Adverse Possession

[Dean Hoffman]

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...

My mom has been letting a neighbor graze her pasture ground
gratis. I called our attorney to ask what issues that might raise.
Almost his first words were about adverse possession. Then he raised
the liability issue. Questions about who had to maintain fencing, etc.
were next.
This is in Nebraska. We have fencing laws and all that sort of stuff
in place.

 

[Ivan Vegvary]

Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines. Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.

Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. Hesells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet toowner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first), parcel "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.

Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been paying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has assessed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.

Ivan Vegvary

 

[Ivan Vegvary]

I would think the person doing the survey would be lible. He should have

said that the fellow only had 99 feet left to sell after he sold the first

100 feet.

This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of title' and not location.
When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.

Ivan Vegvary

 

[krw]

This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of title' and not location.
When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.

If they don't find/disclose it or if they are the doing the original
subdivision, they certainly are liable. It comes under the heading of
"errors and omissions".

 

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

YOu claim to have "seen statutes requiring it" Should be simple for you to
come up with a cite then.

I got title to an abandoned country school lot bordering my place by AP. How?
Under Washington law AP takes 10 years except IF one pays the taxes on it
only 7years is needed. Lawyer looked up the law and came up with the
solution dthat I pay the back taxes on it for the last 7 years. Done deal

schools/school boards pay property tax in Washington?

 

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the
taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems
unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?

Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not
saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.

or the owner can take the property by saying his taxes have been paid
(by him?)

 

[Harry K]

Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you

pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's

lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable

to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,

then why aren't you paying taxes on it?



Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away

from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.

After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to

see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts

have treated it in other states.



Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering

fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar

common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.

One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.

So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.

My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.

Harry K

 

[Harry K]

Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.

And I'll say it again for at least the third time: Provide a cite for that.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you

pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's

lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable

to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,

then why aren't you paying taxes on it?



Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away

from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.

So tell us just how that squatter managed to start paying the taxes. He has to prove he owns the property before the tax people start sending him the bill.

After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to

see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts

have treated it in other states.

And I'd like to see your cite for at least one state that has that restriction.

Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering

fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar

common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

True, most states IIANM require a fence to be erected a few inches on one's side of the line.

Harry K

 

[micky]

Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too.

Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states,
the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it
is?

If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?

Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the
land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?

Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the
results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is
saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.

But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception
of the law.

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.

Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering
fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar
common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

And then there are the other states with no such clause.

Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further
out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess
AP is again a possibility.

This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of
feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house
every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's
not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the
exclusion.

 

[Harry K]

Harry K wrote:











schools/school boards pay property tax in Washington?

It was a special deal put together by a coalition of the adjacent landowner(Last president of the school board), his lawyer and help from the county tax office. The lot lay across a section line, half on my side, half on his. The title was a total mess as it had been donated by two different families way back when, heirs proliferated, etc, etc. Tax man wanted the title claeard up, both me and the adjacent landowner wanted the same so that weedinfested patch and awkward corner for him could be eliminated. I was a babe in the woods and just did as they asked. Was it true back taxes? Dunnobut Washington law allows AP after only 7 years "if the claimant had paid taxes". Takes 10 years without that proviso.

Harry K

 

[trader4]

How about a citation? Show us the statute in one of those states that

requires it (payment of taxes).

Too lazy to go look? Is California a big enough example?

Here's a recent case in California, where actor Larry Hagman's estate
won an adverse possession case over a church, with one of the issues
being that the church had not paid taxes on the land in question.
Had they paid the taxes, the estate would have had no claim, because
payment negates any AP claim.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california...e-in-larry-hagman-and-adverse-possession.html


"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.

That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement. "

You gave an example of a common law "test" as it were. Common law may

be the foundation of our laws but they have evolved over time and

statutes and case law are all that matter when you get down to it.

I didn't give an example of a common law test. It told you that
some states have laws that require those trying to claim AP to have paid the
taxes on the property in question.

Once again if you have adjacent property owners who share a common,

LEGAL boundary line between their two properties and for whatever reason

one neighbor places a fence that encroaches upon the others' property

the land so "taken" by the encroaching party IS subject to claim by

adverse possession and there's no way that that party is going to be

paying taxes on the land.

Again, that is precisely the point. If you're not paying the taxes,
then you're not going to take the other guy's property, who has been
paying taxes on it, by a fence that is 3 ft off from where it should be.
At least not in a state that requires paying taxes.



Assume both are deeded as exactly .5 acres.

Each pays taxes on that .5 acres however the guy who put his fence 5'

over on the others' land should be (under your theory)paying on .5023

acres and the wronged party (the actual owner of the land)is paying on

.4077 acres. I guarantee you that they are not.

I guarantee you that in most cases, they are not either. Which is
precisely the point. The guy who has the piece on the larger side
of the fence can't win a claim of AP because he hasn't paid the
taxes on it. That's in those states where paying the taxes is
required. And as I said, you'd have to look at case law in the
other states.

Also some states have de minimus provisions in AP law that
exclude claims over things like a fence that's a few feet off.

Granted the laws are different in different states. In IL taxes does

not enter into the equation other than to prove, perhaps, that the

rightful owner has not abandoned the property. A deed by adverse

possession may still be had if the non-owner maintains or uses the land

as his own.

And if I were a judge, the "using the land as his own" test would
fail if the person trying to assert AP had not been the one paying
the taxes on the land. That's why I said you'd need to see the
actual laws and the case law for the situation involved.

 

[trader4]

YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.

Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california...e-in-larry-hagman-and-adverse-possession.html

"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.

That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."

One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.



So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.

Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,
but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk
in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my
tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?
If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name
of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.
They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount
due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the
check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that
once a year.

My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.



Harry K

Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.

 

[trader4]

And I'll say it again for at least the third time: Provide a cite for that.

I just did. But let me say it again, for at least the hundredth
time here. If you're so interested, why are you too lazy to use
google?

 

[trader4]

Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states,

the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it

is?

I have said from the beginning that it's some states that have
laws that require the payment of taxes by the party claiming AP.
I never said it was all. And I said that I'd be interested in
seeing the case law in those other states, because unless you know the
exact wording of the law for each state and how the courts have
interpreted it, you don't know what effect who's been paying the
taxes has.

Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the

land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?

I can think of plenty of examples. Here's one. A guy buys a property,
gets it surveyed. The surveyor puts in concrete markers that show the correct property lines. Then they guy puts up a fence that is two feet over on to
the neighbor's property. You're going to tell me that because his
tax bill hasn't changed, he thinks it includes the property he just
encroached on? That he is the one paying the taxes on it now? Good grief!

You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the

results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is

saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.

Wow, imagine that.

But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception

of the law.

Now I'm supposed to find your examples for you too?

And then there are the other states with no such clause.

wow, imagine that. I say there are some houses that have granite
countertops. You figure out that there are also some that do not.
That's remarkable.

Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further

out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess

AP is again a possibility.



This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of

feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house

every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's

not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the

exclusion.

Wow, now you can read the minds of unknown law makers in unknown
states. Very impressive.

 

[dennisgauge]

What are your thoughts?

I rank "adverse possession" right up there with "squatter's rights." Total BS enacted by greedy politicians looking to get something for nothing.

Fence on the property line. As tall and solid as I could make it so I don't have to look at the shithole that the place I was maintaining turns into when I stop.

 

[micky]

Nonsense. The whole concept of if it was permitted use is in relation
to it being hostile or not. It's not hostile possession if the
rightful owner *permitted* it. If the owner gave permission, then
it's not hostile and you have no claim of AP.

I found one webpage that agrees with you, but given the limited
reliability of the web, that's not enough to convince me. I'lll look
some more but I don't know when.

They are linked together, the concept is the same.
How some statutes list them doesn't matter.

Yes and no. It's not definitive, but in practice, it's not likely
they'd list both, and separately, if they were the same. I'm sure
they discussed this when I doing my short stint in law school, and he
must have drawn a distinction.

What you're arguing
makes no sense.

Whether I turn out to be right or not, it made sense. Not everything
that makes sense is incorporated into law, and certainly not n all 50
states.

It's backwards. We have a guy trying to make
an adverse possession claim, call him Joe, against property owner
B. You're saying that if property owner B doesn't give permission
to Joe, that because he sees Joe use his property and does nothing,
that he has then permitted Joe to use it. Well, then AP would not
apply and Joe has not claim, because the use was permitted.

Of course you can find a case, or a thousand hypothetical cases, which
match your understanding. I said they function indiependently, so of
course in some cases they will coincide. That doesn't prove they
must coincide.

The whole concept of permitted or not is that if property owner B
gives permission, then Joe has no AP claim period. An example would
be property owner B agrees to allow Joe to park his truck on his
property. Then he has given permission, it's permitted, and Joe
has no AP claim.

Same answer.

Wrong.

Not wrong.

If he sees

Wrong. Because if the use is permitted, goodbye adverse possession.

You're answering on the basis that unpermitted and hostile are the
same. I havent' agreed to that yet.

It cannot be permitted and hostile. If the neighbor sees or could have
seen what's going on, that's part of the open and notorious part and
has nothing to do with permission.

As I said, when I'll have time to read more, I don't know. Your
opinion gets one vote and that other source that I think agreed with
you got one vote, and I get one vote**, so we're about tied by now.

**I"m reminded of Lincoln's cabinet meeting where everyone in the
cabinet disagreed with him. They voted. Lincooln said 12 nays, one
aye, the ayes have it. LOL I wish I remembered what the issue
was.

=.......................

That's reassuing....

Here is a differing opinion:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html

•Give written permission to someone to use your land, and get their written acknowledgement. For example, you could give someone permission to park on your land, use a shortcut across your property, or to garden or grow crops. This can not only defeat adverse possession claims, but also a claim to an easement (use permit) across your property.

How is this a different opinion?

I don't know which position is right. Maybe you can do it
unilateraly. But I do know that letting your kid go out and play
and an agreement or license are two very different things.

An agreement is different because it takes two poeple. A license can
be unilateral.

If you give your kid permssion to go out, and he hasn't decided if he
will or not, that's unilateral. It's a license. If you say, you
can go out until 6, but only if you do your homework from 7 to 9, and
he agrees to that, that's an agreement. It's not unilateral.

And here's another reference on AP that says to get an
actual agreement:

Well of course someone will say that. I would get an actual
agreement if I could. And I'm going to try again to get him to look
at the plat with someone next to him who he might listen to who will
explain what the plat shows. But it probably won't work. He'
either won't do it or it won't change his mind. And even if somehow
he does believe me after this, he's still not going to say so in
writing.

The only time someone would agree to this in writing is if he faced
denial of use if he didn't sign. If the owner said, No, you can't
park here and if you do, I'll tow your car away. Or, you can't
garden here and if you do, I'll stomp down whatever grows.

All this guy does is get someone else to mow the lawn and trim the
bushes. What can I do, glue the bushes back together and glue the
grass ends back onto the grass? I'd have to get an injunction, and
I'd have to enjoin the HOA too**, and that will cost me a lot if a
lawyer does it, and I'm not sure I could succeed if I do it myself,
but I would succeed in antagonizing both parties.

**I certainly don't want to enjoin the nice guy who mows the grass
sometimes. I like him and he lives 3 houses away and will never claim
he owns my land. And he does a good job when he mows. I should get
him a present.

http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/l122/l122content.pdf

See page 6.

"One effective way to thwart a possible claim is by giving permission to use your land. If
Bill is out planting a garden in your backyard, treating it as his own land, step over and
say "Hello, you are on my property by a few feet, but that's okay." You don't have to
throw him off your property; simply claim it. Then put the permission in writing and
obtain an acknowledgment from Bill.

It's easy to give advice. But if Bill has his mind made up, he likely
won't even acknowledge that he was told it wasn't his property, let
alone acknowledge that it isn't. If your next-door neighbor came
over to land you owned while you were planiting a garden, and he said
he owned it, would you say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know" and write an
acknoledgement of any kind?

The chain has been broken. He can tend that garden
for forty years and still never acquire a legal claim to your property if he has your
permission.
An example of written permission is shown below.
Agreement Granting Permission to Use Property
I, James Brown, owner of the property located at 123 Maple Terrace, Newark, N.J. give
my permission to Bill Warner to plant and tend a garden located on a five-foot strip of
my property bordering the east side of the property line. I reserve the right to revoke this
permission at any time.

Thanks for this. It needs a bit more, according to my lawyer/friend,
but it's a good start.

___________________________ __________
James Brown date
I, Bill Warner, acknowledge that my use of this strip of land belonging to James Brown is
by permission only, and that the permission may be revoked at any time.

There are a few people (10%?) who would sign this, but my neighbor is
not one of them. He truly thinks he owns it (so why would he sign
it?) or he knows he doesn't but feels entitled to it for some reason
(so why would he sign it?) or he knows he's going to lose eventually
but enjoys annoying me (so why would he sign it?) I tend to think
that even if he started out lying, by now he really believes he owns
it. People tend to believe their own lies after enough time.

___________________________ __________
Bill Warner date
This type of agreement can be used to grant permission for parking, using a shortcut

One doesn't need an agreemnent to grant permission. I would not pay
for this guy's course.

across property or even growing crops. It not only can defeat adverse possession claims,
but also a claim to an easement across your property (See "Easements" below). When you
use such a written permission, be absolutely sure that the portion of your land being used
is described in enough detail so that it is easily identifiable."



I'd also add a good section relieving you of any responsibility for
any liability for injuries, damages, etc the person using your property
may incur. Let's say you give the neighbor your "unilateral license" to
screw around with those bushes on your property. He hires an uninsured
Mexican, who trips, cuts off his hand and then sues YOU.

I first read Nestork's reply to this post, because it's a lot shorter
and I was tired last night, and when I saw this paragraph from you, I
felt my stomach fall into a pit. But later a bunch of thoughts
occurred to me.

First, an agreement between me and my neighbor cannot bind a third
party who didn't agree to it. So the Mexican can sue me just as
easily even if I have this agrement signed by my n'bor. What
peoiple normally do is get party C to hold harmless party B (me) and
to promise to reimburse me for any amounts paid to a third party.

Now it is a 100 times less likely that my neighbhor will sign. And
he shouldn't. We're sharing the land. What if I myself left the
dangerous item on the land and it was my fault a gardner or workman
gets hurt. Why should C sign something agreeing to remimburse me for
what I pay the injured party?**

But thinking that didn't alleveiate my worry. But... a unilateral
permission won't make things worse than they already are. My n'bor C
already acts like he owns the land and if he had a reason to hire
someone to work on it, or walk over it, he would do it now. But
there are no hazards. Kids one summer threw bush bed stones into the
lawn, but they are long since gone. If I were to see anything else,
I'd pick it up too, but I haven't seen anything but a little litter in
20 years.

And if something did happen, my homeowners insurance company would
defend me in court,

It's not enough to own land on which someone is hurt. To be liable, I
have to have been negligent and my negligence has to be the proximate
cause of the person's injury. It's not going to happen.

But I still appreciate your raising this, because maybe it will affect
the wording of the license or the letter than I will send with it.


**So the paragraph could say that liability will be based on who is
negligent and he will remimburse me if [a court says] he's negligent.
That might well help, but as I said, he'll never sign it.

 

[trader4]

I found one webpage that agrees with you, but given the limited

reliability of the web, that's not enough to convince me. I'lll look

some more but I don't know when.





Yes and no. It's not definitive, but in practice, it's not likely

they'd list both, and separately, if they were the same. I'm sure

they discussed this when I doing my short stint in law school, and he

must have drawn a distinction.







Whether I turn out to be right or not, it made sense. Not everything

that makes sense is incorporated into law, and certainly not n all 50

states.











Of course you can find a case, or a thousand hypothetical cases, which

match your understanding. I said they function indiependently, so of

course in some cases they will coincide. That doesn't prove they

must coincide.









Same answer.




Not wrong.

You're just keep repeating the same thing over and over, but you haven't got a single cite to back it up. You even admitted that you found a reference that
agreed with what I said about permission. There are plenty more that say
the same thing. So, where is yours that agree with what you claim?

You're answering on the basis that unpermitted and hostile are the

same. I havent' agreed to that yet.

You keep re-writing what I say. I did not say unpermitted and hostile
are the same thing. I said the use of the property being unpermitted
is *part* of what makes it hostile. If it is permitted, then it is
not hostile and the person can't make an AP claim.

As I said, when I'll have time to read more, I don't know. Your

opinion gets one vote and that other source that I think agreed with

you got one vote, and I get one vote**, so we're about tied by now.

You're not very good at math, are you?

**I"m reminded of Lincoln's cabinet meeting where everyone in the

cabinet disagreed with him. They voted. Lincooln said 12 nays, one

aye, the ayes have it. LOL I wish I remembered what the issue

was.








How is this a different opinion?

Good grief! It says to GET THEIR WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. You
said the legal newsgroup said you could do the permission unilaterally,
which I guess is just mailing a letter, no response required.

An agreement is different because it takes two poeple. A license can

be unilateral.

Funny thing how everytime I go to install licensed software, it
requires I acknowledge ACCEPTANCE of the license before it allows
me to install it. Or how about this. Let's say I mail you a
license that says you are now authorized to use the Klu Klux Klan
clubhouse for parties. I run around saying Micky is licensed to
use the KKK clubhouse. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

And in the case of AP, you have another party who claims they
own your piece of land, that they are in fact the legal and
rightful owner. So, you send them a piece of paper saying " I
Micky license you to use that piece of land". That's like you
sending it to me, saying you own my house or are the King of Siam.
I chuck it in the trash can and ignore it. That sounds exactly
like the kind of hostile action that a reasonable person asserting
AP would take.

If you give your kid permssion to go out, and he hasn't decided if he

will or not, that's unilateral. It's a license. If you say, you

can go out until 6, but only if you do your homework from 7 to 9, and

he agrees to that, that's an agreement. It's not unilateral.

You can try that argument in court if the neighbor makes the AP
claim.

Well of course someone will say that. I would get an actual

agreement if I could. And I'm going to try again to get him to look

at the plat with someone next to him who he might listen to who will

explain what the plat shows. But it probably won't work. He'

either won't do it or it won't change his mind. And even if somehow

he does believe me after this, he's still not going to say so in

writing.



The only time someone would agree to this in writing is if he faced

denial of use if he didn't sign. If the owner said, No, you can't

park here and if you do, I'll tow your car away. Or, you can't

garden here and if you do, I'll stomp down whatever grows.



All this guy does is get someone else to mow the lawn and trim the

bushes. What can I do, glue the bushes back together and glue the

grass ends back onto the grass? I'd have to get an injunction, and

I'd have to enjoin the HOA too**, and that will cost me a lot if a

lawyer does it, and I'm not sure I could succeed if I do it myself,

but I would succeed in antagonizing both parties.

You can take pictures and videos of YOU trimming those bushes
and mowing that grass too. There goes his claim of "exclusivity"
which in the AP laws I've read is required. If you're both using
the property, he has no claim.

**I certainly don't want to enjoin the nice guy who mows the grass

sometimes. I like him and he lives 3 houses away and will never claim

he owns my land. And he does a good job when he mows. I should get

him a present.

I wouldn't like an AH that is planting stuff on my property, mowing
my grass whether I want it mowed or not, and claiming that I don't
own what I know I own.

It's easy to give advice. But if Bill has his mind made up, he likely

won't even acknowledge that he was told it wasn't his property, let

alone acknowledge that it isn't. If your next-door neighbor came

over to land you owned while you were planiting a garden, and he said

he owned it, would you say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know" and write an

acknoledgement of any kind?

No, I don't think someone that thinks your land is rightfully his and
that believes he owns it and who may file an AP claim is going
to sign a permission agreement. That is precisely the point. It's just
that I suspect that free legal advice on a newsgroup where they said you
can just send him a unilateral license, and that's sufficient, doesn't
smell right.

Thanks for this. It needs a bit more, according to my lawyer/friend,

but it's a good start.







There are a few people (10%?) who would sign this, but my neighbor is

not one of them. He truly thinks he owns it (so why would he sign

it?)

And I'd ask, why would you sending him a piece of paper, that he
refuses to acknowledge make a good defense against an AP claim?
If he signs it yes. If he pisses all over it, tears it up, and
continues doing what he's been doing, because he says the property
is his and you're "license" doesn't apply, well that sure sounds exactly
like just continuing his hostile possession of your property to me.





or he knows he doesn't but feels entitled to it for some reason

(so why would he sign it?) or he knows he's going to lose eventually

but enjoys annoying me (so why would he sign it?) I tend to think

that even if he started out lying, by now he really believes he owns

it. People tend to believe their own lies after enough time.








One doesn't need an agreemnent to grant permission. I would not pay

for this guy's course.

But you have lots of faith and base your decisions on free legal
answers from a newsgroup.

I first read Nestork's reply to this post, because it's a lot shorter

and I was tired last night, and when I saw this paragraph from you, I

felt my stomach fall into a pit. But later a bunch of thoughts

occurred to me.



First, an agreement between me and my neighbor cannot bind a third

party who didn't agree to it. So the Mexican can sue me just as

easily even if I have this agrement signed by my n'bor.

You're absolutely right, he can sue you just as easily. I think
his chances of winning will be greatly diminished though if you
have a properly written agreement to hold you harmless.


What

peoiple normally do is get party C to hold harmless party B (me) and

to promise to reimburse me for any amounts paid to a third party.



Now it is a 100 times less likely that my neighbhor will sign. And

he shouldn't. We're sharing the land. What if I myself left the

dangerous item on the land and it was my fault a gardner or workman

gets hurt. Why should C sign something agreeing to remimburse me for

what I pay the injured party?**

If it was my property, he can sign it in return for his enjoyment
of continuing to use my property. Or he can choose not to sign it
and stay the hell off of my property. Real simple.

But thinking that didn't alleveiate my worry. But... a unilateral

permission won't make things worse than they already are.

I'm not so sure about that either. If he hires a Mexican and sends
him over to your property now, the Mexican is trespassing and was
sent there by an illegal act of the neighbor that you had nothing
to do with. You "license" the neighbor to use your property
and a lot has changed.




My n'bor C

already acts like he owns the land and if he had a reason to hire

someone to work on it, or walk over it, he would do it now. But

there are no hazards. Kids one summer threw bush bed stones into the

lawn, but they are long since gone. If I were to see anything else,

I'd pick it up too, but I haven't seen anything but a little litter in

20 years.



And if something did happen, my homeowners insurance company would

defend me in court,



It's not enough to own land on which someone is hurt. To be liable, I

have to have been negligent and my negligence has to be the proximate

cause of the person's injury. It's not going to happen.

Except that AH's that trespass and don't give a damn about
your property rights are the first ones to sue and point the
finger at you if something bad happens.

But I still appreciate your raising this, because maybe it will affect

the wording of the license or the letter than I will send with it.





**So the paragraph could say that liability will be based on who is

negligent and he will remimburse me if [a court says] he's negligent.

That might well help, but as I said, he'll never sign it.

 

[Harry K]

Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:

Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california...e-in-larry-hagman-and-adverse-possession.html



"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.



That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."














Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,

but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk

in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my

tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?

If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name

of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.

They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount

due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the

check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that

once a year.

Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.

Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.

YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".

Harry K

 

[Harry K]

Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.









Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.






YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".



Harry K

Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.

All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/California-Adverse-Possession.pdf

Harry K

 

[trader4]

Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.

Yeah, I'm the one who was right, but I'm still supposed to be
the lazy one because you're too lazy and stupid to use google
to figure out that what I posted was true. You acted like it
was unheard of. Yet, there it is, in the huge state of California,
among others.

Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.

Typical. I'm supposed to do everything, including google for
you. You asked a question about how someone could pay the
property taxes on a piece of property they don't own. I just
gave you the way it can be done. I spelled it out above.
Now, if that won't work, you could tell us why it won't.
Instead you just post some snide remark.

You sure as hell can walk into the tax collectors office
here in any of the towns I've lived in and pay the taxes
owed on any property. They don't ask for proof that you
own it. They ask the name and address, or block and lot #.
You give them a check or cash. If it's a check, they don't
give a rat's ass who's name is on the check. You think
there aren't plenty of folks, where for example there are
more than one person living together in a house and only
one of their names is on the title/tax records and only
that person can go pay the bill? And that
the person at the tax collectors window is going to ask
you to prove that you somehow have a right to pay the taxes?
They take the money from anyone there willing to pay it.
Good grief, you're dumb!

YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".



Harry K

You might try answering questions and using google, instead of hiding, being deceptive, and then bitching when I'm nice enough to use Google to prove that you're wrong.