Grandfathered squatter?

[voidsherpa]

What's all the huff about it's not like either owns the land anyway, don't pay your property tax and see what happens.

 

[rhino]

So . . . let's imagine that someone owns a house and property, but they're not there for some reason for 10 years. If some a-hole breaks in and squats in there during that time, at some point the a-hole can assert that he owns the place?

 

[Cameramonkey]

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.

Assuming he relies on you for access to the world. Isnt that spelled out as an easement? I'm not a smart man, but that is what it sounds like it SHOULD be.

So . . . let's imagine that someone owns a house and property, but they're not there for some reason for 10 years. If some a-hole breaks in and squats in there during that time, at some point the a-hole can assert that he owns the place?

If you really cared about it, wouldnt you check on it more than once a decade?

 

[rhino]

If you really cared about it, wouldnt you check on it more than once a decade?

That's a legitimate question, but the answer should be irrelevant. If someone owns property, they should be able to do or not do anything they want with it. This law is stupid.

 

[Haven]

My parents own a property where the houses on both sides of them used to be part of one property. It was subdivided a long time ago and given to the children of the previous owners. The driveway is shared on both sides. On the north side as part of the purchase agreement there is an easement with the house on the north, so both properties can use the driveway. The house on the southside's driveway meets up with my parents driveway, so they both share that entrance as well, however there is no easement there.

Sometimes these things get missed.

 

[T.Lex]

So . . . let's imagine that someone owns a house and property, but they're not there for some reason for 10 years. If some a-hole breaks in and squats in there during that time, at some point the a-hole can assert that he owns the place?

Asserting and establishing are 2 different things.

To create an ownership interest, he would have to do more than live there. Things like pay the taxes (or pay some part of the taxes that could reasonably be expected to cover the property he was inhabiting), pay utilities, maintain and improve the property, things like that.

It is not as simple as a 2 line hypothetical with a yes/no answer.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Assuming he relies on you for access to the world. Isnt that spelled out as an easement? I'm not a smart man, but that is what it sounds like it SHOULD be.

I do believe it should be an easement, but it has never been filed as one. Personally I hope he just offers to buy the 10'x300' piece that I have no use for.

 

[T.Lex]

Dickson was really great at capturing the history and legality of issues and conveying them in ways that are easily understood.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06200501bd.pdf

That's the primary modern case in Indiana on the topic.

(Apologies if it was already posted.)

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting new case on the easement/inverse condemnation angle to this whole thing.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12201701ggs.pdf

And, a bit of a peek behind the curtain at the ISC's attempt to get a set of regulations incorporated by reference into an administrative regulation. Difficult for me to imagine a state agency getting a call from the Indiana Supreme Court's staff and giving the usual "we don't do that" song and dance.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Interesting new case on the easement/inverse condemnation angle to this whole thing.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12201701ggs.pdf

And, a bit of a peek behind the curtain at the ISC's attempt to get a set of regulations incorporated by reference into an administrative regulation. Difficult for me to imagine a state agency getting a call from the Indiana Supreme Court's staff and giving the usual "we don't do that" song and dance.

So if I read this right, homeowner A granted 50' wide easement (random amounts for discussion). He sells it to homeowner B who understands 50' wide easement is there. Later power company upgrades standards and decides 50' is not wide enough anymore and tries to claim they can arbitrarily make it 75' wide now simply because they were granted the first 50, and that an easement is an easement and size is irrelevant and subject to change at their whim. Is that what I am reading?

 

[T.Lex]

So if I read this right, homeowner A granted 50' wide easement (random amounts for discussion). He sells it to homeowner B who understands 50' wide easement is there. Later power company upgrades standards and decides 50' is not wide enough anymore and tries to claim they can arbitrarily make it 75' wide now simply because they were granted the first 50, and that an easement is an easement and size is irrelevant and subject to change at their whim. Is that what I am reading?

No no no. Completely different.

Because the utility company was granted an easement of one size, but the standards changed to require a bigger size, so then they start acting like they actually get the bigger size.



Yeah, that's almost totally what you said.

Really, the main legal issue in the actual case was whether it was too late. That is, the utility company is basically the squatter saying that they get the larger easement because no one stopped them earlier.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So its the homeowners fault for not following an industry that they have no reasonable reason to pay attention to in order to understand that something changed? Nice. Real nice.

Sorry, if you suddenly decide what you took the first time isnt sufficient, you are obligated to tell me things changed and you are taking more. Unless maybe suddenly they started maintaining a wider path by cutting trees, the landowner would have no reason to know it had changed. But I'm still not sold that they should get away with it without proactive notifications. "Hey, thanks for that land, but its not enough anymore. We need more."

 

[T.Lex]

So its the homeowners fault for not following an industry that they have no reasonable reason to pay attention to in order to understand that something changed? Nice. Real nice.

Sorry, if you suddenly decide what you took the first time isnt sufficient, you are obligated to tell me things changed and you are taking more. Unless maybe suddenly they started maintaining a wider path by cutting trees, the landowner would have no reason to know it had changed. But I'm still not sold that they should get away with it without proactive notifications. "Hey, thanks for that land, but its not enough anymore. We need more."

Yeah, it requires a property owner to notice, at some point within 6 years after it starts, that the utility is cutting down branches/trees/digging up areas where they didn't do so before.

Of course, to do it right requires a utility or political subdivision to give notice to homeowners and get a valuation of the strip of land that they need.

But when people don't do what they're supposed to do, lawyers come in to help work everything out.