I know a lot of you tried to help that poor fella with his math and legal description writing shortfalls, but I was more interested in the idea that you can claim adverse possession of a few rooms in a house -- and a parking space -- that you were allowed to live in and use by the grace of the true owner. At least, I assume he was allowed to live there, and that he didn't force his way in the house and successfully stave off eviction and arrest for trespassing for 10+ years. I mean, if he broke into the house and lived there for 10 years without the true owner knowing, that wouldn't satisfy the "open and notorious" element of A.P. And, conversely, if the owner invited him to move in, and knew he was living there (as I assume is the case) and allowed it, then it wouldn't satisfy the "hostile" and "exclusive" and "against the owner's interest" element of A.P.
I sure wish I could get an update on this if it ever goes to court (assuming this is a real case on not some troll's fantasy).
> I mean, if he broke into the house and lived there for 10 years without the true owner knowing, that wouldn't satisfy the "open and notorious" element of A.P.
No. For it to be open and notorious, the true owner would have to know about it. If the owner never knew about it couldn't be adverse. They would perhaps not want him there, but he refused to leave. That would make it open, notorious, and hostile to the title, in my opinion. He said something to that effect as well. He live there as a "hostile friend" or something like that.
As someone pointed out one of his lines was that he wanted to make it miserable for the sister. He didn't care about actually getting the property in his name, but he didn't want the other person to get it either.
This person demonstrated that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
In Ontario, as the "owner" knew he was there and she could have evicted him using the peregrinations of the local law.
He thus was at the will of the owner.
It is a significant stretch in Ontario to think just because you are in situ and no one turfs you out, you can gain an interest in a particular room or rooms of a building.
Cheers,
Derek
First that was no "poor fella". :-@
Second he was a freeloading vagrant that is trying get something for having worked on the house for free rent and board, IMO. Most of us knew he had zero chance of winning a case. If it is real, he is trying to sucker the sister into buying him off.
He did make for some interesting Jerry Springer verb-garbage. o.O
FIRST!!!...TROLL!!!!
Oh hell, nevermind it's just Pseudo. Sorry Pseudo :'(
Adverse possession of a room...
My wife has took adverse possession of my man cave... it now houses her stuff, LOL
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you...
I want my three hours back......;-)
Adverse possession of a room...
> My wife has took adverse possession of my man cave... it now houses her stuff, LOL
Now that, I imagine, happened very "open and notoriously"! Lol
To the Texans
I hope I didn't offend anyone on here by offering the guy advice. I bit my tongue until way down the thread. By then it was evident he was writing a description himself, without the services of a surveyor, and nobody was going to convince him not to do so. I don't encourage people to do that, but if he was determined, I wanted him to leave the metes out of it.
As for the AP part, I don't think he stands a chance. "Open and notorious" is not just about him and her. The neighbors need to believe it is his. I imagine he is known as the freeloader that won't pay his rent.
If he is such a grand builder and has written extensive software, why has he been mooching for two decades.
Just in case this guy is for real, you guys in Texas keep an eye out for me. I'm truly curious how all this would play out in court. Personally, I have never met a lawyer in Virginia that would take his side of this.
Mr. Troll got a few a bites on that bait! 😉
Reminded me of 'Loki Boy' who tried to turn squatters rights into a case of adverse possesion in an unoccupied Florida mansion a while back.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
It happened in Texas, too. They eventually kicked the guy out.
Then there was this guy in Florida who took over 31 abandoned/foreclosed houses, claiming adverse possession, and rented them out:
My personal favorite was the case (I think in Ohio) where upon the death of the husband the wife finds they own a house she didn't know about. Wife investigates and finds a mistress in place. Mistress claims adverse possession (amoung other claims). Mistress loses on all counts.
My gut reaction is the post was legit. It might have started out as boyfriend girlfriend thing, but things went south but she let him stay there. He doesn't really describe the realationship so you have to make some assumptions. It could be they lived together for years, but then you would think common law marriage would kick in.
He had zero legal claim to any of the property. He claimed they were partners, but had no documents to prove that. If he did, he wouldn't have been in the predicament he was in.
He wanted to be under the radar, for what reason I have no idea. It was his extreme arrogance that finally was the tell. He ignored well reasoned ideas ( and laws) and took the lesser ideas.
I just hope he didn't get any advise to help in swindling the rightful heirs of the estate.
I grew tired and didn't read all of the posts so maybe my take on it has been proven wrong already, but...
Are we assuming the poster was a man? "my best friend and partner.." Could this have been a domestic relationship between two women? If that is the case, I don't know how that would have an effect on common law in Texas.
>...Could this have been a domestic relationship between two women?..
Excellent point. Could be.
I don't think anyone has mentioned exclusivity. How could possession of a room in a house occupied by the owner be truly exclusive and at the same time be non-permissive? It's inconceivable to me.
I think that the lawyer is throwing a hail Mary pass in order to harass the sister into making a settlement. I doubt there is any real chance of a successful AP claim. Lawyers will try anything for as long as the money in the estate holds out.
I was thinking the same thing, but that might just backfire. I'd assume that if the sister in law has to sue to quiet title, she'll likely get a judgement for attorney fees and damages if the judge views this as a frivolous adverse possession claim for the sole purpose of attempting to cloud someone's title ... as the poster pretty much admitted.