Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My wife and I are working on buying a house, and the survey came back with three "encroachments" onto the property. All three of them are due to the previous (elderly) owner having allowed the neighbors to use her property for various reasons in exchange for them doing things for her. For example, the guy next door has a small one-horse collision repair center. She'd let him park cars in the back part of her yard, in exchange for him plowing her driveway, mowing her grass, etc. Typical neighborly things. No written agreements exist.
The bank wants statements, signed by all involved neighbors, attesting to how none of them claim any legal right to the property.
This, in my opinion, is the stupidest thing in the non-communist world... and I want to know why it exists. I don't need anyone to tell me "well that's just the law"... I want to know why the law exists.
To elaborate: America is, in theory at least, a country with private property rights. From the time we're in nursery school, we know what's ours (our parents put our name on it), and we have full right to dictate who uses them. We generally use our stuff, and if we lend it to someone else out of the goodness of our hearts, that doesn't make it theirs. It still has our name on it. If they fail to return it, it's theft.
So why is it that there should be any legal construct that gives people who use property but don't own it any legal right to it when there is no written agreement between owner and user? I can see "renters' rights" when there is a landlord-tenant relationship, but that's spelled out in a lease agreement. Why is it fair in any way that someone who is given permission to use something earns (after a while) legal right to "own" it when ownership has not been transferred?
To me, this sounds like communism. I don't see how there is any logical reason why someone who essentially steals or trespasses (by continuing to use something when the owner's permission is revoked or was never given) should get any legal right to whatever it is.
Can anyone explain how this is fair to the property owner, and why the laws colloquially known as "squatters' rights" are a fair and logical thing?
haha - if you think squatter's rights are bad you'll love eminent domain... or easements to utilities... your property is only your property until it isn't.
The bank wants statements, signed by all involved neighbors, attesting to how none of them claim any legal right to the property.
How did this come up?
The neighbors dont have rights, per se, but if they claim rights, the bank has the right to not fund this purchase until its cleared up, which might have to be in court with the property owner, not you.
The bank wants statements, signed by all involved neighbors, attesting to how none of them claim any legal right to the property.
This, in my opinion, is the stupidest thing in the non-communist world... and I want to know why it exists. I don't need anyone to tell me "well that's just the law"... I want to know why the law exists.
It's not the law--it's just a requirement that the bank has imposed to make sure that there is clear title.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
Why is it fair in any way that someone who is given permission to use something earns (after a while) legal right to "own" it when ownership has not been transferred?
They don't. As long as permission is given there can be no adverse possession. Permission can be revoked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
I don't see how there is any logical reason why someone who essentially steals or trespasses (by continuing to use something when the owner's permission is revoked or was never given) should get any legal right to whatever it is.
Can anyone explain how this is fair to the property owner, and why the laws colloquially known as "squatters' rights" are a fair and logical thing?
I'm not sure why the concept of adverse possession came into being, but it may have been because some people simply abandoned their properties and this allowed for continuous ownership. Or maybe it has something to do with the old saying that possession is 9/10 of the law.
In any case, I agree that squatters rights are an affront to legal property rights. Countries like Costa Rica enable squatters to violate personal property rights even more. At least we have some pretty good safeguards here in the U.S.
My wife and I are working on buying a house, and the survey came back with three "encroachments" onto the property. All three of them are due to the previous (elderly) owner having allowed the neighbors to use her property for various reasons in exchange for them doing things for her. For example, the guy next door has a small one-horse collision repair center. She'd let him park cars in the back part of her yard, in exchange for him plowing her driveway, mowing her grass, etc. Typical neighborly things. No written agreements exist.
The bank wants statements, signed by all involved neighbors, attesting to how none of them claim any legal right to the property.
This, in my opinion, is the stupidest thing in the non-communist world... and I want to know why it exists. I don't need anyone to tell me "well that's just the law"... I want to know why the law exists.
To elaborate: America is, in theory at least, a country with private property rights. From the time we're in nursery school, we know what's ours (our parents put our name on it), and we have full right to dictate who uses them. We generally use our stuff, and if we lend it to someone else out of the goodness of our hearts, that doesn't make it theirs. It still has our name on it. If they fail to return it, it's theft.
So why is it that there should be any legal construct that gives people who use property but don't own it any legal right to it when there is no written agreement between owner and user? I can see "renters' rights" when there is a landlord-tenant relationship, but that's spelled out in a lease agreement. Why is it fair in any way that someone who is given permission to use something earns (after a while) legal right to "own" it when ownership has not been transferred?
To me, this sounds like communism. I don't see how there is any logical reason why someone who essentially steals or trespasses (by continuing to use something when the owner's permission is revoked or was never given) should get any legal right to whatever it is.
Can anyone explain how this is fair to the property owner, and why the laws colloquially known as "squatters' rights" are a fair and logical thing?
The history of real estate law dates back to 12th century England common law which is where a lot of the US real estate laws originated. If the persons encroaching have been doing it long enough, they can claim the property. I would not just listen to the advice of a bank--I would consult a good real estate attorney before buying. Buying property that comes with tenants or encroachments may become problematic.
Why worry about why....It doesn't sound like the requirement is negotiable? Just do what they want and move on. #nonissue
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
