[kHy87gPC]

Adverse possession dates way back to Ye Olde Jolly England. It's designed to keep property in productive use.

The adverse use has to be for a long period of time, usually 10 years, 15 in some states, in western states such as California it's 5 years. If you're openly using someone's land for that long without them noticing, then you can bring suit to have the land declared yours.

[casinobonusese]

They called fives, there is no legal way out.

[Onervemurce]

Originally posted by uberloz
Am I misinterpreting your response?

Are you actually in favor of this legal practice? I haven't really thought about it much. I guess I'm for it.

It's more beneficial for society to make use of land than to not make use of land. The onus on the original landowner is minimal -- just check out your property every 4, 9 or 14 years to see if anyone else is using it.

[GotActichwicy]

The couple who lost the court case honestly didn't notice their neighbor had possession/productive use of the land for a decade? You snooze, you lose.

[beneitpedro]

They filed a lawsuit to prevent the productive use of a vacant lot. How can that possibly be construed/contrived as being supportive of productive use is beyond me.

[saumemeva]

This is the first time I'd heard this principle being used in an American court. Has this happened before?

[ChyFDjfed]

Oerdin, read the article. The claim is that they used the land to access their backyard (in other words, I'd guess they simply walked through it) and had never been asked to stop - in other words their neighbors were nice... that they should be given the land by judicial fiat.

-Arrian

[BluewayAllere]

If it's necessary for access though, I would think they have a valid point. (It's certainly possible this is not the case, but I assume it is so, or otherwise how would this have been ruled that way?) From what i've seen of caselaw (the last time I saw this was helping my dad study in law school) Access routes are one of the more common uses of this law (and similar)...

I'd also be curious about the amount of land being discussed... '1/3' is a very fungible term, given it's only the second lot. If Lot A (the one being cut) is a 30 foot by 30 foot lot, and lot B is a 4 acre lot, that is very different from two large lots... I would assume for access purposes they would be given something like 10 feet across the length of the lot at most.

To me this could be a valid application (and could be not), depending on the circumstances; without many more details we can't meaningfully comment on the specific case. I was objecting to the characterization of Adverse Possession as a whole, not necessarily this case.

[Poll Pitt]

Critical facts are missing from the article.

The original owners (Kirlins) say they visited the property almost weekly. The adverse possessors (McLean and Steverns) say they've been using the land to access their backyard and have never been asked to stop.

There's no mention of how long McLean and Stevens were using the property.
There's no mention of whether their use left any telltale signs that they'd been there (e.g. tire ruts).

But even with the best facts for McLean and Stevens, they shouldn't have been awarded ownership of the property. Even using their facts, the most they should have gotten was the grant of an easement (i.e. the Kirlins would continue to own it; but McLean and Stevens could drive across it to get to their backyard.

If they'd build a driveway or some permanent structure; if they'd have fenced off the path they were using, then yes -- they'd had been continuously occupying the land. But this isn't the case. They were occasionally driving over it.

Judgment overturned by the High Court of Zkribbler: Reversed and remanded.

[dupratac]

Did the Adverse Possessors build a road on the land? Or do they just sometimes move tractors through?

JM

[bQXHsKzS]

Originally posted by snoopy369 The thing is that clearly in this case this wouldn't have come up if the defendant hadn't suddenly for no obvious reason decided to build a fence to block their access. More than likely they could have come to a resolution that didn't involve giving up title to the land - but the defendand did not choose that route. This is then the only relief the plaintiff has for continued access to their land... How do you know they wanted to build a fence for no reason ?

And why should the original owners of the land be held resposible for poor planning by the annexing couple.

"Hey we built over our original driveway so we are just going to take yours. By the way thanks for being a good sport long enough for this to seem legal!"

[Zugaxxsn]

quote:
In 1993, a cellular phone company cut a hole in an 80-year-old fence on a ranch near Holyoke and began construction of a tower, despite the fact that the three sisters who possessed the land had denied Cellular One access. The three grew up on the ranch shortly after the fence was placed, and the hill that the phone company wanted to lease had been a beloved part of their family’s property for as long as they could remember.

But Cellular One had learned that the fence was not the true boundary of the land, that the hill belonged to the sisters’ neighbor. And the neighbor gave the company permission to proceed with construction.

The sisters challenged, using a doctrine called “adverse possession,” and they won. The tower came down.

Adverse possession law has been around for centuries. Its premise is that someone who possesses and uses land as his own for a certain period of time should have title to it, regardless of original ownership. Every state allows for adverse possession, with the requirements for possession in most states ranging from 10 to 20 years. In Colorado, 18 years of use is enough to claim adverse possession.
Ha, I remember this case specifically (it would have been 1996 that my dad started law school, so this would have been fresh news at the time)... definitely a valid use of this law in that case, regardless of in this one

[sposteTipsKage]

I remember our neighbors leaving stuff or otherwise using our land.. and us going and telling them to stop. Could they have than filed suit years later?

We just told them to stop (and they would do so again), we didn't go to the law...

JM

[Flatlytaize]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I also didn't get that part of his post. Why should they need a reason to fence in thier property? If you've driven or walked across a dirt road for twenty five years to access your yard without objection, and suddenly someone puts a fence preventing you from accessing your yard, wouldn't you be annoyed?

[Elisabetxxx]

Sounds like the Kirlins wanted to build a new house, and were going to put up a fence.

The other people didn't like it - the new house would block their view or something, and stole the land (legally, of course). Oh, and the fact that the guy is a former judge had nothing to do with the ruling, I'm sure.

-Arrian

[DoterForeva]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sounds like the Kirlins wanted to build a new house, and were going to put up a fence.

The other people didn't like it - the new house would block their view or something, and stole the land (legally, of course). Oh, and the fact that the guy is a former judge had nothing to do with the ruling, I'm sure.

-Arrian This may well be exactly what happened in this instance... but Uberloz, an easement is an entirely reasonable resolution to the theoretical problem here. It is not as black and white as you have been portraying it.

DinoDoc: A reason is irrelevant and I should not have said "for no reason". Even a very good reason would not be enough to permit it to be built and block the access in this case.

[Kneefrenolf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You still didn't answer the question. Why should anyone need a reason to fence thier property? Why shouldnt someone who doesnt want to pay a lien on THEIR property, have the right to refuse to do so?

You see if X has an easement on property owned by Y, then Y doesnt own the property absolutely - they own it subject to the easement. Y has a property right in the easement.

As for the good sport thing, IIUC its quite possible to let someone cross your property WITHOUT creating an easement - you just tell them, hey, im letting you cross, but this in no way creates an easement. You can put up a sign to that effect, I think, whatever.

[Extinimot]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If that's all they used it for then the decision is wrong. Taking 5 minutes twice a year to drive over it isn't productive use. crossing a property for transportation is about the most common form of easement created by use, IIUC. Im not sure how many times a year it has to be, presumably thats based on case law, the state statute, etc.

[LindaSmithIV]

Originally posted by snoopy369 ... but Uberloz, an easement is an entirely reasonable resolution to the theoretical problem here. It is not as black and white as you have been portraying it. I totally get that.

I think I was editing the post you are referring to here as you were typing yours.

I could see the use of an easement to satisfy all parties here if the original owners were in favor of it. I just don't see the use of adverse possesion as being applicable.

I also don't like the whole idea of adverse possesion to begin with.

But then I've never been in favor of forced redistribution in any form.

[Narus63]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
By the way, have you ever noticed those signs on sidewalks in cities: Are there such signs in your cities?