Adverse Possession: Emininent domain's evil twin brother?

[snoopy369]

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.

[DinoDoc]

Plaintiff has made productive use of the property for an extended amount of time (25 years here).

How is walking through someone else's property a productive use?

[Zkribbler]

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.

[Arrian]

DD,

Apparently this legal doctrine has been used in the US before.

http://www.reporterherald.com/opinion-story.asp?ID=13388

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.

From the same article...

But taking a neighbor’s land to keep your preferred route to your back patio appears to break the spirit of the law, especially when the injured landowner’s offer to give up a five-foot strip of land is rejected. The 1,400-square-foot taking is enough to make building a home on the lot impractical, according to the lot’s owners. Interesting. It just so happens that this lot is at Boulder’s southern tip, where million-dollar properties rest upon the edge of city open space, where not having another house next to yours equates to unobstructed views and higher property values.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

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

JM

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
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.

Ah yes, an Easement is what i'd have expected here also. I didn't see anything previously about rejecting a 5 foot space (that would have been reasonable IMO); but an easement makes much more sense (although perhaps it wouldn't have affected the ability to build a house...)

[uberloz]

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!"

[DinoDoc]

I got no impression from the article that they built anything on it. Just drove through it on occassion.

[snoopy369]

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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by uberloz
How do you know they wanted to build a fence for no reason ?

I also didn't get that part of his post. Why should they need a reason to fence in thier property?

[Jon Miller]

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

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by uberloz


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 be legal!"

Often with empty lots, there is no knowledge on one owner's part of the ownership of the other plot; and particularly with no fence, it might have been forgotton for decades where the exact property line was (like in the cellphone tower case). In a rural area, with no proper roads, there is often cases where access is across others' technical property (because no road exists separating the property); I have no idea of this particular area, but it's certainly possible. Without more information than provided, it's not easy to tell.

As ZK said though, typically an easement for access is granted rather than all out title to the property.

[snoopy369]

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?

[uberloz]

Once the original owners expressed a desire to build their fence the property should have automatically reverted back to them.

Since the suit came after the original owners expressed a desire to develop their property and not before. I thought timing was everything in legal suits. Who cares if they used the land for 25 years, they didn't claim to own it until the original owners reclaimed it.

The annexing couple was awarded ownership of land they never claimed before and never contested before so it appears that the law was applied retroactively to favor them.

edit: I can see where an easement would apply but not adverse possession.

[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