[FLT-bird]

Its not “quirky” and there is a reason for it. Yes, I didn’t like Adverse Possession either when I first learned about it in my first year of law school. The purpose of it however is to put land to maximum economic productive use. If you have an owner who is absent, who just goes away and leaves a property to fall into rack and ruin, it is better that somebody put that property to productive use.

The actual owner can come back and evict the squatter for many years - the common law says 10 years. This is governed by statute in most US states and its rare to be less than 7 years. Also, in many states, the squatter has to be paying the annual property tax on the property for that time. IF the owner does not come back and evict the squatter after that time though.....tough. The squatter can then legally claim it. The squatter is the one who was paying the taxes and upkeep and making it productive rather than just wasting it all that time.

The moral of the story.....don’t sit on your rights. If you don’t exercise them, you could lose them.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The squatter is the one who was paying the taxes

Not true in this case, according to the article - the rightful owner of the property kept up on his taxes. And in any event, I can't see how paying taxes on property I've stolen can be considered a good reason to let me keep my stolen property in any civilized nation.

[PGR88]

The purpose of it however is to put land to maximum economic productive use.

Then the state/government can "condemn" the property and take it under eminent domain laws, through due process.

I do not believe there is anything in the USA comparable to this "quirky" British law - nor should there be.

[Gaffer]

The moral of the story.....don’t sit on your rights. If you don’t exercise them, you could lose them.

WADR to the law, the US Constitution puts no time limit on our rights.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Well I’m not arguing the law, it is what it is, the idea that the government is doing this because it’s any of their damn business what you do with the property. If you want to own property and not make it productive that’s your business. At least it should be. This idea that the government can say we don’t think you are using your property the way it should be used so we’re going to let somebody else have it is basically communism.

[Gigantor]

“The purpose of it however is to put land to maximum economic productive use.”

For the commie good, er, I mean, the common good.

[Scrambler Bob]

If you have an owner who is absent, who just goes away and leaves a property to fall into rack and ruin, it is better that somebody put that property to productive use.
= = =

How about my bank account, that I have left for, say, 10 years?

Can someone claim they can put it to better productive use, and take it?