Eminininininent
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Adverse Possession: Emininent domain's evil twin brother?
Collapse
X
-
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF
-
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.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arrian
If this is correct according to the letter of the law, the law is ****ed up and needs changing.
-Arrian
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."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
-
I didn't say the law should be scrapped. I said changed.
There's a lot of wiggle room in "changed," LotM.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Is adverse possession even based on statute?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
-
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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
even if its based on the common law, it could still be changed by statute.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
Comment