He probably is nowhere near meeting the requirements.
If B.O.A. is listed as the owner of the house, then why can't they have police arrest/evict them? Makes no sense ...
I agree, wouldn't it be a simple matter of trespassing?
I also agree.
Seems like a simple matter of: "Get your butt out of my house, fool!"
Don
BOA should give him permission to be in the house for a limited period, after which he must vacate.
It's always interesting to read the comments. They are often better than the original story. This guy almost gets it:
adverse possession doesn't work the way they are claiming it does.
Here's an example of how it really works. I bought a property in 2007 that had been fenced in the wrong place. The west side fence was about 6 feet into the alleyway, the north side fence ranged from 7 to 11 feet onto the lot next to me, and the east and south fences were several feet into my property from the property line.
The fences had been up for about 40 years. And NO one has ANY adverse possession rights! Why? Because the east and south fences border main street and Hilty street. And the local government cannot gain adverse possession. On the west side where my fences extend into the alleyway, I cannot ever gain adverse possession rights AGAINST a government entity. And on the north side, where my fence has been on the property next door for 40 years, I have no adverse possession rights because I have only had the adverse possession for 5-1/2 years, not 7! See, when the person that put the fence up had it up for 7 years HE had adverse possession. But that is only a right of use. Not ownership! And when he died, his right of use under adverse possession died with him! Adverse possession does not transfer! And actual ownership of the property in question does not transfer! So even if the guy that broke into the house manages to stay there for 7 years, he still won't OWN the house. He will merely have a right of adverse possession. He can't sell that right (or the house), he can't give it to anyone else, etc.
And irregardless of what the story says, if the actual owner chooses to press charges, he is getting arrested! He is trespassing at the very least. And that removes him far quicker than any eviction proceeding would. He thinks he has found a loophole in the law. But if they could really get away with something like that, the lawyers would be doing it already.
My goodness
AP is a title doctrine and it is binding to my understanding.
With "tacking" The years of AP by a previous owner is not lost.
Requirements to meet adverse possession, if memory serves:
! Claim of ownership.
2. Open.
3. Notorious.
4. Hostile.
5. Length of time. 7 years?
I would make any bets on this one.
Dave
"wouldn't" make any bets. Damn autocorrect. 😉
> With "tacking" The years of AP by a previous owner is not lost.
I agree, but I think "tacking" may be up to the particular State laws. I don't know about Florida.
However:
re:
> I have no adverse possession rights because I have only had the adverse possession for 5-1/2 years, not 7! See, when the person that put the fence up had it up for 7 years HE had adverse possession. But that is only a right of use.
If AP had ripened by the last owner, it wouldn't be tacking when it was sold. The adverse possession would be transferred with the property (I think). Tacking would be only if 3 years were accumulated by the first owner, and when it was sold those three years would serve toward the total. If tacking weren't in place, the clock would start over if it hadn't already ripened.
Also, AP is not only a right of use. It is ownership. It would be a prescriptive easement if it were a right of use and not fee-ownership.
Of course I am probably not telling anyone here anything new.
From what I understand about adverse possession, the basic ideals are fairly consistent nationwide, but a lot varies from state to state. I am pretty sure that AP is transferable as long as the use is "continuous" with no gaps in use. Now this may be a PA thing, but if a municipality does not open an alleyway or road for 21 years, the municipality loses rights to it (however, the lots in the creating subdivision still have a right). The adjoining landowners can then file an AP claim against the rights of the lot owners, and not the municipality. I also ahve seen many municpal roads that are on private proeprty beacause they were moved for convenience (or whatever reason). I don't think a private landowner could close these roads off. What I do know for sure is that adverse possession is a very grey area and you can talk to 10 attorneys and get 10 different opinions. I just draw the maps and let the judges decide what is and what isn't AP.
In California the period is 5 years and AP requires payment of taxes.
Since Proposition 13 the Courts have been presuming that taxes are paid on the record title. Prior to Proposition 13 the tax assessors often would assess the property visually so what the taxes were paid on could be determined by the Court to be the possessed lot, not necessarily the record lot. I read an interesting article by a legal scholar who argues that since Proposition 13 the courts have it wrong because now we, in effect, self-assess when we visit the property and make an offer on it. Therefore he says the Courts should presume that the taxes are paid on the possessed lot, not necessarily the record one.
Most states require color of title or claim of right, and that the occupation be in good faith. Even if he files a quitclaim of some sort, that would only be an appearance of color of title. No court is going to enable a flagrant thievery. At most he has a free place to stay dry for awhile.