4 ms·

Also known as Adverse Possession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

by cj 3y ago

downvotetruth 3y ago
Depends on the jurisdiction as in Louisiana (Civil Law) that's known as acquisitive prescription.
- SllX 3y ago
  Louisiana is a bit of an odd-duck in the Law. Most laws in the United States are largely in the Anglo-American tradition (English, modified by American Constitutional values and subsequent jurisprudence). Its Civil law is more akin to Spanish/French law which is to say law in the Roman tradition.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    My understanding is that water rights law in the Western (or at least southwestern) US is also largely influenced by Napoleonic / Spanish law, as distinguished from that generally east of the Rockies. (Don't take this as gospel, I'm ... not on firm ground here.)
    - SllX 3y ago
      To a much much lesser degree than Louisiana, there are some French and Spanish influences on California law, but it’s basically Anglo-American for the most part. I won’t speak to the rest of the West.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        To be clear, I'm talking specifically about water rights. The Western rule is typically "prior appropriation", as opposed to "riparian rights" which dominate the Eastern states: Water is very scarce in the West and so must be allocated sparingly, based on the productivity of its use. The prior appropriation doctrine developed in the Western United States from Spanish (and later Mexican) civil law and differs from the riparian water rights that apply in the rest of the United States. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_righ...> Not relevant to TFA, just a note on law and its varying origins within US jurisdictions.
bombcar 3y ago
It varies from state to state in the US - some require that you possess it for 20+ years AND pay all associated taxes on the property. The second is hard to do if the owner is at all alive or available.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Here in Poland it is 20 years if in "good faith" - the person living there though they have rights for it (which is... weird in inself but I guess it can happen) but whole 30 if in "bad faith" (i.e. they knew but owner didn't do anything with the area).
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > the person living there though they have rights for it (which is... weird in inself but I guess it can happen) I imagine it happens more often than you'd expect - consider complicated inheritance laws, and so forth. Parent dies without a will, verbally agreed with sibling that you'd take it, you thought you owned the property but after decades sibling dies and sibling's son inherits all of parents property including part-ownership, and so comes after you for half of the property.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Yeah or simply "parent had some property kids didn't knew they bought". Or it was some "a bunch of people owns some fraction of property and nobody cared enough to deal with it". One weird case I saw was some property where brother owned 5/6 and sister owned 1/6 of it. Turns out after father died mother,sister and brother each got 1/3, but mother put all of hers in will to be given to the brother
      - ashirviskas 3y ago
        >One weird case I saw was some property where brother owned 5/6 and sister owned 1/6 of it. >Turns out after father died mother,sister and brother each got 1/3, but mother put all of hers in will to be given to the brother Wouldn't that make it 2/3 for the brother and 1/3 for the sister?
clove 3y ago
I recently covered a case in which a couple planned on engaging in adverse possession by first killing the homeowner. Chilling. https://youtu.be/kX3UB7NQCMs https://youtu.be/kX3UB7NQCMs
- matt-attack 3y ago
  Neat story, thanks for sharing. Sounds like he would have got away with it if he was just a tad brighter.
hirvi74 3y ago
I looked up my state(TN) and it's 20 years of squatting and property taxes. The requirements are: 1. Must enter the land without the owner's permission (hence the term "adverse"); 2. Must actually be on the land, using and caring for it as if it were his or her own; 3. Must use the land and/or structure in an open manner (in other words, it may not be secretive or covert); and 4. Must use the land continuously for seven years, without sharing this possession with others (unless it's possession by tenants in common). My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws? It seems like one could easily be arrested for many other laws within the first 19 years like trespassing, theft, vandalism, etc.. Do it for a week and you are criminal; do it for twenty years and you are a homeowner? Surely, it can't work like that, right?
- mdasen 3y ago
  > Do it for a week and you are criminal; do it for twenty years and you are a homeowner? I feel like adverse possession was meant to solve a real world issue, not some strange takeover of property. For example, let's say that we're neighbors. We both own our homes. There's been a fence between our properties for 150 years. Generations of owners have used the property with the fence demarcating the boundary. They've had cookouts, put up swing sets, mowed the lawn, whatever. Then you come along and are like, "I think my property actually extends 20 feet past the fence. You need to move your fence." Maybe you're "technically right" if you get a surveyor to come by based on the original plans. The point of adverse possession in this case is that generations of owners have seen that fence as the boundary. People have bought and sold the properties with the fence as the boundary. It makes more sense for society for the fence to remain the boundary. All of society has acknowledged that fence as the boundary for 150 years. You didn't buy your property thinking that the fence wasn't the boundary. The "without permission" bit isn't about doing something with evil intent necessarily. It's there to differentiate between a case where an owner knowingly gives you permission to use their property. If I come to you and say "hey, can I put a fence here? I know it's your property, but it makes more sense to put the fence here" and you agree to that, there's no ambiguity about the ownership. If I decide to put up a fence between our properties, but the fence is in reality on your property, you have a limited amount of time to challenge that. Why? Because at some point we have to deal with the reality on the ground. Maybe I made a mistake and the fence is 5 feet onto your property, but a hundred years later it makes more sense to go with the reality on the ground. If I built a home on what I thought was my property and then some surveyor comes by 50 years later and is like "huh, the house is actually 2 feet over the line onto this other property," a wise and just ruler wouldn't say, "then the house will be torn down!" A wise and just ruler would think "if the owner of the other property thought that they owned the land the house occupied in a conspicuous and open manner, they would have said something earlier." > My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws? I think the answer is that you can't. Adverse possession wasn't meant to be a free way to get property. It was meant to resolve property disputes that would be way more disruptive than just letting the status quo continue existing. It's meant to avoid "well technically..." crap. Everyone in the town knows that's your property. The abutting owner saw or should have seen your use of it over a long period of time. They probably thought it was your property too. Turns out that technically the site plan was a bit different than everyone in the town knew. It makes more sense to go off what everyone thinks is true than to try and re-state reality, bulldoze houses, etc. At some point, the reality in the world should take precedence over some piece of paper from along time ago. In a comical fashion, yes, do it for a week and you're a criminal; do it for 20 years and you're an owner. In a less comical fashion, put your fence in the wrong spot for a year and the other owner forces you to move it; if it's been generations and everyone thinks the fence is on your property, then the fence is on your property and some future owner doesn't get to "well technically I found this old document that says..."

Also known as Adverse Possession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

by cj 3y ago

Also known as Adverse Possession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

downvotetruth 3y ago

Depends on the jurisdiction as in Louisiana (Civil Law) that's known as acquisitive prescription.

SllX 3y ago
Louisiana is a bit of an odd-duck in the Law. Most laws in the United States are largely in the Anglo-American tradition (English, modified by American Constitutional values and subsequent jurisprudence). Its Civil law is more akin to Spanish/French law which is to say law in the Roman tradition.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  My understanding is that water rights law in the Western (or at least southwestern) US is also largely influenced by Napoleonic / Spanish law, as distinguished from that generally east of the Rockies. (Don't take this as gospel, I'm ... not on firm ground here.)
  - SllX 3y ago
    To a much much lesser degree than Louisiana, there are some French and Spanish influences on California law, but it’s basically Anglo-American for the most part. I won’t speak to the rest of the West.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      To be clear, I'm talking specifically about water rights. The Western rule is typically "prior appropriation", as opposed to "riparian rights" which dominate the Eastern states: Water is very scarce in the West and so must be allocated sparingly, based on the productivity of its use. The prior appropriation doctrine developed in the Western United States from Spanish (and later Mexican) civil law and differs from the riparian water rights that apply in the rest of the United States. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_righ...> Not relevant to TFA, just a note on law and its varying origins within US jurisdictions.

bombcar 3y ago

It varies from state to state in the US - some require that you possess it for 20+ years AND pay all associated taxes on the property. The second is hard to do if the owner is at all alive or available.

ilyt 3y ago
Here in Poland it is 20 years if in "good faith" - the person living there though they have rights for it (which is... weird in inself but I guess it can happen) but whole 30 if in "bad faith" (i.e. they knew but owner didn't do anything with the area).
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > the person living there though they have rights for it (which is... weird in inself but I guess it can happen) I imagine it happens more often than you'd expect - consider complicated inheritance laws, and so forth. Parent dies without a will, verbally agreed with sibling that you'd take it, you thought you owned the property but after decades sibling dies and sibling's son inherits all of parents property including part-ownership, and so comes after you for half of the property.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Yeah or simply "parent had some property kids didn't knew they bought". Or it was some "a bunch of people owns some fraction of property and nobody cared enough to deal with it". One weird case I saw was some property where brother owned 5/6 and sister owned 1/6 of it. Turns out after father died mother,sister and brother each got 1/3, but mother put all of hers in will to be given to the brother
    - ashirviskas 3y ago
      >One weird case I saw was some property where brother owned 5/6 and sister owned 1/6 of it. >Turns out after father died mother,sister and brother each got 1/3, but mother put all of hers in will to be given to the brother Wouldn't that make it 2/3 for the brother and 1/3 for the sister?

clove 3y ago

I recently covered a case in which a couple planned on engaging in adverse possession by first killing the homeowner. Chilling. https://youtu.be/kX3UB7NQCMs https://youtu.be/kX3UB7NQCMs

matt-attack 3y ago
Neat story, thanks for sharing. Sounds like he would have got away with it if he was just a tad brighter.

hirvi74 3y ago

I looked up my state(TN) and it's 20 years of squatting and property taxes. The requirements are: 1. Must enter the land without the owner's permission (hence the term "adverse"); 2. Must actually be on the land, using and caring for it as if it were his or her own; 3. Must use the land and/or structure in an open manner (in other words, it may not be secretive or covert); and 4. Must use the land continuously for seven years, without sharing this possession with others (unless it's possession by tenants in common). My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws? It seems like one could easily be arrested for many other laws within the first 19 years like trespassing, theft, vandalism, etc.. Do it for a week and you are criminal; do it for twenty years and you are a homeowner? Surely, it can't work like that, right?

mdasen 3y ago
> Do it for a week and you are criminal; do it for twenty years and you are a homeowner? I feel like adverse possession was meant to solve a real world issue, not some strange takeover of property. For example, let's say that we're neighbors. We both own our homes. There's been a fence between our properties for 150 years. Generations of owners have used the property with the fence demarcating the boundary. They've had cookouts, put up swing sets, mowed the lawn, whatever. Then you come along and are like, "I think my property actually extends 20 feet past the fence. You need to move your fence." Maybe you're "technically right" if you get a surveyor to come by based on the original plans. The point of adverse possession in this case is that generations of owners have seen that fence as the boundary. People have bought and sold the properties with the fence as the boundary. It makes more sense for society for the fence to remain the boundary. All of society has acknowledged that fence as the boundary for 150 years. You didn't buy your property thinking that the fence wasn't the boundary. The "without permission" bit isn't about doing something with evil intent necessarily. It's there to differentiate between a case where an owner knowingly gives you permission to use their property. If I come to you and say "hey, can I put a fence here? I know it's your property, but it makes more sense to put the fence here" and you agree to that, there's no ambiguity about the ownership. If I decide to put up a fence between our properties, but the fence is in reality on your property, you have a limited amount of time to challenge that. Why? Because at some point we have to deal with the reality on the ground. Maybe I made a mistake and the fence is 5 feet onto your property, but a hundred years later it makes more sense to go with the reality on the ground. If I built a home on what I thought was my property and then some surveyor comes by 50 years later and is like "huh, the house is actually 2 feet over the line onto this other property," a wise and just ruler wouldn't say, "then the house will be torn down!" A wise and just ruler would think "if the owner of the other property thought that they owned the land the house occupied in a conspicuous and open manner, they would have said something earlier." > My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws? I think the answer is that you can't. Adverse possession wasn't meant to be a free way to get property. It was meant to resolve property disputes that would be way more disruptive than just letting the status quo continue existing. It's meant to avoid "well technically..." crap. Everyone in the town knows that's your property. The abutting owner saw or should have seen your use of it over a long period of time. They probably thought it was your property too. Turns out that technically the site plan was a bit different than everyone in the town knew. It makes more sense to go off what everyone thinks is true than to try and re-state reality, bulldoze houses, etc. At some point, the reality in the world should take precedence over some piece of paper from along time ago. In a comical fashion, yes, do it for a week and you're a criminal; do it for 20 years and you're an owner. In a less comical fashion, put your fence in the wrong spot for a year and the other owner forces you to move it; if it's been generations and everyone thinks the fence is on your property, then the fence is on your property and some future owner doesn't get to "well technically I found this old document that says..."