Posted on 03/07/2023 12:49:22 AM PST by dennisw
Burton Banks, an Atlanta-based financial advisor, inherited from his father several plots of land in Ocean View, Delaware Banks wanted to sell part of the property in 2021, but learnt that his neighbor Melissa Schrock had been grazing her goats on the land
A judge last month ruled that Schrock had been on the property for more than 20 years and so had squatter's rights: Banks was forced to hand over the land
A judge in Delaware has ordered a businessman hand over a $125,000 parcel of land to his neighbor after she kept her goats on the land for over 20 years and claimed squatter's rights.
Burton Banks, an Atlanta-based financial advisor, inherited the uninhabited plot of land in Ocean View, Delaware, from his father Ralph.
In 2021 Banks and his husband David Barrett decided they wanted to sell the plot of land, which sits empty and undeveloped.
But he discovered that around two thirds of an acre was being used by his neighbor Melissa Schrock, who had erected a pen for her goats on the land.
'It's just always been my backyard since I was a little kid,' Schrock said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Not so, there is an admittedly small (currently) allodially-titled property ownership in the US. I hope it grows, as it becomes more widely known. The hoops to jump thru are significant to those willing and able to do the research and education involved. I've heard numbers like 15 million people are State Nationals, and thus at least on a path to 'convert' their fake titles (land, homes, automobiles) to sovereign ownership. When done to real estate property, there is a *removal* of the property from local tax roles. When done to a so-called 'motor vehicle' to drive, converting it back to an 'automobile' to travel with, there are no longer excise taxes or anything associated with your "rental" of your automobile from the state as a 'motor vehicle'.
And why the whole parcel and not just the 1/3 acre she was using? Doesn’t make sense to give away the whole pie just because someone took a bite.
In Michigan you (the owner) must know that the person is making use of the property and do nothing about it for AP to come into play.
He did not own the land by his own actions just like the Native Americans did not own the land by their own actions.
Who can say they really own land they have not even visited for over 20 years?
If he did visit and allowed the goats to be on his property, then he willingly gave it away.
Michigan has an “Adverse Possession” law, as well. If the squatter “openly and notoriously” occupies the land for at least 15 years, he can acquire title with a court order. If at any time during the 15 years the owner prevents occupation, the clock resets. If the owner can produce documentation that he gave permission for the possession, there is no ‘adverse’ possession.
I don’t see what that example has to do with this article, which is about one person effectively stealing another’s property simply by claiming squatter’s rights, IOW, they were using it so they get to keep it?
I suppose in the common area situation, someone else still owns the land, therefore you are apprehending property that someone paid for and is not you own, to take it for yourself without paying for it.
Instead, if people want to own a parcel of common use property, why don’t they put in an offer to buy it? My only guess is they want it without having to pay for it.
I added an edit comment immediately after I posted stating the same.
FYI.
Ocean Pines is a Beach community; sub 1000 sq. ft. homes on tiny lots are selling for $450k+.
Instead, if people want to own a parcel of common use property, why don’t they put in an offer to buy it? My only guess is they want it without having to pay for it.
Imagine a common area in an HOA that is bordered by five properties, and is accessible by the owners of those five properties. It's not accessible to anyone else.
Now, imagine that one of the five property owners acquires two more of those homes over the course of several years. Then, after this happens, the master deed of the HOA is amended -- with the unanimous consent of all owners -- to construct a water course and retaining wall that blocks the remaining two property owners from accessing the common area.
Due to the combination of these circumstances, the common area is now only accessible from three properties -- all of them with the same owner.
The owner doesn't need the common area property in his name for any functional reason. He basically "owns" it because he is the only one who can use it anyway.
There's no reason for him to buy it from the HOA because he'd be doing the HOA a favor by taking it off their hands. As it stands now, the HOA is technically responsible for paying the cost of maintaining and insuring the property even though only one person has access to it. Since he became the only owner with access to the property this guy has been doing whatever minimal upkeep has been required, even though he's not obligated to do so.
The owner is only considering the adverse possession route for two reasons:
1. If he makes an offer to the HOA to buy the property, his offer is going to be $1. It's worthless to the HOA. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for the HOA to pay him to take the property off their hands -- so they don't have responsibility for a property that is worthless to them.
2. He knows some of the other owners in the HOA would refuse to let him have the property just as a matter of principle, or would only sell it for a lot of money.
“I believe Colorado is 7 years and a squatter can claim rights to someone else’s land. “
Code Section 38-41-101, et seq.
Time Period Required for Occupation 18 yrs.and Color of Title/Payment of Taxes: 7 yrs.
Yep, but I thought, at least in some states, you also had to show you were paying the taxes and upkeep on the land etc. But I am no attorney.
Clearly this woman was using the land openly, and maintaining this section, but I was pretty sure, at least in my state, you have to have been paying taxes on the land.
Either way yes, this is a way to become a land owner.
My son in law makes sure his land is posted and photographed his property corner markers.
My best bud, a surveyor, had land in the Southern Tier in NYS. The neighbor said the drive was his property and blocked it with rocks.
It was finally resolved in my friend's favor...likely because as a surveyor, he was more aware of what his rights were and where his boundaries began and ended.
They probably just wanted access to the goats. :-P
This isn't quite the same thing.
Been on the property for more than 20 years and so had squatter’s rights.
Wonder why that doesn’t work when the government calls it eminent domain ?.
Hilarious.
That’s Denver, not the State.
You rascal you! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Rascal_You
IIRC the law in AZ is that the adverse possession has to be 'notorious', or in plain sight. It's up to the property owner to notice.
Very interesting case from years ago about this issue involving a retired judge and his lawyer wife....
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-dec-03-na-land3-story.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.