> Pesky in laws.
>
> 1 Widow would not sell to neighbor because they wanted to pay less than half the value of the land.
>
> 2 Neighbor's Daughter in law was manager of Title Company
>
> 3 Manager of Title Company was using position at Title Company as a leverage in land deals
>
> A few years later this manager was forced into retirement.
>
> IMVHO, she should have been prosecuted into a prison term.
I strongly agree with that last sentiment.
B-) :{:
I don't have a dog in this hunt because surveying and such in Texas is best left to those qualified. I did do some reading however, and unless I've read it wrong, once notified the title owner must bring suit against the adverse possessor within a three year period or the adverse possession ripens.
This is quite a bit different than Oklahoma case law where the burden of proof and litigation is left mainly to the claimant and not the titled owner. So Randy's got a good grasp of the situation when he stated "this stinks to high heaven".
But it's sorta like Schroedinger's Cat in physics. It either did or didn't happen and you might as well consider both alternatives to exist until a court opens the case and decides.
Adverse Possession Claimed
> Did a boundary survey of a 300 acre property about a month ago for a sale.
This isn't in Hays County along Onion Creek near the Blanco County line, by any chance, is it?
Because it is still in the same family you can make a continuous claim, My father always said our property went to this point. Growing up I always thought that was the property line.
Texas has several court cases on adverse possession. Some only take 3-5 years for adverse other types are 10, and a full ripen is 25 years.
> Because it is still in the same family you can make a continuous claim, [. . .]
Hmm, I can't find any reference (including Texas) that requires that a successor owner has to be a relative of the prior owner in order for tacking to have an effect. One would think that any successor owner, relative or not, would have the same rights to continue the adverse possession for the porposes of establishing the statutory period.
To satisfy a limitations period, peaceable and adverse possession does not need to continue in the same person, but there must be privity of estate between each holder and his successor
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch 959 Sec 1, eff Sept 1, 1985
It was my understand that when land was sold or inherited between family the privity was implied. I recall reading this when I was studying for my RPLS exam, we I get a chance I will look thru my notes.
You are correct they could have the same rights, but they would have to be told hey in 1976 we put this fence up and decided it was the boundary.
I'm with Willi on this one. All we can do as surveyors is measure things, make opinions, state facts we feel may be relevant, draw maps citing said opinions, and go cash a check.
The courts decide who is entitled to whatever strip of land or suspect property involved. Better yet, do a property line adjustment and go cash some more checks with some happy clients. Happy clients are good clients..... yes 😉
I've been involved in 2 adverse possession claims in my career. Didn't like either, mostly because I thought my client was just a greedy dych head wanting more than they owned. I never had to go to court over them (whew), but believe they both lost due to the fact that: 1) not enough time passed, 2) title passed, 3) it was not "adverse", notorious or even open. Not sure of their respective legal fees, but no doubt it exceeded my survey fees. (damn... :-O )
Every state has different rules for certain. As a surveyor, I'll just make the map of the situation as I see it. Can I render opinions, yes. Can I suggest a course of action, no.
Edit: One thing I've suggested to people who think somebody is trying to obtain adverse possession rights is to just write them a certified letter saying in effect "...yes, I'll let you drive on my driveway for a while..", thus negating the "adverse" part. I'll also point out that they may in the future have to face an easement claim if they push it, but likely not.
I don't know about Texas, but there is a concept called "tacking" where the time element, can be "tacked" on to subsequent owners. That may be something in play, and/or perhaps it has to do with ownership in the same family as inferred.
> But it's sorta like Schroedinger's Cat in physics. It either did or didn't happen and you might as well consider both alternatives to exist until a court opens the case and decides.
I agree. Both concepts are true. You don't have "clear title" so to speak if one of the parties is making an adverse possession claim, and the other party has deed to the deeded line. It can only be "cleared" when a judge makes the call.
On the other hand I have read cases where the courts have declared that the adverse claim took effect when all of the elements of the adverse possession claim had ripened. That is to say that the judgement may have been made in 2010, but the judgement might have agreed that it had been owned by the claimant since 2001...
The clock on when ownership has occurred when the claim has ripened, but it is not known that it ripened until a judgment has confirmed it so. The judgment could go the other way, so the title is clouded. That lawyer created a cloud on the title if nothing else the way I see it.
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
If title passed years ago when the fence was whole and in use it can pass back to the creek after the fence was gone.
Paul in PA
QUICK!
GET THE TEXAS STRETCH-A-FENCE COMPANY OUT THERE!
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
> If title passed years ago when the fence was whole and in use it can pass back to the creek after the fence was gone.
Only if the deeded owner, who lost his title to the AP'd area, counter-adversely possesses.
QUICK!
> GET THE TEXAS STRETCH-A-FENCE COMPANY OUT THERE!
I'm willing to wager lunch that this claim by the supposed adverse possessor is based entirely upon the ignorant belief that the existence of an old fence is conclusive. On the other hand, if this is a property in Hays County on Onion Creek near the Blanco County line (Randy is in Blanco County), the story is that the fence is an adjudicated boundary. The title company should have picked up the lawsuit and judgment.
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
> Only if the deeded owner, who lost his title to the AP'd area, counter-adversely possesses.
Would be something like "re-posses that which was formerly adversely possessed"?
I didn't mean that to sound like a smarty but is that about right?
E.
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
> > If title passed years ago when the fence was whole and in use it can pass back to the creek after the fence was gone.
> Only if the deeded owner, who lost his title to the AP'd area, counter-adversely possesses.
But in the fact situation described, i.e. dilapidated convenience fence along creek that years ago ceased to function, it's highly unlikely that neighbor across the creek has any element of what is required to perfect title by adverse possession in Texas under any of the statutes:
- Actual possession? Nope.
- Open, notorious, and hostile possession? Nope.
- Possession under color of title? Nope.
- Constructive possession under description of deed? Nope.
What this whole train-wreck-in-the-making will boil down to is: "Who is the more sympathetic party to the lawsuit in the eyes of the jury?" Sorry, but that's how the statutes on adverse possession are typically applied at the District Court level in rural counties such as Randy's.
Adverse Possession Claimed
Kent,
Nope this is around the Chimney Valley area.
Don't know how the neighbors got wind of the sale other than seeing the real estate sign and my crew.
Creek is flowing, but barely right now, my crew did have to wear waders in some spots to get the centerline shot in.
Good Thing I have already been paid.
Randy
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
> .... it's highly unlikely that neighbor across the creek has any element of what is required to perfect title by adverse possession...
Please check out the case of Nooteboom v. Bulson which I linked above. While it is true that there does not appear to be any active possession now, that doesn't mean there never was. After all, the fence was built for a reason. The across-the-creek adjoiners may have been keeping a pride of lions up to that fence between 1940 and 1960, and they have old memories, documents, and pictures to prove it.
Furthermore, acts of possession don't have to be in your face to be effective. If the property was used as recreational property and the owner visited it only a day or 2 a year in hunting season, that may be sufficient.
If acts of possession perfected AP title 50 years ago and then said acts ceased it doesn't matter. Title passed.
I'm not saying that this happened here, but it does happen, and when you find broken down remnants of a possession line you should consider the possibility.
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
> Would be something like "re-posses that which was formerly adversely possessed"?
You've got it, Eric.
Reverse Adverse Possesion Claim
Maybe, (as Kent above suggested,about Slander of Title) your client could file a counter-lawsuit, for mucho dollars, for slander of title. I mean, right now, these folks probably don't think they have much to loose, and that could set the jar upright again.
Nate