Adverse Possession

[Jon Danniken]

Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been
maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as
given according the following statute:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620

Let us further assume that this is part of an urban residential
property, and which consists of about 1000 square feet, along two
property lines, formed by old fences a half-dozen feet from your plotted
property line.

Assume you have, for 20 years, maintained this property by mowing it as
needed whenever you mowed your real propety. Additionally, assume that
the neighbors on both affected sides are unaware of the discrepency, and
consider the fenceline to be the actual property line.

Assuming you just discovered this situation at a time in which you are
planning to build your own perimeter fence, would you, A.) build your
fence one the line of the existing fence, thus taking advantage of the
adverse possession to which you are legally entitled, or B.) build your
fence along your plotted property line?

Personally, I would choose option B, to both avoid future conflicts with
future property owners, as well as to not be a dick about it.

What are your thoughts?

Jon

 

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been
maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as
given according the following statute:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620

Let us further assume that this is part of an urban residential
property, and which consists of about 1000 square feet, along two
property lines, formed by old fences a half-dozen feet from your plotted
property line.

Assume you have, for 20 years, maintained this property by mowing it as
needed whenever you mowed your real propety. Additionally, assume that
the neighbors on both affected sides are unaware of the discrepency, and
consider the fenceline to be the actual property line.

Assuming you just discovered this situation at a time in which you are
planning to build your own perimeter fence, would you, A.) build your
fence one the line of the existing fence, thus taking advantage of the
adverse possession to which you are legally entitled, or B.) build your
fence along your plotted property line?

Personally, I would choose option B, to both avoid future conflicts with
future property owners, as well as to not be a dick about it.

What are your thoughts?

Jon

without reading the link above, I believe that not only do you have to
have had "possession" (and I doubt that mowing it would qualify) and the
original owners need to have been aware of the possession

and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,
after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back
taxes

 

[Ashton Crusher]

Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession
I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not
be adverse to the real owner. And if the real owner wasn't even aware
of this it's not a "hostile" possession. I don't think you have a leg
to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip
to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,
notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might
have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the
owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But
mowing it, ... don't think so...

 

[Harry K]

Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession

I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not

be adverse to the real owner. And if the real owner wasn't even aware

of this it's not a "hostile" possession. I don't think you have a leg

to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip

to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,

notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might

have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the

owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But

mowing it, ... don't think so...

I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.

In the theoretical situation, the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.

Harry K

 

[Jon Danniken]

I'd talk to the neighbors. Not seeing the property, you may actually
cause some problems if you put the fence on your line. Do the other
property owners have easy access to the land in question? Will you
create an inaccessible no-mans-land that is not easily mowed? Do the
neighbors incur some expense to move their fences?

The existing fences can be assumed to be either partial (dilapidated)
fences with multiple points access through the fenceline, or low (three
foot high) fencing. As such, the "no-mans-land" would be accessible by
them.

They may just agree to leave things as they are if the land is of
little use to them and not contest anything. In any case, you may
open up some expensive legal situations even if the law is on your
side. All you need is the wrong judge.

Good things to think about; thanks Ed.

Jon

 

[micky]

Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession
I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not
be adverse to the real owner.

If there was a fence, even one in disrepair, that was between the
neighbors and this piece of land, that kept the neighbors from walking
on the land, except maybe to get a ball or newspaper that got tossed
there, that probably meets the standard.

And if the real owner wasn't even aware
of this it's not a "hostile" possession.

I think you're wrong about this. "Hostile" doesn't mean you growl at
the neighbors when they come near the boundary. It's definition,
which varies some by state, can be found on the web. But as in my
previous paragraph, the existing fence probably makes his possessoin
hostile.

I don't think you have a leg
to stand on.

But I do agree that it's not cut and dried. If only because we've
only heard one side of the story. Very unlikely but perhaps both
neighbors gave the OP's predecessor a 50 year lease on the land, rent
paid in advance, which expires tomorrow.

It would be different if you had been using this strip
to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,
notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might

Open and notorious are also covered by the fence.

 

[micky]

Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been
maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as
given according the following statute:

This has been a big issue for me in the last few years, as I have
probably posted, I have a neighbor who seems to sincerely believe that
he owns about 200 or 300 square feet of my land. (The piece is
triangular and I haven't measured it. Not too important, because I'm
not sure what he thinks he owns anyhow.)

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620

Let us further assume that this is part of an urban residential
property, and which consists of about 1000 square feet, along two
property lines, formed by old fences a half-dozen feet from your plotted
property line.

Assume you have, for 20 years, maintained this property by mowing it as
needed whenever you mowed your real propety. Additionally, assume that
the neighbors on both affected sides are unaware of the discrepency, and
consider the fenceline to be the actual property line.

Assuming you just discovered this situation at a time in which you are
planning to build your own perimeter fence, would you, A.) build your
fence one the line of the existing fence, thus taking advantage of the
adverse possession to which you are legally entitled, or B.) build your
fence along your plotted property line?

With option A, you would just never tell them about the issue, right?
Is that what you mean?

I don't think you solidify your ownership until after a court hearing
where they have the opportunity to be present. Now if nothing
changes, your case just gets stronger I guess, because even more time
has passed, But... How did you find out about this? Might each of
them not find out the same way? Or when the property is sold, or an
addition built on a house and side setback rules come into play, maybe
a survey will be done by one of them.

It's not enough to have the statute in front of you. You need to read
all the case law related to your situation. I don't know how to do
that on-line, though googling for "case law Oregon" might help, or
just googling your statute number.

But the quickest simplest way might be to go to a law library. Any
law schools nearby? Any public law schools nearby? (When I lived in
NY, all the law schools were privately owned, Columbia, NYU, and a
couple others. They didn't even readily grant students from other law
schools permission to use their library, let alone derelicts who post
on alt.home.repair. But maybe they're nicer in Oregon. It's the
opposite in Baltimore, where I think there are two law schools and
both are public.)

But your best resource might be the county courthouse, which probably
has a law library. The one here, in Towson, was intimidating to me.
When I first got to Balt, I thought it was just for lawyers, but it
would be really hard to rationalize that, since it's taxpayer funded.
And indeed, it's for anyone. (I never thought to look in the Brooklyn
or NYC courthouse for a law library, but now I'm sure there is one,
and it's probably public.)

And there you will find a set of Oregon statute books, maybe 10 or 20
volumes, and following each statute will be a list of cases, at least
cases heard by Oregon appellate courts, that relate to the statute.
They will further explain how the words of the statute have been
interpreted by the courts. (No matter how carefully one writes a
statute, there is always a line of ambiguity, a border line.)

And DON'T FORGET to look in the pocket part. Because the set is too
expensive to buy a new one every year, instead every year they print a
supplement, whose cover slides into a slot in the book's back cover.
It has the most recent decisions, which may even contradict what you
just read. In a little state like Maryland, the pocket part can be
really small and most statutes are unaffected. In a big state like NY
or California, it's the opposite.

Make copies of anything relevant.

Especially if the Oregon statute book does't have everything I just
said it would have (I think all states have the case law, but what do
I know), but even if it does, you might also look in the Northwest
Reporter, I think it's called for Oregon and nearby states.
Published by West Publishing Company.

The librarian will help you but maybe there's a map of the library,
which is not as big as a branch public library, with "Reporters"
marked on the map. Or you can just walk around until you find the
big sets of books. (probably statutes for all 50 states.)

Even though most lawyers have Lexis now, I'm pretty sure all these
books are still published for the whole country. I like books better
than computer monitors.

Anyhow, you can't understand the statute if there is case law about it
that you don't yet know about. If they don't have the books or only
a pocket part that is 3 years old, they'll probably have Lexis that
you can use.

Personally, I would choose option B, to both avoid future conflicts with
future property owners, as well as to not be a dick about it.

What are your thoughts?

I think someone in your family is pushing for A. I hate to say it,
but probably a woman. They are not as tender as I was led to believe
when I was a child, and I rarely hear them talk about honor.
(although truth be told, even though I believe strongly in honor** the
men who talk about honor the most are more likely to be those I
disagree with politically. **For me the most important part of
honor is that it is what keeps people acting legally even when they
don't believe the laws against stealing etc. come from God, as many
people don't.

Ed's advice sounds good.

 

[micky]

I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably
posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns
about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.

I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.
In the theoretical situation,

That language comes up in negligence law. Not here, I think.

the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.

But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession
of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the
fence.

Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you
mean, the answer is no.

If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge
on the part of the real owners.

Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states
I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse
possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.

Exclusive
Uninterrupted
Notorious
Unpermitted
Claim of Right
Hostile.

Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are
clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not
mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow. IMO other clauses come at the
issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have
to worry about this.

Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so
weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One
state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow!
Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in
case law.

Harry K

AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited,
untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it,
That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just
ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse
possession.

This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all
five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where
the boundary is. But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or
farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an
issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.

 

[micky]

Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been
maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as
given according the following statute:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620

After all my stuff about law libraries, I see that the right column
partially, and the second footnote more fully lists cases related to
the statute.

As is the case with most webpages, there is no last update date, and a
lawyer who assumed that all the relevant cases were listed would be
guilty of malpractice if he turned out to be wrong. But in your
situation maybe you only need to have seen this list.

This is interesting, " Requirement that person claiming adverse
possession had objectively reasonable belief concerning ownership does
not alter doctrine established under common law allowing proof of
hostile possession based on pure mistake. Clark v. Ranchero Acres
Water Co., 198 Or App 73, 108 P3d 31 (2005)"

Isnt' it charming how the court doesn't void sections (b)(B) and (C)
but afaict, it might as well have by bringing back the common law rule
that includes pure mistake, and does't require an objective basis, or
reasonableness. IIUC. This helps you, OP, in this case, but more
importantly it's a lesson on why case law matters just as much as the
words of the statute. .


Did you see this:

SUITS TO QUIET TITLE AND REMOVE CLOUD
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.605
105.605 Suits to determine adverse claims

It just says "may maintain a suit". Whether a suit or something is
required may be a question.



This one is good for me, but not relevant to you, I think
"Where testimony of possessor of land, who had lived on land more than
10 years, did not clearly es­tab­lish when he began to assert an
adverse claim, no title by adverse pos­ses­sion was es­tab­lished.
McCall v. Hyde, 39 Or App 531, 592 P2d 1064 (1979)"
It would be a lot better if this were a Maryland case.

 

[Unquestionably Confused]

Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession
I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not
be adverse to the real owner. And if the real owner wasn't even aware
of this it's not a "hostile" possession. I don't think you have a leg
to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip
to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,
notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might
have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the
owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But
mowing it, ... don't think so...

It will depend upon the laws of the state where the property is located.

Further, don't get too carried away with the term "adverse possession."
Your use of anothers' property doesn't need to cause him a problem
(which is what you seem to be saying)or harm. Your mere use, ANY use,
without permission constitutes that adverse possession since it's HIS
property and you are using it for some purpose without permission. All
that would need to be done to break your claim under adverse possession
would be for him, at some point, to agree to allow you to use the
property as you are or for you to ask and be granted that permission.

FWIW, the period of time involved ALSO changes from state to state. 20
yrs is likely a safe bet but in some states it's considerably shorter.

 

[Dean Hoffman]

Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been
maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as
given according the following statute:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620

Let us further assume that this is part of an urban residential
property, and which consists of about 1000 square feet, along two
property lines, formed by old fences a half-dozen feet from your plotted
property line.

Assume you have, for 20 years, maintained this property by mowing it as
needed whenever you mowed your real propety. Additionally, assume that
the neighbors on both affected sides are unaware of the discrepency, and
consider the fenceline to be the actual property line.

Cut rest.

I'd probably talk to the neighbor, a lawyer, and maybe a surveyor.
Maybe the neighbor would sell that chunk of ground for a minimal sum.
Failing a formal sale, I'd probably put the fence on the official
property line. The next neighbor might be a total jerk about it. Who
knows when things will change due to illness, death, or whatever life
brings?

 

[trader4]

without reading the link above, I believe that not only do you have to

have had "possession" (and I doubt that mowing it would qualify) and the

original owners need to have been aware of the possession

I don't believe that is correct. Every statue I've seen on this,
including the one presented here, doesn't say the owner needs to have
been aware of the adverse possession. Only that the one doing the
adverse possession do it openly, so any reasonable person could see
it. The typical case example is someone moving into an
abandoned property and living there for the required period.

and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,

after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back

taxes

It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It
could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in
question, you are concealing your claim to it.

There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of
who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.

As to what to do, one factor missing is what the effect of the
few feet is to each property. If it's doesn't make a drastic
difference in lot value, usability, access, etc to the OP, I'd
opt for getting the new fence where it belongs. It's probably
going to avoid a lot of legal fees, at the very least.

 

[trader4]

Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession

I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not

be adverse to the real owner.

I'd have to disagree on that point. Putting up a fence that cuts it off
from the neighbor's access and use is indeed adverse.

And if the real owner wasn't even aware

of this it's not a "hostile" possession.

I don't believe that is correct either. Hostile I believe is
taken to mean that you don't have permission, ie you can't have
a verbal agreement with the neighbor to park you car on his
property, then later to try to claim adverse possession.




I don't think you have a leg

to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip

to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,

notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might

have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the

owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But

mowing it, ... don't think so...

You may be right about that part. There should be case law that's
easy to find that clarifies it.

 

[trader4]

I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably

posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns

about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.









That language comes up in negligence law. Not here, I think.






But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession

of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the

fence.

He has a valid point. How do you know they knew? The AP wasn't
living in their house, or taking up the whole property. It's
very common for fences not to be in the correct place and for
neighbors not to know the exact property boundary. The neighbors
saw the fence, but that doesn't mean they also knew where the
correct property line was.

Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you

mean, the answer is no.



If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge

on the part of the real owners.



Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states

I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse

possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.



Exclusive

Uninterrupted

Notorious

Unpermitted

Claim of Right

Hostile.



Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are

clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not

mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow.

That is what hostile means, that you don't have permission.
It's an essential part of any AP statute.


IMO other clauses come at the

issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have

to worry about this.



Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so

weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One

state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow!

Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in

case law.

I'd be very interested in the issue of property taxes. Presumably
the owner has been paying them on that piece of property all these
years. Most of the AP statutes I've read require the AP to be
paying the taxes, ie treating the property in question as if the
AP actually owned it. I would not be surprised to fing that is
implied and interpreted that way under other parts of the statute,
eg the "open" part. If you're not paying the taxes, I'd say you're
not be open about your possession of said property. There has to
be Oregon case law that could answer this.

AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited,

untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it,

That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just

ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse

possession.



This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all

five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where

the boundary is.

Exactly and I think that likely means AP isn't going to work.


But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or

farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an

issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.

IF it's important there, which I agree, then I think it's also
likely to be important here. The true owner has been paying the taxes for 10 years. Can someone claim they have been "openly" treating a piece of
land as their own when they have not been paying the taxes on it, but
the neighbor has and the neighbor also has the title and survey that
shows they bought and paid for it? I don't think so.

 

[Unquestionably Confused]

It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It
could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in
question, you are concealing your claim to it.

That makes absolutely no sense - maybe you should go back and read it again.

Think about it...

We're talking about "Parcel X" a strip of land 20' wide and 100' long,
for instance. Joe actually owns it per survey and deed. The taxes are
charged on a deeded parcel so who gets the tax bill? Joe! Jon's fence
mistakenly encroached upon the land of Joe, that same 20'x100' strip.
How in the hell is he going to get a bill from the county for that strip
if he doesn't own it? Until such time as there is a judicial
determination that it is or isn't Jon's land due to adverse possession,
the county is going to keep billing Joe and Joe will continue to pay it
- or not.

There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of
who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.

Doubt that it makes any difference at all in Oregon. It doesn't elsewhere.

As to what to do, one factor missing is what the effect of the
few feet is to each property. If it's doesn't make a drastic
difference in lot value, usability, access, etc to the OP, I'd
opt for getting the new fence where it belongs. It's probably
going to avoid a lot of legal fees, at the very least.

Not to mention that it's the RIGHT thing to do. You don't own the land
it rightfully belongs to your neighbor. The only improvement made is
the fence which is being replaced, right? Just put it where it belongs

 

[Harry K]

It will depend upon the laws of the state where the property is located.



Further, don't get too carried away with the term "adverse possession."

Your use of anothers' property doesn't need to cause him a problem

(which is what you seem to be saying)or harm. Your mere use, ANY use,

without permission constitutes that adverse possession since it's HIS

property and you are using it for some purpose without permission. All

that would need to be done to break your claim under adverse possession

would be for him, at some point, to agree to allow you to use the

property as you are or for you to ask and be granted that permission.



FWIW, the period of time involved ALSO changes from state to state. 20

yrs is likely a safe bet but in some states it's considerably shorter.

And in the case of 'giving permission' it should be done in writing. Avoids andy "he said, she said' in court. It should also be renewed in writing periodically.

Some states it only takes 7 years, IANM Washington is one.

Harry K

 

[Harry K]

And in the case of 'giving permission' it should be done in writing. Avoids andy "he said, she said' in court. It should also be renewed in writing periodically.



Some states it only takes 7 years, IANM Washington is one.



Harry K

Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings uppages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.

In the case of the OP where the fence is in the wrong place. Anyone buyingthe place after the fence was erected would be in the "should have known" position if they did not get a survey when the bought it. Owner when the fence was erected and did not object would be in the same position. One is required to know what they own if they want to protect against AP.

"But your honor, I did not know it was on my land" won't fly in court.

Harry K

 

[trader4]

That makes absolutely no sense - maybe you should go back and read it again.



Think about it...



We're talking about "Parcel X" a strip of land 20' wide and 100' long,

for instance. Joe actually owns it per survey and deed. The taxes are

charged on a deeded parcel so who gets the tax bill? Joe! Jon's fence

mistakenly encroached upon the land of Joe, that same 20'x100' strip.

How in the hell is he going to get a bill from the county for that strip

if he doesn't own it?

That's precisely the point, the the rightful owner *is* the one
paying the taxes on the land. And as I've said, I've seen statutes
for adverse possession that specifically require that the
AP be paying the taxes. If the AP believes that piece of property
that is his neighbor's is actually his, then why isn't he acting
like a legitmate property OWNER and paying the real estate taxes on it?
He knows property is taxed. He thinks he's getting this for free?
If no one is paying the taxes, that's one thing. But when the
rightful owner by title is paying the real estate taxes, I think
any court is going to take that into strong consideration versus
someone arguing that they are now the rightful owner because
a fence is off by 6 ft. Also, I've seen state statutes where
they specifically rule out de minimus claims of adverse possession
over a fence that is a few feet off, like this one.





Until such time as there is a judicial

determination that it is or isn't Jon's land due to adverse possession,

the county is going to keep billing Joe and Joe will continue to pay it

- or not.










Doubt that it makes any difference at all in Oregon. It doesn't elsewhere.

BS.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adverse_possession


"Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A means by which one can legally take another's property without paying forit. The requirements for adversely possessing property vary between states, but usually include continuous and open use for a period of five or more years and paying taxes on the property in question."

 

[micky]

Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings up pages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.

I stand corrected.

 

[micky]

Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings up pages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.

I stand corrected. But these cites were not Oregon, I think, so they
don't directly affect the OP.