10 ms·

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a s

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he officially owns it! I understand the difference, but I feel like it would be more proper to say "Unlawful acts performed long ago, are hardly ever enough to amend the law."

jt2190 6y ago
It’s unclear, but it sounds like you’re saying that Texas law expressly allows this. Isn’t this the opposite of what happened in Oklahoma, i.e. there never was a law that reduced the government’s treaty obligations, so the law as written still stands? In other words, in both cases the laws, as written, were followed.
schmichael 6y ago
What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited statement refers to an unlawful act, over time, attempting to override the law. In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. The entire point of this ruling is that congress never passed a similar law to make this sort of action legal.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, sounds completely bonkers to me.
  - rossdavidh 6y ago
    As I understand it, there is a similar situation legally with regard to copyrights, trademarks, etc. If you don't enforce them, eventually, they are no longer considered valid. Note that IANAL and I haven't investigated this in depth. I think the idea is that most people aren't computers processing laws as if they were code; most humans have to primarily go by what they see happening around them in order to decide what is ok. If they see lots of cars going down a road, eventually they assume that it is public property, even if they never check the public records to see if it is. Similarly with lots of other things. But, crucially to the Supreme Court's majority decision, you have to have a law saying that this is so (for real estate or intellectual property or whatever), for it to be so, and Congress never did that.
    - skywhopper 6y ago
      True for trademarks since by definition it’s a claim on some unique usage of a word or mark. Not the case (anymore, as of 1976) for copyright, at least in the US.
      - pininja 6y ago
        The lone “Standard Oil” gas station in San Francisco is good example of Chevron holding onto a unique usage of that trademark. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/standard-oil-gas-station https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/standard-oil-gas-station EDIT: they have one each in 16 states, so not exactly “lone”
  - baddox 6y ago
    > because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status Yes, the point is there is a specific law that says this, and it's really not that unreasonable, since precise property boundaries are always ultimately conventional.
    - kelnos 6y ago
- bitbckt 6y ago
  IANAL, and other disclaimers. Prescriptive easement is not intended to apply to physical encroachment. It's intended to apply to right of way and ingress/egress issues. Otherwise, it would be an end-run around having to pay for the property. I don't think that principle would apply in GP's case. Adverse possession, however, may apply.
- knodi123 6y ago
  > If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. My jurisdiction does, of course, which is why I mentioned it. > None of this has anything, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited I disagree, strongly. I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law". Everyone acknowledges that the fence line was once illegal, in the same colloquial sense. Yeah, you're right, the ruling in the linked article is different, and governs the creation or removal of actual laws. However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    Most crimes have a statute of limitations. Why should moving a boundary illegally not have a similar limitation?
    - rocqua 6y ago
      That is criminal law, and about persecution. This is civil law. So there is no statute of limitations. Moreover, he isn't looking for retribution, but restitution. He just wants his land back.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > That is criminal law, and about persecution. This is civil law. So there is no statute of limitations. “prosecution”, but, no, civil law has statutes of limitations, too, in fact crimes without statutes of limitations are more common than civil wrongs without them. See, e.g., this discussion of California’s civil statutes of limitations: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civi...
  - melq 6y ago
    >I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law". Excuse me? What on earth does legal mean other than specifically being "in compliance with the law"? There is nothing colloquial about it, that's quite literally the formal definition. >However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on. This is not true at all. The whole basis for a prescriptive easement rests upon the fact that it wasn't forbidden. If you object to someone's use of your land, then their fence becomes illegal and is indeed forbidden. To acquire an easement, you need to prove that your use was not contentious, ie. specifically demonstrate that your usage did not contravene any prohibition. > If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on. I recommend you take a moment to reflect on how obnoxious this is, regardless of if you were correct in the first place.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  > In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. After enough time, the neighbor acquired the title to the land through adverse possession and the fence became legal. Before that, the fence was illegal as it was built on property that the neighbor did not own.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal No, what he is describing is adverse possession, which is different from prescriptive easement; adverse possession converts ownership, prescriptive easement provides an easement (usage rights without ownership.) > and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). No, adverse possession and prescriptive easement are both conditioned on open and notorious trespass, which is an illegal action.
supernova87a 6y ago
That one is a puzzler, and I encountered it with a neighborhood issue recently. Why are there some rights that are required to be periodically exercised in order not to be withdrawn? Didn't make sense to me.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Perhaps because they're not "rights"; they're legally-granted privileges. I agree that this sort of law is bonkers, but understand that no one has a "right" to own land[0]. That's a privilege conferred by legal frameworks, and only works because we all more or less agree to abide by them and live in civil society. [0] The US Constitution does not grant this right, and in fact the Framers were well aware of the divide between those who did and did not own land at the time, and considered landowners to be more deserving of participation in government.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    The source of the possession being law is understandable. I guess what is bonkers or could use some (historical?) explanation is why real property is given an allowance to be taken through use by others, when the ownership of the land is recorded (though probably unmarked physically). To some, extending that logic might say, I have a right to take this bike because it's just sitting in front of a house unused. Is it to help turnover unused land through the generations and ensure it doesn't sit idle without active use by a rich person? What's the purpose of such an allowance in the law? I'm guessing it comes from some old British reason.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      That's a really good question, and I wonder as well. I tend to believe that land is just different from things like manufactured goods. There's a fixed amount of land (modulo landfill and such), and we all have to live on it. People disagree as to how land should be used, and people believe they should get a say in how other people's land is used because land is a common good. Land isn't fungible; some people would prefer waterfront property, while others would prefer to live in the woods, but at the same time most people would prefer to live such that they're not too far away from other people, and from things like grocery stores. While there are certainly some people who do want to live remotely, that's not that common. Each plot of land is different, and one person controlling one plot of land means everyone else is deprived of that particular plot. So we basically say: "ok, you can own this land, but you have to use it in certain community-approved ways, and you have to actually use it; if you don't, we're going to take it away or require you to sell it to someone who will" (ok, the latter half of that is vanishingly rare). Or maybe "if someone else starts using it and you can't be arsed to notice, we're just gonna let them keep using it". And maybe that's not all that unreasonable, despite what I've said about this type of law being bonkers? But a bicycle is just a bicycle, and the supply of them is effectively infinite. If I'm not using mine, there's no bicycle limit such that my "waste" would cause someone else to not be able to use a bicycle. They can simply go to a store and buy one, an identical one, even, if they want. The same doesn't hold true for land: me owning and doing something (or not doing something) with a particular plot of land means that no one else can do something with that specific plot of land. If it's undesirable, or in the middle of nowhere where near-identical land is abundant, perhaps it doesn't matter. But if it's in a highly-desirable place where space is limited, it might matter. (And thus we have the philosophical basis for housing crises.)
pdonis 6y ago
> it's too late because he officially owns it! On what basis does he "officially own" it? Presumably there is a plat on file with your deed of title to your house and its lot that gives the boundaries of your lot, and another plat on file with your neighbor's deed of title to his house and its lot that shows the boundaries of his lot. Presumably both of those plats say the fence is on your property.
- CDRdude 6y ago
  Adverse possession is a specific thing in some jurisdictions where if you visibly and openly occupy a piece of land for long enough without a challenge from the original owner, it becomes your property and the original owner loses it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Adverse possession is a specific thing I know what adverse possession is. But there are specific conditions attached to it, which will depend on the particular statute in effect in the particular jurisdiction. For example, if the poster I responded to were to tell in court the exact story he told here--"I didn't realize the fence was on my property until I had a survey done, now I realize it and I'm bringing a challenge"--would the statute in effect in his jurisdiction bar him from seeking any relief?
    - gonzo41 6y ago
      I think the court would be very favorable to the poster. If only because adverse possession is not the sort of law that doesn't scan well with modern times. I know that's not how all law works but if that didnt work I'd go slip in his driveway during winter and bury him in frivolous lawsuits until the end of time.
sethammons 6y ago
That's odd. My neighbor built his house on the side of his property and inadvertently built it 5 feet over onto the neighbor's property. The way they worked it out was that my neighbor had to buy that portion of his neighbor's property. The alternative was to move (ie, destroy) the building.
- knodi123 6y ago
  this particular law varies wildly by jurisdiction
  - ender341341 6y ago
    Also by how quickly it is discovered/brought to court
    - mlrtime 6y ago
      Are there conditions on the effort made to revert back to normal? Example moving a fence is not the same as tearing down a 30 year old building crossing a property line.
Digory 6y ago
Several lawyers picked up on that on Twitter. It's definitely not a correct statement about every kind of "law." But it's right about statutes, sometimes called "positive law." English history gave us a very confusing legal structure, where there are statutes, (common) law, and equity -- all variously called "the law."
landryraccoon 6y ago
Adverse possession generally doesn’t apply to land owned by a sovereign. You cannot claim adverse possession against the United States, or against the state of Oklahoma, not even after squatting for many years. The Creek nations could be considered sovereign in this case, since they were party to a treaty with the United States.
- vmh1928 6y ago
  Here's a case where it took 15 years of court action to get someone off of a parcel of land in Tempe, AZ that was part AZ State land and part City of Tempe. The man claimed his family had been occupying the land since at least 1877 and claimed ownership via adverse possession. If you hit a paywall just search on "tempe squatter". https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2020/03/10/tempe-squatter-case-after-years-court-case-battle-steve-sussex-prepares-leave/5000964002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2020/03/10/...
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    The article says that the court found in favor of the state and the man had to vacate the land. That sounds like adverse possession wasn't enough to fight off the state when they wanted the land back.
emmelaich 6y ago
The dissent says that the 'reservation' was disestablished over time with the effect of many laws. So those 'unlawful' acts were, in fact not unlawful. The whole thing is an interesting read.
patcon 6y ago
Maybe it's different with a "nation". If a Frech national comes and builds some fences in Maine that stay for 10 years, can he claim they've moved the border of France? A little absurd, yes, but I'm not sure adverse possession applies so cleanly to state boundaries as people seem to be implying in a few HN threads...

jt2190 6y ago

It’s unclear, but it sounds like you’re saying that Texas law expressly allows this. Isn’t this the opposite of what happened in Oklahoma, i.e. there never was a law that reduced the government’s treaty obligations, so the law as written still stands? In other words, in both cases the laws, as written, were followed.

schmichael 6y ago

What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited statement refers to an unlawful act, over time, attempting to override the law. In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. The entire point of this ruling is that congress never passed a similar law to make this sort of action legal.

kelnos 6y ago
I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, sounds completely bonkers to me.
- rossdavidh 6y ago
  As I understand it, there is a similar situation legally with regard to copyrights, trademarks, etc. If you don't enforce them, eventually, they are no longer considered valid. Note that IANAL and I haven't investigated this in depth. I think the idea is that most people aren't computers processing laws as if they were code; most humans have to primarily go by what they see happening around them in order to decide what is ok. If they see lots of cars going down a road, eventually they assume that it is public property, even if they never check the public records to see if it is. Similarly with lots of other things. But, crucially to the Supreme Court's majority decision, you have to have a law saying that this is so (for real estate or intellectual property or whatever), for it to be so, and Congress never did that.
  - skywhopper 6y ago
    True for trademarks since by definition it’s a claim on some unique usage of a word or mark. Not the case (anymore, as of 1976) for copyright, at least in the US.
    - pininja 6y ago
      The lone “Standard Oil” gas station in San Francisco is good example of Chevron holding onto a unique usage of that trademark. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/standard-oil-gas-station https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/standard-oil-gas-station EDIT: they have one each in 16 states, so not exactly “lone”
- baddox 6y ago
  > because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status Yes, the point is there is a specific law that says this, and it's really not that unreasonable, since precise property boundaries are always ultimately conventional.
  - kelnos 6y ago
bitbckt 6y ago
IANAL, and other disclaimers. Prescriptive easement is not intended to apply to physical encroachment. It's intended to apply to right of way and ingress/egress issues. Otherwise, it would be an end-run around having to pay for the property. I don't think that principle would apply in GP's case. Adverse possession, however, may apply.
knodi123 6y ago
> If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. My jurisdiction does, of course, which is why I mentioned it. > None of this has anything, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited I disagree, strongly. I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law". Everyone acknowledges that the fence line was once illegal, in the same colloquial sense. Yeah, you're right, the ruling in the linked article is different, and governs the creation or removal of actual laws. However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  Most crimes have a statute of limitations. Why should moving a boundary illegally not have a similar limitation?
  - rocqua 6y ago
    That is criminal law, and about persecution. This is civil law. So there is no statute of limitations. Moreover, he isn't looking for retribution, but restitution. He just wants his land back.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > That is criminal law, and about persecution. This is civil law. So there is no statute of limitations. “prosecution”, but, no, civil law has statutes of limitations, too, in fact crimes without statutes of limitations are more common than civil wrongs without them. See, e.g., this discussion of California’s civil statutes of limitations: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civi...
- melq 6y ago
  >I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law". Excuse me? What on earth does legal mean other than specifically being "in compliance with the law"? There is nothing colloquial about it, that's quite literally the formal definition. >However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on. This is not true at all. The whole basis for a prescriptive easement rests upon the fact that it wasn't forbidden. If you object to someone's use of your land, then their fence becomes illegal and is indeed forbidden. To acquire an easement, you need to prove that your use was not contentious, ie. specifically demonstrate that your usage did not contravene any prohibition. > If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on. I recommend you take a moment to reflect on how obnoxious this is, regardless of if you were correct in the first place.
shkkmo 6y ago
> In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. After enough time, the neighbor acquired the title to the land through adverse possession and the fence became legal. Before that, the fence was illegal as it was built on property that the neighbor did not own.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal No, what he is describing is adverse possession, which is different from prescriptive easement; adverse possession converts ownership, prescriptive easement provides an easement (usage rights without ownership.) > and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). No, adverse possession and prescriptive easement are both conditioned on open and notorious trespass, which is an illegal action.

supernova87a 6y ago

That one is a puzzler, and I encountered it with a neighborhood issue recently. Why are there some rights that are required to be periodically exercised in order not to be withdrawn? Didn't make sense to me.

kelnos 6y ago
Perhaps because they're not "rights"; they're legally-granted privileges. I agree that this sort of law is bonkers, but understand that no one has a "right" to own land[0]. That's a privilege conferred by legal frameworks, and only works because we all more or less agree to abide by them and live in civil society. [0] The US Constitution does not grant this right, and in fact the Framers were well aware of the divide between those who did and did not own land at the time, and considered landowners to be more deserving of participation in government.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  The source of the possession being law is understandable. I guess what is bonkers or could use some (historical?) explanation is why real property is given an allowance to be taken through use by others, when the ownership of the land is recorded (though probably unmarked physically). To some, extending that logic might say, I have a right to take this bike because it's just sitting in front of a house unused. Is it to help turnover unused land through the generations and ensure it doesn't sit idle without active use by a rich person? What's the purpose of such an allowance in the law? I'm guessing it comes from some old British reason.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    That's a really good question, and I wonder as well. I tend to believe that land is just different from things like manufactured goods. There's a fixed amount of land (modulo landfill and such), and we all have to live on it. People disagree as to how land should be used, and people believe they should get a say in how other people's land is used because land is a common good. Land isn't fungible; some people would prefer waterfront property, while others would prefer to live in the woods, but at the same time most people would prefer to live such that they're not too far away from other people, and from things like grocery stores. While there are certainly some people who do want to live remotely, that's not that common. Each plot of land is different, and one person controlling one plot of land means everyone else is deprived of that particular plot. So we basically say: "ok, you can own this land, but you have to use it in certain community-approved ways, and you have to actually use it; if you don't, we're going to take it away or require you to sell it to someone who will" (ok, the latter half of that is vanishingly rare). Or maybe "if someone else starts using it and you can't be arsed to notice, we're just gonna let them keep using it". And maybe that's not all that unreasonable, despite what I've said about this type of law being bonkers? But a bicycle is just a bicycle, and the supply of them is effectively infinite. If I'm not using mine, there's no bicycle limit such that my "waste" would cause someone else to not be able to use a bicycle. They can simply go to a store and buy one, an identical one, even, if they want. The same doesn't hold true for land: me owning and doing something (or not doing something) with a particular plot of land means that no one else can do something with that specific plot of land. If it's undesirable, or in the middle of nowhere where near-identical land is abundant, perhaps it doesn't matter. But if it's in a highly-desirable place where space is limited, it might matter. (And thus we have the philosophical basis for housing crises.)

pdonis 6y ago

> it's too late because he officially owns it! On what basis does he "officially own" it? Presumably there is a plat on file with your deed of title to your house and its lot that gives the boundaries of your lot, and another plat on file with your neighbor's deed of title to his house and its lot that shows the boundaries of his lot. Presumably both of those plats say the fence is on your property.

CDRdude 6y ago
Adverse possession is a specific thing in some jurisdictions where if you visibly and openly occupy a piece of land for long enough without a challenge from the original owner, it becomes your property and the original owner loses it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Adverse possession is a specific thing I know what adverse possession is. But there are specific conditions attached to it, which will depend on the particular statute in effect in the particular jurisdiction. For example, if the poster I responded to were to tell in court the exact story he told here--"I didn't realize the fence was on my property until I had a survey done, now I realize it and I'm bringing a challenge"--would the statute in effect in his jurisdiction bar him from seeking any relief?
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    I think the court would be very favorable to the poster. If only because adverse possession is not the sort of law that doesn't scan well with modern times. I know that's not how all law works but if that didnt work I'd go slip in his driveway during winter and bury him in frivolous lawsuits until the end of time.

sethammons 6y ago

That's odd. My neighbor built his house on the side of his property and inadvertently built it 5 feet over onto the neighbor's property. The way they worked it out was that my neighbor had to buy that portion of his neighbor's property. The alternative was to move (ie, destroy) the building.

knodi123 6y ago
this particular law varies wildly by jurisdiction
- ender341341 6y ago
  Also by how quickly it is discovered/brought to court
  - mlrtime 6y ago
    Are there conditions on the effort made to revert back to normal? Example moving a fence is not the same as tearing down a 30 year old building crossing a property line.

Digory 6y ago

Several lawyers picked up on that on Twitter. It's definitely not a correct statement about every kind of "law." But it's right about statutes, sometimes called "positive law." English history gave us a very confusing legal structure, where there are statutes, (common) law, and equity -- all variously called "the law."

landryraccoon 6y ago

Adverse possession generally doesn’t apply to land owned by a sovereign. You cannot claim adverse possession against the United States, or against the state of Oklahoma, not even after squatting for many years. The Creek nations could be considered sovereign in this case, since they were party to a treaty with the United States.

vmh1928 6y ago
Here's a case where it took 15 years of court action to get someone off of a parcel of land in Tempe, AZ that was part AZ State land and part City of Tempe. The man claimed his family had been occupying the land since at least 1877 and claimed ownership via adverse possession. If you hit a paywall just search on "tempe squatter". https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2020/03/10/tempe-squatter-case-after-years-court-case-battle-steve-sussex-prepares-leave/5000964002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2020/03/10/...
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  The article says that the court found in favor of the state and the man had to vacate the land. That sounds like adverse possession wasn't enough to fight off the state when they wanted the land back.

emmelaich 6y ago

The dissent says that the 'reservation' was disestablished over time with the effect of many laws. So those 'unlawful' acts were, in fact not unlawful. The whole thing is an interesting read.

patcon 6y ago

Maybe it's different with a "nation". If a Frech national comes and builds some fences in Maine that stay for 10 years, can he claim they've moved the border of France? A little absurd, yes, but I'm not sure adverse possession applies so cleanly to state boundaries as people seem to be implying in a few HN threads...