AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Can Adverse Possession Run Against A Foreclosing Bank ?

7 Posts
7 Users
0 Reactions
807 Views
paul-in-pa
(@paul-in-pa)
Posts: 6034
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Would not most banks fall under the exception that adverse possession cannot run against "idiots".

Paul in PA


 
Posted : July 19, 2011 8:44 pm
Dane Ince
(@dane-ince)
Posts: 571
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I look forward to reaponses on this one.


 
Posted : July 19, 2011 8:55 pm
stephen-johnson
(@stephen-johnson)
Posts: 2326
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

> Would not most banks fall under the exception that adverse possession cannot run against "idiots".
>
> Paul in PA

:party:


 
Posted : July 20, 2011 12:11 am
duane-frymire
(@duane-frymire)
Posts: 1923
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Can only run against those with possessory interest. So no, not until after foreclosure proceedings have ousted those with earlier possessory rights. But tacking will take place as well, if applicable. And no, banks don't get the idiot exemption even if they somehow bankrupt themselves, although it would seem that's a prima facia case for mental disturbance:)


 
Posted : July 20, 2011 6:12 am
ianw58
(@ianw58)
Posts: 41
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Two words: Trust Deed.

That is the permission to reside on the property. That prevents the clock from ever starting.

As was mentioned earlier, once the property has been foreclosed on, THEN the clock can start.

Oh, wait a minute. That's why the bank hires the Sheriff to remove the former owners.


 
Posted : July 20, 2011 6:37 am

james-fleming
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5732
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

> Two words: Trust Deed.

Three words: Lien Theory State. We don't need no stinkin' Deed of Trust to give us permission to reside on our own property.


 
Posted : July 20, 2011 6:49 am
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

There is an Oregon Case, Reeves v. Porta (1941), in which the encroached upon owners were absentee. They lived in Los Angeles, and held the property with intention of someday building a retirement home on it. They viewed the property perhaps 3 times in 15 years. The adverse possessor occasionally grazed a cow or two on the property.

The court ruled that the adverse possession would have to be of such a character that the owner would be aware of it, and when the owner was absentee that possession would have to be very substantial.

So I think that to prove adverse possession against a foreclosing bank, in Oregon, the possession might have to come in the form of a certified letter.


 
Posted : July 20, 2011 10:53 am