Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 11/12/2007 6:44:32 PM PST by beaversmom
Edited on 11/15/2007 7:42:04 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BOULDER -- A warning for property owners. A little-known law could allow a trespasser to take your property without paying a penny for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxcolorado.com ...
Thanks for the ping. I’ve heard about stuff like this before. I’ll get this out to the Derry Brownfield Show.
I must be very thick tonight because I’m not understanding what you are trying to say. Sorry george.
It may be me.
Did you read post number 16 ( above ) ?
I may be confused.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Not always true. I won an adverse possession case against the developer of an adjoining property, which was platted and recorded.
Winning title to property by adverse possession depends on being able to prove open and continuous use of the portion of land being claimed -- for the period of years required by your state's law (if your state has an adverse possession law, which many do).
In my case, I was able to prove open and continuous use for over 40 years, using aerial photographs and old photographs I obtained from previous owners of my property.
Unlike the case described in the article, however, my case involved only a small sliver of land along a boundary line -- not 34% of the neighboring lot.
Yes, I wrote #16. It’s okay. It’s not you. It’s me. :)
Well I’m glad you seem to get it. Many others on this thread are acting like the guy should have seen it coming. Like it happens every day. He must be a bloomin’ idiot—just a commercial airline pilot that was in the military. Doesn’t know enough to get out of the rain /sarc.
The only painfully quaint, relatively high scale, semi-resort college town in America that I've ever felt totally uncomfortable in every time I visited, and happy happy happy to get out of.
Thanks.
I should be in bed.
That’s a scary story, I will have to ask some of my legal guys whether the “skinned” owner has any recourse via his owner’s title insurance. I could see the TI insurance expired and the statute of limitations may bar the skinee from seeking redress.
While the judge's decision in this case does sound very unfair (especially as it resulted in an unbuildable lot for the Kerlins), not all adverse possession cases are like this. Acquiring title by adverse possession, where it is done properly, is not "theft."
Adverse possession is a very old legal doctrine handed down to us through centuries of English common law. It is often used to fashion a just settlement of minor boundary line/encroachment disputes, as it was in my case. (And my case did not result in the adjoining property's becoming unbuildable.)
It has a lot of sister cities, unfortunately (Chapel Hill, Santa Fe, Burlington (VT), et al, come to mind), and they’re all as nutty as can be. I remember I visited Cambridge, MA and walked about outside Harvard, and you needed Commie repellant just to cross a street.
plats get platted, steaks get plated ;)
Encroachment raises it’s ugly head. A little practiced law for decades but is still on the books in many states.
It's hard to believe that any judge, even a leftist judge, would find adverse possession without very compelling reason and evidence.
For example, what was the USE to which McLean and Stevens put 34% of the property adjoining their's? A "path" is mentioned in the article, but a path to what?
Merely walking on land for 25 years would not establish adverse possession, I don't believe, unless:
- the pathway were a means of access to something that would be difficult or dangerous to access otherwise
- or, if some kind of encroaching but long-established structure were involved, e.g. a driveway or a building of some kind.
when you don’t know much you can always resort to the typo’s.
It is a difficult issue because the underlying cause of action for trespass against the deed has no real statute of limitations and the neighbor’s right to go against the developer who placed the fence or the TI was not available. I work at the law firm that handled the defense. Nothing was available to help. Arcient property laws generally work well for farmland but not for subdivisions. Most homebuyers don’t suspect that a fence which has been in place years before the home was built may be in the wrong place. The lot behind my neighbor had been fenced by a developer in 1988. At the time, the land on the other side was undeveloped. The neighbor who lost their land bought the house new as it was being constructed, complete with fence, in 1993. In 2005, the new owners of the first neighbor’s lot sued for their 8’ and got it, although the case did not go to trial but was arbitrated. I wish it could have gone on to trial but my friends were anxious to get out from under it since they were now paying two house payments: their new home and this unsellable old home. So they negotiated.
As an addendum, I don’t think TI would cover this where the fence was in the wrong place but the deed was correct.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Good for you, so few know what can be done, if one is not careful.
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.