Grandfathered squatter?

[ghitch75]

first question that has never been asked.......has it been surveyed?....and has the neighbors been surveyed?........if neither has been surveyed get the owner of the piece you want to do it........

most countys won't transfer with a recent survey just for trouble like this......few years back a neighbor shot there neighbor just over a thing like this down here....

 

[Skullglide]

Warren County?

 

[ghitch75]

Warren County?

Greene....

 

[rhino]

So how do people who own big pieces of land stop jackasses from stealing pieces of it from them over time by squatting?

 

[Bookmark]

So how do people who own big pieces of land stop jackasses from stealing pieces of it from them over time by squatting?

Some country wisdom: "Good fences make good neighbors."

 

[M67]

The fact that squatters have "rights" like this to me, is complete BS. Where do you draw the line between squatting, trespassing, and stealing?

It's like "I've been looking at my neighbor's property for 30 years.....so since I've been looking at it for so long it's now mine

 

[ghitch75]

So how do people who own big pieces of land stop jackasses from stealing pieces of it from them over time by squatting?

good survey.....

 

[churchmouse]

good survey.....

And walk the perimeter.
Sister had her land surveyed because of idiot neighbors activity's. Had it well marked. They travel the perimeter when they can. This has put a few tree stands on the ground.

 

[HoughMade]

So how do people who own big pieces of land stop jackasses from stealing pieces of it from them over time by squatting?

They keep an eye on their property at less than 10 year intervals, eject those using it without permission or lease, in writing, to those they wish to let keep using it, and pay their taxes.

 

[HoughMade]

The fact that squatters have "rights" like this to me, is complete BS. Where do you draw the line between squatting, trespassing, and stealing?

It's like "I've been looking at my neighbor's property for 30 years.....so since I've been looking at it for so long it's now mine

Essentially, the law was intended to get use out of property by someone if the owner isn't going to use it. It's really quite easy to not let this happen, but you can't sit back for a decade and do nothing.

 

[seedubs1]

IANAL, but just claim manifest destiny. I’m pretty sure that still works too.

 

[T.Lex]

I really fail to understand what the purpose of these laws were other than legalizing and legitimizing theft. Who thought it would be a good idea to give squatters rights?

So how do people who own big pieces of land stop jackasses from stealing pieces of it from them over time by squatting?

So, these 2 questions are related.

At a policy level, it helps everyone in a community to have property put to the "highest and best use." Not every property is the same (that's why there's always been a premium on property ownership - no 2 parcels are the same, despite what modern neighborhoods might seem like).

Ideally, an owner of a property will want the personal and financial reward associated with putting property to the highest and best use. Could be a home that is maintained nicely, could be a farm, could be a business. We might disagree on the specifics, but I think most reasonable people could agree on whether any given parcel is being used in a way that meets the highest and best use; there may not be a single use that is the "right" one.

The other policy-level idea to keep in mind is that if someone puts their own resources into something to increase the value, they probably deserve compensation for it.

With those contexts, lets look at a modern example: Detroit. Ok, you may have to squint a little. Entire sections of the city were vacated. Left derelict. Rather than let some of the areas fall deeper into crime and health risks from collapsing buildings, some people have gone to rather extraordinary measures to clean things up. That can include taking care of homes that the owner has abandoned or even tearing them down and planting urban gardens. The owners - either the people or the banks - have written them off. Don't care about them. The people taking care of them deserve something - at a policy level - for keeping the properties at something close to the highest and best use.

If they do it long enough, the get an ownership interest in the property.

So those may be an easy example.

What about the guy who mows a strip of grass for 20 years because he thinks its his property, but it is really common area and belongs to the HOA. The stupid landscaping contractors never seem to get this one grass strip because it is kinda between some trees and they're just lazy. Even with their fancy riding, zero turn mowers, they can't just take the extra 42 seconds to get this one strip. Well, that may be a super-specific example that just came to me from my wild imagination without any root in something that actually happens every spring and summer, but it won't ever give rise to a property interest.

That's a pretty easy example going the other way. It sucks for that guy that he has to mow a little longer, for free, to accomplish what others are being paid to do instead of spending time with his family or watching football, but that's still not going to be enough (probably).

Now, let's come back to something like the OP's situation. One neighbor builds something that encroaches. Maybe it was on purpose, maybe it wasn't. Maybe he had verbal permission or assent (once it was done, the owner-neighbor didn't make a big deal about it). But, whatever the situation, it was allowed to continue by the actual owner and no one ever did the legal stuff to make it formal. After enough time passes, both parties deserve some finality to what the ownership status is.

That's what Adverse Possession is intended to do: reward the people who use their own resources, for a long enough time, to put property to the highest and best use with the consent or abdication control of the actual owner and allow for a final legal determination as to the ownership status.

It is a heavily policy-driven area of law, which makes it very complicated.

And, I see the Beardless Bearded One addressed the same thing, with an abundance of brevity. Great. Now I look like a schmuck. Again.

 

[M67]

Essentially, the law was intended to get use out of property by someone if the owner isn't going to use it. It's really quite easy to not let this happen, but you can't sit back for a decade and do nothing.

So if I see a vehicle sitting that I know the owner isn't using, and it runs, I can steal it and because they're not getting the use out of it I can?

Squatters don't pay the bills or the taxes, they live on something that isn't there for free, if someone's use out of the property is doing nothing with it that's their choice because they bought it, they're paying the taxes, and because it's theirs.

It's another thing that makes no sense to me, seems to go against everything common sense. Then again my law professor in college said the law doesn't care about common sense or the facts, the law cares about the law

 

[Fargo]

So if I see a vehicle sitting that I know the owner isn't using, and it runs, I can steal it and because they're not getting the use out of it I can?

Squatters don't pay the bills or the taxes, they live on something that isn't there for free, if someone's use out of the property is doing nothing with it that's their choice because they bought it, they're paying the taxes, and because it's theirs.

It's another thing that makes no sense to me, seems to go against everything common sense. Then again my law professor in college said the law doesn't care about common sense or the facts, the law cares about the law

Under current Indiana law, you can't obtain title by adverse possession unless you are paying the property taxes.

Consider it this way, AP is fundamentally a statute of limitations doctrine. If someone is squatting openly on your land in a way hostile to your ownership interests, you have 11 years to initiate legal proceedings to remove him. Let that time period run, and you are SOL, just like anyone else who blows the statute of limitations on bringing a proceeding.

It most often comes up where a building is inadvertently built across a property line and no one realizes it until decades later.

 

[Hkindiana]

Another reason adverse possession exists is right of ways and driveways. Imagine using your driveway for twenty years and your neighbor gets a survey which shows his property line is in the middle of your driveway. You get home from wirk and there is a shiny new fence stopping you from driving your car to your house. In this case the law may be there to prevent a Hatfield McCoy type neighbor situation.

 

[T.Lex]

So if I see a vehicle sitting that I know the owner isn't using, and it runs, I can steal it and because they're not getting the use out of it I can?

Hold up, hoss.

Adverse Possession (and the related easement issues) apply to real estate. Cars are personal property. Mobile homes are a gray area (even double wides).

Squatters don't pay the bills or the taxes, they live on something that isn't there for free, if someone's use out of the property is doing nothing with it that's their choice because they bought it, they're paying the taxes, and because it's theirs.

As Fargo mentions, the tax issue is one of the biggest hurdles to prove AP. It can be done - that is, AP can be applied if the squatter isn't technically paying the taxes - but that's a long shot.

Let's turn that around a bit. If you're letting your neighbor act like part of your property is his property, and you don't stop him or have a written agreement telling him the property will never be his, whose fault is that?

If you don't care about it, why should the law care about what you want 20 years later?

It's another thing that makes no sense to me, seems to go against everything common sense. Then again my law professor in college said the law doesn't care about common sense or the facts, the law cares about the law

The law doesn't distinguish between right and wrong, merely lawful and not lawful.

Another reason adverse possession exists is right of ways and driveways. Imagine using your driveway for twenty years and your neighbor gets a survey which shows his property line is in the middle of your driveway. You get home from wirk and there is a shiny new fence stopping you from driving your car to your house. In this case the law may be there to prevent a Hatfield McCoy type neighbor situation.

That's a related doctrine: prescriptive easement. The policy is that access to property is as important as actually owning the property. Without access, the property cannot be put to the highest and best use.

Easements are, generally, easier to get than AP.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Another reason adverse possession exists is right of ways and driveways. Imagine using your driveway for twenty years and your neighbor gets a survey which shows his property line is in the middle of your driveway. You get home from wirk and there is a shiny new fence stopping you from driving your car to your house. In this case the law may be there to prevent a Hatfield McCoy type neighbor situation.

I actually just bought land and have this situation. I own 10 acres on the east side of the road and also about 10 feet on the other side of the road which is my neighbors yard and driveway. His property is completely land locked.

 

[HoughMade]

Similar to adverse possession, but in the case of land use as opposed to land ownership, it's called a "prescriptive easement".

Again, take minimal efforts to protect your interests and don't ignore your property for 10 years and no one will take your real property.

 

[Alamo]

...

What about the guy who mows a strip of grass for 20 years because he thinks its his property, but it is really common area and belongs to the HOA. The stupid landscaping contractors never seem to get this one grass strip because it is kinda between some trees and they're just lazy. Even with their fancy riding, zero turn mowers, they can't just take the extra 42 seconds to get this one strip. Well, that may be a super-specific example that just came to me from my wild imagination without any root in something that actually happens every spring and summer, but it won't ever give rise to a property interest.

Maybe your wild imagination should nocturnally spell out "HOA PRESIDENT <name> EATS BOOGERS" with fertilizer, and then around late spring take a picture to the next HOA meeting asking why the HOA allows such nonsense on its common areas. I'll bet the HOA would make sure it's mowed then.

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that.

I mean, the guy in my totally hypothetical, wildly creative, not at all something that is a problem for me, personally, scenario has never thought of that.