If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Palm Beach Post)   Woman arrested for renting out neighbor's vacant, foreclosed mansion for over $13,000, claims she had right to do so by "adverse possession"   (palmbeachpost.com) divider line 106
    More: Florida, Nathalie Heil  
•       •       •

8158 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2013 at 1:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-11 12:46:37 AM  
That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.
 
2013-02-11 12:52:52 AM  
Illegally moving into your neighbor's place. Tell me your name again ma'am?
 
2013-02-11 01:33:22 AM  

feckingmorons: That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.


I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.
 
2013-02-11 01:59:53 AM  
I don't know. I admire that she had the balls to make the claim. How many of you could do that?
 
2013-02-11 02:02:26 AM  

timujin: feckingmorons: That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.


Ugh, you just reminded me of the house next door to me. Paint hasn't started chipping away yet, but the backyard was a farking jungle (and still is in places) until the bank finally got off its ass and hired someone. It's honestly something of a travesty IMO as the guy who used to live there prior to moving was a landscape artist.
 
2013-02-11 02:10:00 AM  
Why should the neighbors have to live with a vacant and abandoned house for over half a decade? The bank proved they have no interest in it. Either let the neighbors have it, or make the bank compensate them for the blight the house brings to the neighborhood.
 
2013-02-11 02:10:16 AM  

timujin: I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.


I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.
 
2013-02-11 02:11:59 AM  

feckingmorons: That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.


you know how long adverse possession has been around?
 
2013-02-11 02:15:20 AM  
High five, opportunity seeker!
 
2013-02-11 02:15:52 AM  

sycraft: timujin: I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession. There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years. The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.

I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.


From what I understand, it's usually legally applied in cases where, say, someone has a big field next to your house that they've let go fallow, you expand your garden five feet into their land and it just stays that way for X number of years.  You can then file paperwork showing that you've maintained the land and they have ignored it.

Iczer: timujin: feckingmorons: That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.

Ugh, you just reminded me of the house next door to me. Paint hasn't started chipping away yet, but the backyard was a farking jungle (and still is in places) until the bank finally got off its ass and hired someone. It's honestly something of a travesty IMO as the guy who used to live there prior to moving was a landscape artist.


The house across the street from me went that way.  It wasn't mowed for the first three years I lived here, the paint was peeling and the porch roof damn near fell in.  They finally sold it about six months ago.  The real estate company came in and put some lipstick on it, but I actually feel bad for the new owners for what's under that.
 
2013-02-11 02:16:08 AM  

WhyteRaven74: adverse possession


He doesn't even know what it is.
 
2013-02-11 02:16:16 AM  

sycraft: I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.


And most importantly?  If you take a property and LIVE there, then you might have a leg to stand on.  But to just claim random places and rent them out?

"There's three sides to every story," she said.

What is she, a Vorlon?
 
2013-02-11 02:17:58 AM  
Adverse possession isn't some complicated, arcane law, this woman is simply a moron.
 
2013-02-11 02:19:03 AM  

sycraft: timujin: I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.

I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.


Yeah, there's taking over an abandoned house and making it your own and then there's renting out someone else's property.
 
2013-02-11 02:19:47 AM  
She sounds pretty bootstrappy.  Might get her on tax evasion too if she didn't claim the money.
 
2013-02-11 02:20:12 AM  

Notabunny: Why should the neighbors have to live with a vacant and abandoned house for over half a decade? The bank proved they have no interest in it. Either let the neighbors have it, or make the bank compensate them for the blight the house brings to the neighborhood.


bankers and other business owners network & interface with each other like lice. politicians and the chief of police are usually involved as well. they are in the those little clubs and lodges that pretend to exist in order to help mutant pygmy children get harelips corrected and all that other charitable stuff. these are wealthy people rubbing elbows and helping each other get richer while they bend zoning laws and make sure cops kids don't get arrested. every town has it. the farther up you go the worse they are, greedier and more dangerous. they don't give a damn that someone elses block looks like shiat or if an honest businessman gets squeezed out if it benefits one of their own. corruption is the way of the world.
 
2013-02-11 02:20:25 AM  

Baryogenesis: sycraft: timujin: I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession. There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years. The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.

I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.

Yeah, there's taking over an abandoned house and making it your own and then there's renting out someone else's property.


I'm not arguing in favor of this woman's scheme, but simply for the idea that adverse possession is not as horrible an idea as sycraft seems to believe.
 
2013-02-11 02:22:09 AM  
According to TFA, the renters said they paid 13,500 in rent at 1,500 per month. I don't know if what the neighbor did was right, but if you don't notice people living on your property for nine months you deserve for stuff like this to happen. If you let that slide then you're sure as heck not mowing and maintaining the property. They're lucky they don't have a roving band of crackheads taking up residence.
 
2013-02-11 02:27:05 AM  
Just curious, butif there's a lienholder, such as a bank, how can anyone take adverse possession? The BANK hasn't abandoned the property, they still own it just as much as they own empty lots, or strip malls.. If that were the case, couldn't someone just go out and build a house on any old empty plot of land that's owned by a bank and claim the bank "abandoned" it?

I thought adverse possession only kicked in when a PERSON (or persons) owned a particular piece of property and abandoned it.

What about forests that are owned by paper mills? They own them, but they're waiting 8-10 years for the trees to grow large enough to cut down - couldn't someone just build a house in there with their own 2 hands and say "Hey, I've lived here for 10 years, I own the whole forest now"?

It's a stupid law. May have made sense 100 years ago when people were more migrant, but it just doesn't work today.
 
2013-02-11 02:30:03 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: And most importantly?  If you take a property and LIVE there, then you might have a leg to stand on.  But to just claim random places and rent them out?


I don't know about the law in Florida, but the traditional view of adverse possession just requires flagrant usage without the permission of the landowner. If it were my neighborhood I'd much rather someone take control of the property and rent it out rather than a bank let it be abandoned for years.
 
2013-02-11 02:33:23 AM  
timujin:From what I understand, it's usually legally applied in cases where, say, someone has a big field next to your house that they've let go fallow, you expand your garden five feet into their land and it just stays that way for X number of years.  You can then file paperwork showing that you've maintained the land and they have ignored it.

That was the main reason behind it, and mainly how it is used. However it is also for abandoned property. If you truly do take over an abandoned piece of (private) property and occupy it openly, hostilely, continuously, and for a long period of time it can become yours. However that doesn't mean you have the right to do it without anyone stopping you. If nobody does, then you are good to go, but if the owner notices then you can get in trouble.

Same deal with the more common case of using part of their land. If you build something on their land and they notice, they can make you take it down. Likewise they can grant you permission to do it, in which case you cannot claim adverse possession, no matter how long passes.

The main thing to understand is that you don't have a right to adverse possession, as in you don't get to try and take someone's property and if you fail, there are no consequences.
 
2013-02-11 02:42:24 AM  
Chapter 95 
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION 
     
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut e &URL=0000-0099/0095/0095.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px;">View Entire Chapter


RELATED STORY: http://bit.ly/WSqxvE

195.18Real property actions; adverse possession without color of title.- 
(1)When the occupant has, or those under whom the occupant claims have, been in actual continued occupation of real property for 7 years

Andre De Palma Barbosa, the 23-year-old Brazilian now known as the "Boca Raton squatter," used adverse possession to move into an empty foreclosed 7,000-square-foot mansion in Boca Raton in December.

under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, but not founded on a written instrument, judgment, or decree, the property actually occupied is held adversely if the person claiming adverse possession made a return, as required under subsection (3), of the property by proper legal description to the property appraiser of the county where it is located within 1 year after entering into possession and has subsequently paid, subject to s. 197.3335, all taxes and matured installments of special improvement liens levied against the property by the state, county, and municipality. 
(2)For the purpose of this section, property is deemed to be possessed if the property has been: 
(a)Protected by substantial enclosure; 
(b)Cultivated or improved in a usual manner; or 
(c)Occupied and maintained. 
(3)A person claiming adverse possession under this section must make a return of the property by providing to the property appraiser a uniform return on a form provided by the Department of Revenue. The return must include all of the following: 
(a)The name and address of the person claiming adverse possession. 
(b)The date that the person claiming adverse possession entered into possession of the property. 
(c)A full and complete legal description of the property that is subject to the adverse possession claim. 
(d)A notarized attestation clause that states: 

UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING RETURN AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. 
(e)A description of the use of the property by the person claiming adverse possession. 
(f)A receipt to be completed by the property appraiser.
 

The property appraiser shall refuse to accept a return if it does not comply with this subsection. The executive director of the Department of Revenue is authorized, and all conditions are deemed met, to adopt emergency rules under ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54(4) for the purpose of implementing this subsection. The emergency rules shall remain in effect for 6 months after adoption and may be renewed during the pendency of procedures to adopt rules addressing the subject of the emergency rules. 
(4)Upon the submission of a return, the property appraiser shall: 
(a)Send, via regular mail, a copy of the return to the owner of record of the property that is subject to the adverse possession claim, as identified by the property appraiser's records. 
(b)Inform the owner of record that, under s. 197.3335, any tax payment made by the owner of record before April 1 following the year in which the tax is assessed will have priority over any tax payment made by an adverse possessor.

(c)Add a notation at the beginning of the first line of the legal description on the tax roll that an adverse possession claim has been submitted. 
(d)Maintain the return in the property appraiser's records. 
(5)(a)If a person makes a claim of adverse possession under this section against a portion of a parcel of property identified by a unique parcel identification number in the property appraiser's records: 
1.The person claiming adverse possession shall include in the return submitted under subsection (3) a full and complete legal description of the property sufficient to enable the property appraiser to identify the portion of the property subject to the adverse possession claim. 
2.The property appraiser may refuse to accept the return if the portion of the property subject to the claim cannot be identified by the legal description provided in the return, and the person claiming adverse possession must obtain a survey of the portion of the property subject to the claim in order to submit the return. 
(b)Upon submission of the return, the property appraiser shall follow the procedures under subsection (4), and may not create a unique parcel identification number for the portion of property subject to the claim. 
(c)The property appraiser shall assign a fair and just value to the portion of the property, as provided in s. 193.011, and provide this value to the tax collector to facilitate tax payment under s. 197.3335(3). 
(6)(a)If a person makes a claim of adverse possession under this section against property to which the property appraiser has not assigned a parcel identification number: 
1.The person claiming adverse possession must include in the return submitted under subsection (3) a full and complete legal description of the property which is sufficient to enable the property appraiser to identify the property subject to the adverse possession claim. 
2.The property appraiser may

refuse to accept a return if the property subject to the claim cannot be identified by the legal description provided in the return, and the person claiming adverse possession must obtain a survey of the property subject to the claim in order to submit the return. 
(b)Upon submission of the return, the property appraiser shall: 
1.Assign a parcel identification number to the property and assign a fair and just value to the property as provided in s. 193.011; 
2.Add a notation at the beginning of the first line of the legal description on the tax roll that an adverse possession claim has been submitted; and 
3.Maintain the return in the property appraiser's records. 
(7)A property appraiser must remove the notation to the legal description on the tax roll that an adverse possession claim has been submitted and shall remove the return from the property appraiser's records if: 
(a)The person claiming adverse possession notifies the property appraiser in writing that the adverse possession claim is withdrawn; 
(b)The owner of record provides a certified copy of a court order, entered after the date the return was submitted to the property appraiser, establishing title in the owner of record;
(c)The property appraiser receives a certified copy of a recorded deed, filed after the date of the submission of the return, from the person claiming adverse possession to the owner of record transferring title of property along with a legal description describing the same property subject to the adverse possession claim; or 
(d)The owner of record or the tax collector provides to the property appraiser a receipt demonstrating that the owner of record has paid the annual tax assessment for the property subject to the adverse possession claim during the period that the person is claiming adverse possession. 
(8)The property appraiser shall include a clear and obvious notation in the legal description of the parcel information of any public searchable property database maintained by the property appraiser that an adverse possession return has been submitted to the property appraiser for a particular parcel. 
History.-s. 7, ch. 1869, 1872; s. 6, ch. 4055, 1891; RS 1291; GS 1722; RGS 2936; CGL 4656; s. 1, ch. 19254, 1939; ss. 13, 14, ch. 74-382; s. 1, ch. 77-102; s. 523, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 2011-107. 
1Note.-Section 4, ch. 2011-107, provides that "[t]his act shall take effect July 1, 2011, and applies to adverse possession claims in which the return was submitted on or after that date, except for the procedural provisions governing the property appraiser's administration of adverse possession claims included in s. 95.18(4)(c) and (d) and (7), Florida Statutes, and the provisions governing the payment of taxes included in s. 197.3335, Florida Statutes, as created by this act, which apply to adverse possession claims for which the return was submitted before, on, or after that date."
 
2013-02-11 02:43:51 AM  
Well, as any 2L could tell you, adverse possession isn't just a matter of your next-door neighbor hasn't been around in a while so you move in. It was designed so people couldn't buy up property and let it sit for decades (not years) while their land-hungry neighbors starved on the hillside. Adverse possession is a relic of common law, and requires, among other things, that the possession be hostile, open and notorious, continuous, actual, and exclusive.

That is to say, the possession has to be something that the true owner could reasonably discover if only they visited their property once in a while, and they could have kicked the adverse possessor off by legal means but were too lazy or too remote to do so. What it DOESN'T mean, as this strange woman seems to think, that if the real owner hasn't been by in a while and she pays the taxes, it's hers to rent out. Adverse possession laws usually require her to have lived on the property for the whole period of the statute, not just lived next to it. Although in most places, the statutory period is 20 years, not seven.

Oh, and for anyone who says "But that's trespassing!" why, yes, it is. Adverse possession laws are left over from the homesteading days, when rich absentee landowners would buy up huge spreads of the best land, string a fence around it, and then not use it while they waited for the prices to go up. Since the stated purpose of the Homestead Act was to put the land to use, not to enrich speculators, courts generally held that anyone who lived on the land and made improvements to it had more of a right to it than someone who hadn't been around for 20 years to notice someone was squatting on his property.
 
2013-02-11 02:48:03 AM  

KrispyKritter: Notabunny: Why should the neighbors have to live with a vacant and abandoned house for over half a decade? The bank proved they have no interest in it. Either let the neighbors have it, or make the bank compensate them for the blight the house brings to the neighborhood.

bankers and other business owners network & interface with each other like lice. politicians and the chief of police are usually involved as well. they are in the those little clubs and lodges that pretend to exist in order to help mutant pygmy children get harelips corrected and all that other charitable stuff. these are wealthy people rubbing elbows and helping each other get richer while they bend zoning laws and make sure cops kids don't get arrested. every town has it. the farther up you go the worse they are, greedier and more dangerous. they don't give a damn that someone elses block looks like shiat or if an honest businessman gets squeezed out if it benefits one of their own. corruption is the way of the world.


BILDERBERGERS!
 
2013-02-11 02:48:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Since the stated purpose of the Homestead Act was to put the land to use, not to enrich speculators, courts generally held that anyone who lived on the land and made improvements to it had more of a right to it than someone who hadn't been around for 20 years to notice someone was squatting on his property.


You hear that, indians?! It's ours now fair and square. The whole thing!
 
2013-02-11 02:52:38 AM  

Southern100: I thought adverse possession only kicked in when a PERSON (or persons) owned a particular piece of property and abandoned it.


Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it applies whenever a "hostile tenant" moves in on the land and starts using it as though it were their own. Abandonment would be an obvious reason where adverse possession comes into play, but it's not necessary.

Southern100: What about forests that are owned by paper mills? They own them, but they're waiting 8-10 years for the trees to grow large enough to cut down - couldn't someone just build a house in there with their own 2 hands and say "Hey, I've lived here for 10 years, I own the whole forest now"?

It's a stupid law. May have made sense 100 years ago when people were more migrant, but it just doesn't work today.


The point of adverse possession is to protect current landowners by establishing a time frame in which a third party is allowed to claim ownership of the land. Imagine you have been living in a house for a decade, and someone comes to the door and claims that your house is actually his, due to a misunderstanding with the previous owner. Under the doctrine of adverse possession it doesn't matter whether he has a legitimate claim against the previous owner or not, the fact that you've been the one living on the property and maintaining it for the last 10 years makes you the rightful landowner. This provides stability, and as a landowner/buyer it means you only need to know the history of a piece of land for the last 5-10 years. Someone can't come along and start causing legal troubles for you based on claims that are 20, 30, or 100 years old.

In your situation above any adverse possession claim would only cover the land that is actually used by the person moving in. If your house occupies 1 acre in the middle of thousands of acres owned by the logging company, you would only have claim to the land your house is on. It's also easy to see in this case that the harm done to the homeowner in requiring him to give up a home he's been living in for years is greater than the harm done to the logging company by allowing a guy to live on a very small (proportionately) piece of land. A claim would still have to meet the other criteria for adverse possession, such as the use of the land being obvious to the landowner, to be valid.
 
2013-02-11 02:53:40 AM  

fusillade762: KrispyKritter: Notabunny: Why should the neighbors have to live with a vacant and abandoned house for over half a decade? The bank proved they have no interest in it. Either let the neighbors have it, or make the bank compensate them for the blight the house brings to the neighborhood.

bankers and other business owners network & interface with each other like lice. politicians and the chief of police are usually involved as well. they are in the those little clubs and lodges that pretend to exist in order to help mutant pygmy children get harelips corrected and all that other charitable stuff. these are wealthy people rubbing elbows and helping each other get richer while they bend zoning laws and make sure cops kids don't get arrested. every town has it. the farther up you go the worse they are, greedier and more dangerous. they don't give a damn that someone elses block looks like shiat or if an honest businessman gets squeezed out if it benefits one of their own. corruption is the way of the world.

BILDERBERGERS!


upload.wikimedia.org

?
 
2013-02-11 02:58:30 AM  

Fubini: Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it applies whenever a "hostile tenant" moves in on the land and starts using it as though it were their own.


It does not.  That's simple trespassing.  Adverse possession is indeed a thing, but there are a lot of requirements, time limitations, open and notorious use of the land, etc., which have been outlined above, for basic common law.  Statutorily you also then have to work with the state to establish contact with the property owner of record, establish who has been paying taxes, etc.  You don't get to just move into an empty home and call dibs.
 
2013-02-11 03:02:03 AM  

GranoblasticMan: fusillade762: KrispyKritter: Notabunny: Why should the neighbors have to live with a vacant and abandoned house for over half a decade? The bank proved they have no interest in it. Either let the neighbors have it, or make the bank compensate them for the blight the house brings to the neighborhood.

bankers and other business owners network & interface with each other like lice. politicians and the chief of police are usually involved as well. they are in the those little clubs and lodges that pretend to exist in order to help mutant pygmy children get harelips corrected and all that other charitable stuff. these are wealthy people rubbing elbows and helping each other get richer while they bend zoning laws and make sure cops kids don't get arrested. every town has it. the farther up you go the worse they are, greedier and more dangerous. they don't give a damn that someone elses block looks like shiat or if an honest businessman gets squeezed out if it benefits one of their own. corruption is the way of the world.

BILDERBERGERS!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 205x211]

?


I've often thought of starting a Fuddruckers type restaurant where you make your own hamburger and call it "Build-a-Burger's"
 
2013-02-11 03:02:57 AM  
Do these people that take over the land get retroactively billed for all of the Property Tax that the real owner has paid over the years/decades?
 
2013-02-11 03:06:27 AM  

MissFeasance: Fubini: Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it applies whenever a "hostile tenant" moves in on the land and starts using it as though it were their own.

It does not.  That's simple trespassing.  Adverse possession is indeed a thing, but there are a lot of requirements, time limitations, open and notorious use of the land, etc., which have been outlined above, for basic common law.  Statutorily you also then have to work with the state to establish contact with the property owner of record, establish who has been paying taxes, etc.  You don't get to just move into an empty home and call dibs.


I wasn't trying to say that was the only requirement, just saying that an adverse possession claim doesn't require the current landowner to *abandon* the property. The landowner and the hostile possessor could even both be present and actively working the land, as in Timujin's example of a garden.
 
2013-02-11 03:09:19 AM  

sycraft: Same deal with the more common case of using part of their land. If you build something on their land and they notice, they can make you take it down. Likewise they can grant you permission to do it, in which case you cannot claim adverse possession, no matter how long passes.


Yep. A couple of my neighbors ran into that when I was a kid. Family A built a huge deck/gazebo/pool in the back yard. They didn't pay too much attention to the survey line, and when Family B, cousins of a sort, pointed out that five feet of the deck, two feet of the pool and the pool filter was actually in their yard everyone had a good laugh and agreed to share it.

Fast forward 13 years, Family A retires to Florida and gives the place to their son, and Family B still uses the pool. But A's daughter-in-law doesn't like B's teenage kids using it, so she hires guys to put up a fence 12 feet inside B's yard with the excuse "We've been using it so long it's ours now. Don't like it? Talk to our lawyer."

The end result? B took a chainsaw to the fence and threw it in the pool, then sat on his portion of the deck with a salt-filled shotgun for a couple days while A's lawyer advised them that "The end result will be the entire thing has to come down."
 
2013-02-11 03:11:44 AM  

Fubini: The landowner and the hostile possessor could even both be present and actively working the land, as in Timujin's example of a garden.


If the landowner is present, it isn't hostile possession.
 
2013-02-11 03:15:12 AM  

C18H27NO3: Do these people that take over the land get retroactively billed for all of the Property Tax that the real owner has paid over the years/decades?


In most places paying property taxes is a requirement for an adverse possession claim. I'm not sure what the local governing body would do if they were double-paid on the property taxes. I suspect that would be covered under the local laws.

The point of adverse possession isn't to give you a way to conduct hostile takeovers of other people's land, it's to establish priorities in the event of a dispute over land ownership. The doctrine of adverse possession favors the current user of the land over the legal landowner in the event that the legal landowner has been so absent that they haven't noticed people using their land for a substantial period of time. A mere squatter doesn't have an adverse possession claim, but someone who acts as though they are the rightful landowner would.
 
2013-02-11 03:19:14 AM  

Fubini: A mere squatter doesn't have an adverse possession claim, but someone who acts as though they are the rightful landowner would.


Exactly.  If she moved in seven years ago, paid the taxes, notified the state and landowner and got the papers done, fine.  You don't get to move into an abandoned house after it's been empty for 6 years and then say it's yours.
 
2013-02-11 03:23:46 AM  

MissFeasance: Fubini: The landowner and the hostile possessor could even both be present and actively working the land, as in Timujin's example of a garden.

If the landowner is present, it isn't hostile possession.


My understanding is that any use of the land without the explicit permission of the landowner is considered hostile. But, I'm not a lawyer.
 
2013-02-11 03:28:50 AM  

Fubini: MissFeasance: Fubini: The landowner and the hostile possessor could even both be present and actively working the land, as in Timujin's example of a garden.

If the landowner is present, it isn't hostile possession.

My understanding is that any use of the land without the explicit permission of the landowner is considered hostile. But, I'm not a lawyer.


You said "both be present and actively working the land." If the landowner is there and aware of the other person working the land, it's not hostile.  The landlord knows you're there and is allowing it.  That is not hostile possession.
 
2013-02-11 03:43:51 AM  
Linda Blair called.


She just said "Meh!"
 
2013-02-11 03:52:38 AM  

MissFeasance: Fubini: MissFeasance: Fubini: The landowner and the hostile possessor could even both be present and actively working the land, as in Timujin's example of a garden.

If the landowner is present, it isn't hostile possession.

My understanding is that any use of the land without the explicit permission of the landowner is considered hostile. But, I'm not a lawyer.

You said "both be present and actively working the land." If the landowner is there and aware of the other person working the land, it's not hostile.  The landlord knows you're there and is allowing it.  That is not hostile possession.

If the landowner and the other person are jointly working the same land then other person has not established exclusive use of the land, and would have not have a claim under adverse possession.  However, I didn't mean to imply this situation, but rather a situation where a landowner was merely present and generally using their land. In this case, a second person could come in and infringe on their land, but the landowner might not do anything about it, in which case he would be giving up his right to the land.Suppose someone built a property-line fence in the wrong spot. The landowner might not realize if the placement was only slightly off, and after a period of time could lose title to the land on the other side of the fence by a claim of adverse possession. However, if the landowner saw the mistake, talked to his neighbor about it and granted permission for the fence then he would be immune to a later claim of adverse possession. The difference is the first situation would be hostile (or at least adverse) because it's done without permission, while the second is not. Even if the landowner saw the infringement and recognized it, the possession would still be hostile until he made it otherwise.
 
2013-02-11 03:54:31 AM  
Fubini:

That's strange, it didn't format my reply correctly.

If the landowner and the other person are jointly working the same land then other person has not established exclusive use of the land, and would have not have a claim under adverse possession.  However, I didn't mean to imply this situation, but rather a situation where a landowner was merely present and generally using their land. In this case, a second person could come in and infringe on their land, but the landowner might not do anything about it, in which case he would be giving up his right to the land.

Suppose someone built a property-line fence in the wrong spot. The landowner might not realize if the placement was only slightly off, and after a period of time could lose title to the land on the other side of the fence by a claim of adverse possession. However, if the landowner saw the mistake, talked to his neighbor about it and granted permission for the fence then he would be immune to a later claim of adverse possession. The difference is the first situation would be hostile (or at least adverse) because it's done without permission, while the second is not. Even if the landowner saw the infringement and recognized it, the possession would still be hostile until he made it otherwise.
 
2013-02-11 04:01:06 AM  

Fubini: However, I didn't mean to imply this situation, but rather a situation where a landowner was merely present and generally using their land. In this case, a second person could come in and infringe on their land, but the landowner might not do anything about it, in which case he would be giving up his right to the land.Suppose someone built a property-line fence in the wrong spot. The landowner might not realize if the placement was only slightly off, and after a period of time could lose title to the land on the other side of the fence by a claim of adverse possession. However, if the landowner saw the mistake, talked to his neighbor about it and granted permission for the fence then he would be immune to a later claim of adverse possession. The difference is the first situation would be hostile (or at least adverse) because it's done without permission, while the second is not. Even if the landowner saw the infringement and recognized it, the possession would still be hostile until he made it otherwise.


Granting permission would most likely be considered not a conveyance of property, but an easement.
 
2013-02-11 04:15:26 AM  

MissFeasance: Granting permission would most likely be considered not a conveyance of property, but an easement.


I don't know what it would be called legally, but it wouldn't be giving away the property. The whole point of granting permission would be to acknowledge that the fence was in the wrong spot, but that the rightful landowner would allow the fence to stay where it was (fences are expensive). However, if the landowner never brings it up and allows his neighbor to believe that the fence marked the property line correctly, after a period of time the landowner could lose his claim to that part of his property.
 
2013-02-11 04:16:11 AM  

timujin: feckingmorons: That adverse possession bullshiat will soon be a felony if legislators would get off their asses and pass the Bill.

I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.



I used to read books like that, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
 
2013-02-11 04:19:18 AM  

Fubini: I don't know what it would be called legally, but it wouldn't be giving away the property. The whole point of granting permission would be to acknowledge that the fence was in the wrong spot, but that the rightful landowner would allow the fence to stay where it was (fences are expensive).


Yes.  We call that an easement.

Fubini: However, if the landowner never brings it up and allows his neighbor to believe that the fence marked the property line correctly, after a period of time the landowner could lose his claim to that part of his property.


Take it up with the courts.  I'm not your personal property civil law attorney.
 
2013-02-11 04:47:19 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Adverse possession laws are left over from the homesteading days, when rich absentee landowners would buy up huge spreads of the best land, string a fence around it, and then not use it while they waited for the prices to go up. Since the stated purpose of the Homestead Act was to put the land to use, not to enrich speculators, courts generally held that anyone who lived on the land and made improvements to it had more of a right to it than someone who hadn't been around for 20 years to notice someone was squatting on his property.


much much much older than that.
from edward longshanks time.
 
2013-02-11 04:57:47 AM  
Now I am afraid to leave the house for a weekend.
 
2013-02-11 05:01:07 AM  
I have seen a pattern here - Brazilian's seem to have been sold a bizarre idea of what property ownership is!
 
2013-02-11 05:45:51 AM  

Fubini: Satanic_Hamster: And most importantly?  If you take a property and LIVE there, then you might have a leg to stand on.  But to just claim random places and rent them out?

I don't know about the law in Florida, but the traditional view of adverse possession just requires flagrant usage without the permission of the landowner. If it were my neighborhood I'd much rather someone take control of the property and rent it out rather than a bank let it be abandoned for years.


Fine, live in the takeover house and rent yours out.  Problem solved.  The real key to adverse possession is POSSESSION.  The actual adverse possession was accruing to the renter, not the neighbor.
 
2013-02-11 06:15:21 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: I don't know. I admire that she had the balls to make the claim.


Perhaps.  The whole adverse possession thing seems to apply only to people who are actually living in the home for the requisite seven years.

She lives next door, by this account.

Unless the article is leaving out some details (say for instance that "living in" can also mean "taking care of", I don't see where she's justified in making the claim.  Making an unjustified claim takes balls.  Brains?  Not so much.
 
2013-02-11 06:16:23 AM  

Baryogenesis: sycraft: timujin: I dunno, I kind of like the idea of adverse possession.  There are neighborhoods all across this country where banks have foreclosed on homes and then let them sit for years.  The yards get full of weeds, the paint peels.. all because they don't have the time or resources to keep the place up.

It's not a perfect system, but neither is the one we have.

I think it is just generally misunderstood. Some people seem to think it means you can take over any property if you like, and face no repercussions. No, not so much. As happened here, you very well can get in trouble. What it means is that if property private property truly is abandoned and you take over it and make it yours, obviously, continuously, and for a long time, then it can legally become yours. Doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want though and face no repercussions.

Yeah, there's taking over an abandoned house and making it your own and then there's renting out someone else's property.


One of the requirements is that you use the property as a true owner would.  Renting a house out would fit.

The requirement this woman ran afoul of is that you must use the property without challenge from the true owner for a specified period of time (7 years in Florida,  as  many as 20-30 elsewhere).  That's what proves the property is truly abandoned.  This woman was challenged.  You don't obtain title at the start of adverse possession; she thought just filling out paperwork made her the new owner.

It's unusual that she was charged with crimes.  Cops will generally treat adverse possession as a civil matter and stay out of it.  The  missing paperwork was probably the key there.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report