Adverse Possession: Emininent domain's evil twin brother?

[LordShiva]

Eminininininent

[LotC]

If one neighbour had gone over to the other neighbour's house in the 25 years that they had been living next to each other and at least introduced themselves, then maybe things would have turned out differently.

[Arrian]

Uh... no. This is an archetypal adverse possession case. Not sure why the judge didn't create an easement, but we don't have all the facts either. I doubt it'll get overturned on appeal. Hell, even if the higher court rules an easement is better, they still can't build the fence over the path.

If this is correct according to the letter of the law, the law is ****ed up and needs changing.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


If this is correct according to the letter of the law, the law is ****ed up and needs changing.

-Arrian

There are good reasons for the law, IIUC. In rural areas, and even in some metropolitan areas, not every property has direct access to a public road. Normally this works out fine, cause folks let others cross their property. In some cases letting the buyer of an away from the road lot cross their on the road lot. The right to cross makes sense. In many cases the right to cross was granted with no paperwork, or explicit permission. If easements werent granted based on adverse possession, property owners could abuse the informality and blockade their neighbors, making the neighbors property essentially worthless (take that, property rights) and THEY could point to the letter of the law. Either way, there are possibilities of abuse by using the letter of the law. Now maybe there are modifications that should be made (IANAL, but I am surprised that the adverse possession would give ownership rather than an easement, and that it wouldnt be reduced to an easement on appeal) but they should be done carefully, to avoid creating greater problems.

BTW, my experience with easements is in the area of transportation. Railroads in large parts of the USA were built not on land the RR bought, but on land that the state took by eminent domain (cause otherwise a property owner might blackmail a 100 mile RR stretch with his tiny parcel of farmland). These were transportation easements only - which means that in the late 20th c, when RRs were abandoning their short lines, the land that was on easements reverted (for the first time in over 100 years, usually) to the owner. Economic analysts looking do business cases on abandonments had to check with Real Estate depts to determine how much land was actually owned by the RR, vs how much of the route lay on easements. Note also that (IIUC) one of the reasons for converting abandoned RRs to bike/pedestrian trails, is that because thats a transportation use, it retains the land for a possible future transit line, land which would otherwise revert to the owners.

[Arrian]

I didn't say the law should be scrapped. I said changed.

There's a lot of wiggle room in "changed," LotM.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Is adverse possession even based on statute?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Is adverse possession even based on statute?

even if its based on the common law, it could still be changed by statute.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I wonder if we can go use federal land without being noticed for a few years and then claim ownership.

I think that is homesteading.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wow, according to this BS we could lose our land to our neighbors because we've been letting them keep a couple horses on our property.

The court is giving trespassers the land they've been trespassing on

I wonder if we can go use federal land without being noticed for a few years and then claim ownership.

The answers are no & no.

If you've given permission to your neighbors, then their use of you land is permissive, and adverse possession does not apply. It's only when they are using your land without permission and you do nothing, that the law kicks in.

You can't take governmental property by adverse possession. Think about it. Who writes the laws?

[Jon Miller]

So because I try to handle the situation by talking, instead of taking my neighbor to court, he gets to take my land?

JM

[Wezil]

Asked and answered already.

No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
even if its based on the common law, it could still be changed by statute.

And it's based on both. It comes from the common law, but has been put into statute in just about every state, IIRC.