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.
Adverse Possession is a hostile claim and not one given with permission. I understand this was permitted.
I do wonder how the bank found these claims? It would seem those who enjoyed the permitted occupancy of the property may have put something in writing, with or without her knowing.
Or it could simply be an industrious surveyor saw the cars on the lot, saw the neighbor with the collision repair business and just asked the neighbor about it.
Somewhere...perhaps even on CD...I read a story about a couple who offered a room temporarily to a woman in need and in the end the woman was able to claim rights to the house.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
How did the survey know about these?
It came up because the surveyor watched it happen. He saw the cars stored by the business next door, he measured one of the sides of the U-shaped wraparound gravel driveway and saw that it was not clearly on either piece of property (mine or the neighbor's) - it was four feet onto mine. He saw the neighbor from two doors down crossing across the back of the property to access the neighbor to the east, for the purpose of plowing them out after a snowstorm.
Nobody is claiming rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
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.
My question was: WHY do these laws exist? I can understand "adverse possession" because, in the event that an owner totally abandons a property, it can become a blight on the town. If the owner wants to walk away and is so oblivious to the property that he doesn't know when someone has been living there for [however long], it's better for everyone if the house has an occupant who can take care of it and pay taxes on it, as opposed to it going vacant and becoming an attraction for animals and crime.
I can't understand why anyone would be legally permitted to claim legal ownership rights to property they don't own, just because the owner had permitted them to use it for a certain period of time. How did this legal construct come into being? How could ANYONE think this was fair? Were they born adults, never having experienced kindergarten where your stuff had your name on it and it was yours?
My question was: WHY do these laws exist? I can understand "adverse possession" because, in the event that an owner totally abandons a property, it can become a blight on the town.
You're answering your own question.
It doesn't happen "with permission" (or at least it shouldn't given the legal definition).
Get the docs signed, then put up a fence, no trespassing signs on all sides, buy a couple of pit bulls, and see if they want to trespass. Then put up a sign that says "WE DON'T DIAL 911" with a toy gun on it. I think they'll get the message, mine did...
The lady who gave them verbal permission to use her land is deceased, thus, I would think that her permission would no longer be in force.
But I'm not an attorney. The OP should contact a real estate attorney in the state where the property is located.
The lady is not deceased. She had to go into a nursing home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 399083453
Have the person in charge of the estate give the next door neighbor 3 days to move the cars or they will be towed.
That'd be rather amusing given that the next door neighbor gets cars towed to him.
Nobody has yet to answer my real question, however.
We're not talking about adverse possession here. We're talking about a homeowner who has allowed someone else to use some of her property in exchange for him doing certain things for her. It's mutually beneficial. Why is it "logical" or "right" for the laws to be set up such that this person can claim ownership of any part of that property?
I read the article about the lawyers who claimed adverse possession on the empty lot next to them in Boulder, CO... naturally it's just a couple of bloodsuckers trying to take something that isn't rightfully theirs. So the owner let them walk on that lot for 20+ years to access something they owned. That didn't HAVE to happen. Technically the lawyers were trespassing every single time. Yet, the court just hands them part of the property, rendering the rest of it unbuildable? How is that fair, logical, or reasonable?
That'd be rather amusing given that the next door neighbor gets cars towed to him.
Obviously you would need to call a different towing company. I'm sure just the threat will motivate him to move the cars. The owner or executor needs to explain to the neighbor they cannot sell the house until the cars are moved. It needs to be done immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
We're talking about a homeowner who has allowed someone else to use some of her property in exchange for him doing certain things for her. It's mutually beneficial. Why is it "logical" or "right" for the laws to be set up such that this person can claim ownership of any part of that property?
Why does it matter? The neighbor has not claimed anything. Just have him move the cars and your done. End of story. Since the neighbor has not claimed the land is his, why bother talking about it and getting into a discussion of the philosophy of why laws exist.
I gather that the OP basically doesn't like the idea of adverse possession, and wishes it were not the law. There are a variety of justifications. Here's a quick note that lays some of them out: WVU College Of Law - Property II - Adverse Possession.
And as for what you say your real question is: the steps the bank is taking are a way to ensure that both you, as the purchaser, and the bank, as the mortgagee, will not be at risk of losing the property to adverse possession in the future. Thus, we are absolutely talking about adverse possession and how to avoid it.
That Denver Post story is horrible. The "ex-mayor" just showed what a piece of **** most politicians are. Absolutely pathetic. This country should be free.
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.
