91941
Due to this life struggle I may be unreachable so please also contact my friend Michelle Zahalka
805-698-0509
[email protected]
14556 High Pine St,
Poway, Ca 92064