3 ms·
Well then why not limit it to cases where there's no proof? I seriously don't see why someone with proof of ownership losing their property is necessary to solv
by mehrdadn 7y ago
Well then why not limit it to cases where there's no proof? I seriously don't see why someone with proof of ownership losing their property is necessary to solve any other problem.
- afiori 7y agoBecause you can have many concurrent proofs of ownership. For example someone sells a land twice, the first buyer leaves for 20 years and them come back with a better proof of ownership than the farmer that worked there 19 years.
- mehrdadn 7y agoBut in your case the second buyer has proof too. The law says they still own it even if they don't have proof and even if the first one does. Why is that necessary?
- afiori 7y agoHe has a proof of ownership. It is just that the only way to discover that his proof is invalid if when the first owner contest it.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Well then why not limit it to cases where there's no proof? Because abandonment of real property is a real phenomenon with externalized costs, so resolving disputed against an owner that has effectively abandoned real property was itself viewed as desirable. The time and openness of possession requirements mean that, in practice, adverse possession doesn't adversely impact anyone who hasn't effectively abandoned property.