|
Posted by z on June 19, 2006, 12:32 pm
mm wrote:
>
> >
> >user wrote:
> >
> >> Call me odd, but I have little interest in benefiting from someone
> >> else's stupididity, especially if it ends up ultimately raising my
> >> tax bill. ;-)
> >
> >You shouldn't encourage stupidity; it tends to spread too much anyway.
>
> It's hard to win on adverse possession. Generally, in most states, 6
> elements must be proved. They called it the Eunuch rule. It's
> generally not fair that someone gets property from another without
> paying for it, so the rules are stiff.
>
> It might be easier in your state, but these are one set of rules:
>
> E Exclusive
> U Uninterrupted
> N Notorious
> U Unpermitted
> C Claim of Right
> H Hostile
>
> Exclusive, the party making the claim didn't let anyone else use
> the land. Might have that here.
> Uninterrupted, the other 5 characteristics aren't interrupted, for
> 7 (or 10?) years in some states, different amounts in others. Might
> have that here, at least eventually.
> Notorious, use by the claiming party was known or should have been
> known (obvious) to others, or maybe it is only needed to be known to
> the owner. Probably have that here, since he told him to mow it and
> maintain it.
> Unpermitted The owning party has not granted permission to use the
> land. Probably don't have this here. The owner said he could use it.
> If the claiming party says he didn't have permission, he might have to
> deny that his use was notorious and that it was hostile, and he would
> give up his claim of right, if that exists (see below). This might
> mean that it is even harder to gain adverse possession unless it is of
> land that the owner doesn't see often, where the owner lives miles
> away. If the owner can see the land from where he lives, and someone
> else uses it, (?and that can be seen by the owner?), I think it would
> be hard to claim it's unpermitted, much less prove it.
> Claim of Right, never sure about this one, but I think there has to
> be conflicting deeds or an unclear property description or something
> that gives the claiming party some legal reason to think he owns it. I
> always wanted more examples of what would be a claim of right. They
> might have been in the part of the book I didn't read! Probably
> doesn't have that in this case. Hmmm, this might include if the owner
> said "It's yours" or "I think you own this" or "It's yours now". I'm
> really not sure, and I don't know from the story if that happened
> here. I knew I should have studied this part.
> Hostile, the claiming party didn't let anyone else use the property,
> or didn't let them use it like an owner would, not sure. Either way,
> I'm not sure about this, since probably no one else was trying to use
> it. Maybe someone has to try to use it, or this seems a lot like
> Exclusive. So maybe the claiming party doesn't have this here.
>
> It's been 32 years since I learned this, and I never knew it that
> well**, so there are probably a bunch of misstatements, but this is
> the sort of thing one needs. **But it is easy to remember the
> phrase, "the eunuch rule". That's why they made it up.
>
> Diligent landowners try not to let even one of these 6 things occur.
> Pay attention to the plazas in front of downtown office buildings, the
> ones used by anyone, maybe to take a shortcut at a corner, or to sit
> and have lunch. There is often a brass insert in the sidewalk, next
> to the public sidewalk, at the property line, that says "Use of the
> plaza permitted to the public by owners". This means the use was
> permitted, not unpermitted, and the "public" can't gain adverse
> possession.
>
> In addition, most of these plazas are closed off with cones and tape
> once a year. They call it cleaning, but as big a purpose is to make
> possession by the public "interrupted", not uninterrupted.
>
> Might not see this so much in the suburbs, because the plaza is
> usually between the building and the parking lot, which it is clear is
> owned by those who own the building. And because the only people
> walking through are those who have come to do business in the
> building. This might not be the same as the general public.
>
>
> This has been an issue for me because my next door neighbor has taken
> over trimming some of my bushes, that I didn't trim short enough to
> suit him. He also got less angry at me at the time, and it occurs to
> me he might be planning on claiming adverse possession, or maybe he's
> less angry because the bushes are shorter, or because I invited him
> out for a drink to discuss things. He didn't accept, but maybe merely
> making the gesture made him less angry. But He might be trying to
> gain adverse possession, and I've tried to make sure he doesn't have
> all 6 elements, but I've been lethargic some years and not done a good
> job. He only has one element for sure, Notorious. He also mows a
> small part of grass next to the bushes.
>
> Of course even if he did own it, he'd take care of it at least as well
> as I do. He might cut down the bushes, though.
>
> >Like mint plants. It's not like your neighbor is stupid but
> >good-hearted; sounds like the neighborhood could clearly benefit from
> >him getting one of those kid tv show moral lessons. Besides, you don't
> >have to claim your extra acreage until it's time to sell the place.....
> >(I probably wouldn't do it either, of course, but I can be an armchair
> >general as well as anybody else. You fight him, I'll hold your coat.).
>
> I'm sure he appreciates the coat holding.
>
> >> - Rich
Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm not familiar with any individuals
actually winning on such a case, although I hear about it, mainly in
the form of access roads that are on somebody else's property. There's
a road through Radio City Center in NYC that they close on Sundays just
to keep it from defaulting back to the city, as you describe. What I
remember in my nonexpert dilletantish interest is that the requirements
vary wildly from state to state on whether you know the property is not
yours; some states you have to know it's not yours, some states you
have to not be aware that it's not yours; some states just don't care
either way. Weird.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
