Holy Cow, post: 426636, member: 50 wrote: ;););) That is a very long-lived cat. ;););)
I love typo's so much that I try to make sure that I produce several every day just to keep everyone else amused. Thanks for the chuckle, Paul.
I read it as Cat as in D8.
spledeus, post: 426570, member: 3579 wrote: Adverse Possession = OCEANH
Open
Continuous
Exclusive
Adverse
Notorious
HostileColor of Title is a plus and valid AP on a portion of a deed is grounds for claiming the entire deed.
Statutory Period. In MA, we have 20 years. RI is 10 as I recall. Isn't there a state or two with 7?
Prescription is AP without Exclusivity.
I have heard about other states with some slightly different requirements:
Payment of Taxes
IntentTechnically the title ripens at the end of the Statutory Period, but a Judge is typically required to rule that the requirements have been met. So if you give someone permission to use the land at the 21st year, then they still have the valid title. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof and it can be hard to prove AP. I have helped to have a few claims dismissed.
I am never sure why some claimants choose to bring the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts into their claims: "I took the Boy Scouts to these woods for camping trips over the 20 year period..." So you encouraged the Boy Scouts to trespass?
I have one now where the claimant ran a home preschool and they used to march in the woods and plant wildflower seeds here and there. Wholesome education there.
A construction company had a sand pit that was a good 60 acres with a survey of the extents that was 19 years old. Their valid title was to 10 or 12 of it. The advertised to expand and I was notified as an abutter (old unbuildable woodlot that may or may not have been partially in the pit). At the public hearing, a neighbor stands up and complains that they use his road when they should be using a different road. A title baron stands up and says that they cannot expand, for he owns the land upon which they wish to expand. Then I stand up. "Not sure where the land is. One surveyor put it here, another there. If the pit is over the line, I'd be more than happy to give the construction company permission to use the pit and if their attorneys need something in writing, I'd be more than happy to review and sign a license."
People looked at me like I had 7 heads. The next day I got a call from their attorney 'Do you know how much you screwed things up out there?" "Yup."
I now know where my woodlot is... about 1000 feet from the pit.
I've always heard, OCEANS, the S being Statutory time period. I see Adverse being equal to Hostile, in your example.
I've been party to a few situations:
1. Landowner had a paved driveway and well on adjoiner's land. It was fenced in also, for over 20 years. They went to court and won.
2. Adjoining business had employees parking on the client's land for about 19 years. Our survey discovered it, they put up a fence and stopped any attempt at a claim.
3. Client owns lake property that's been in the family for 60 years. Adjoiner has a survey, shows the deed line running through the house. Client's lawyer tells them that they've met the AP criteria, and don't have to do anything further, but keep asserting their use and claim to the land.
There may be a good reason why you can't find a case where parking on a neighbors land ripened into adverse possession. The location of something with wheels being an indication of continuous possession doesn't connect for me.
linebender, post: 426660, member: 449 wrote: There may be a good reason why you can't find a case where parking on a neighbors land ripened into adverse possession. The location of something with wheels being an indication of continuous possession doesn't connect for me.
If they've dug out a parking area for their use, or continuously parking on it without any permission, then it can be evidence of possession.
Trailblazer, post: 426551, member: 12701 wrote: If all the elements have been met....Can a landlord claim adverse possession against a neighbor if their tenants have been parking on the neighbor's land?
There's been a lot of discussion of whether parking meets the requirements, and various interpretations of AP.
Q1: But how about addressing the issue of landlord versus tenant as the party doing the possessing? Rephrase the question as "If all the elements have been met....Can a landlord claim adverse possession against a neighbor if their tenants have been the ones who fulfilled the requirements?" Or not because the landlord didn't do it themselves? Or do the tenants have the claim and not the landlord?
Q2: The basic list of AP requirements doesn't include paying taxes. Is that a requirement in some states and not others?
A Harris, post: 426578, member: 81 wrote: When a person knows where their boundary is, they can not make a claim to any other location.
I don't believe that to be true. When a person doesn't know where the boundary is, how can they assert intent?
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/supreme-court/1985/c-2858-0.html
"an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE å¤ 16.021(1). The statute requires visible appropriation; mistaken beliefs about ownership do not transfer title until someone acts on them. See, e.g., Bywaters v. Gannon, 686 S.W.2d 593, 595 (Tex.1985). Thus, there must be adverse possession, not just adverse beliefs.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/894796/tran-v-macha/
Texas Statutes for reference (Begins at 16.021):
Knowledge of the location of boundary is at the time of discovery, a major time element that can limit the claim
Holy Cow, post: 426636, member: 50 wrote: ;););) That is a very long-lived cat. ;););)
I love typo's so much that I try to make sure that I produce several every day just to keep everyone else amused. Thanks for the chuckle, Paul.
Let's see, cat or car, only a finger tip apart.
Paul in PA
Adverse Possession by a tenant, or anyone else using property with permission of an owner (such as an employee or invited guest), is possession by the owner. I don't have a citation at hand, but that's very basic AP law.
Bill93, post: 426664, member: 87 wrote: Q2: The basic list of AP requirements doesn't include paying taxes. Is that a requirement in some states and not others?
Paying taxes is not required in Oregon, although the court has stated that payment of taxes is strong evidence of hostility.
A Harris, post: 426578, member: 81 wrote: When a person knows where their boundary is, they can not make a claim to any other location.
In Oregon there are 2 flavors of AP, Statutory and Common Law. The common law version for claims that ripen before the 1989 date of the enactment of the Statute. As time passes the common law claims become less common.
Anyway...one of the requirements of statutory AP is that the possessor have the "honest belief" that the possessed property is his throughout the statutory 10 years. If one knew that he was trespassing on the lands of another he could not possibly have that "honest belief". So knowing where the true boundary line was would likely kill an AP claim in Oregon.
Trailblazer, post: 426551, member: 12701 wrote: I had a question come up and I can't seem to find any relevant court cases or anything in the Wisconsin Statutes pertaining to this...
If all the elements have been met....Can a landlord claim adverse possession against a neighbor if their tenants have been parking on the neighbor's land?
Thanks!
It could be part of the evidence of a claim. For instance, the tenant could testify that they were told by the landlord that landlord owned the area and they could park there. But generally, only those with right of possession can assert an AP claim. A life tenant can get adverse possession, but the line goes back to the deed line on death of the life tenant. But the act of the tenant parking there is not itself an adverse action on the part of the landlord, rather only on the part of the tenant. Conceivably, a right of prescription could ripen for the tenant, and go away for the next tenant.
Jurisdictions that require good faith belief in ownership allow AP to a known but mistaken line. Those that require bad faith do not allow AP to a known but mistaken line.
Yep, not only small differences between jurisdictions, but never know when things will be changed or appear to be changed by any given court decision. Still, some generalizations are true.
Consider the following: AP within a joint tenancy. Yes, it has happened. If say 3 joint tenants decide to mark out the thirds, then one continues to use one of the other thirds, they can get AP and have 2/3rds under the correct circumstances.
