Neighbor thinks he owns my land?

[R_Walter]

It may not make much sense today, but it was an important principle in it's day. The opening of unoccupied territory for settlement in the early years of expansion by Mexico, The United States and Canada was intended to prove and protect the claim of the respective nation to land boundries. Simple deeds and contracts proclaiming ownership would not suffice to enforce boundries if another country claimed ownership as well. This is the basis for the phrase "possession is 9/10s of the law". In order to be able to prove ownership, a country had to have people physically using and improving the land in an active and ongoing manner. Adverse possession was a legal means to revoke unused and unmaintained land ownership and replace inactive claims with active ones. This served two purposes. It allowed for the capture of "foreign" land through a use claim and it protected existing claims from becoming dormant through replacement of missing or neglectful owners.

It was not the spirit of the law to promote land grabs from active property owners, just an unfortunate side effect. Modern international law has negated much of the benefit from this process, but it is still on the books and still utilized in everyday real estate.

Nice try... BUT, the origins of 'adverse possession' in this country go back to Great Britain and the Middle Ages.

 

[johnrex62]

Nice try... BUT, the origins of 'adverse posession' in this country go back to Great Britain and the Middle Ages.

Of course! Where do you think the international law that was the basis of boundry resolution in the New World was derived? The world did not create a new set of rule just for the situation. It used the same rules it was using elsewhere for the same reasons.

When discussing why someone in North Carolina is dealing with adverse possession, does it make more sense to describe the events in that locale that precipitated the need for the law or to describe how the cave man in central Europe managed territorial disputes? Both are the same concept, one is directly pertinent. I learned long ago that when my kids asked where something came from, I do not start with "A long time ago gases coalesced into a dense mass and from the resulting explosion basic elements were formed that created the solar objects." I start with the factory or store they were available from instead. Makes a much shorter story and gives them the facts they are actually looking for.

 

[dodge man]

Adverse possesion will at time be used to clear up confused or unknown boundaries. Often a judge will use it as a fall back on how to clear up a boundary problem. That is now how the law is written, but is sometimes how it is applied.

 

[R_Walter]

Of course! Where do you think the international law that was the basis of boundry resolution in the New World was derived? The world did not create a new set of rule just for the situation. It used the same rules it was using elsewhere for the same reasons.

When discussing why someone in North Carolina is dealing with adverse possession, does it make more sense to describe the events in that locale that precipitated the need for the law or to describe how the cave man in central Europe managed territorial disputes? Both are the same concept, one is directly pertinent. I learned long ago that when my kids asked where something came from, I do not start with "A long time ago gases coalesced into a dense mass and from the resulting explosion basic elements were formed that created the solar objects." I start with the factory or store they were available from instead. Makes a much shorter story and gives them the facts they are actually looking for.

There was no international law in place referencing adverse possession at the time of your examples of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada gaining territory. There was no international law that served as the basis for the doctrine of adverse possession. And, Mexico wasn't an independent state until 1821, long after the New World was settled. And Mexico when it gained independence from Spain followed the Napoleonic Code (as did and does Spain), not the case law of Great Britain, i.e. British common law.

I repeat... British common law is the basis for the doctrine of adverse possession, not any 'international law' to which you refer!

 

[Ron JD670]

Adverse possesion will at time be used to clear up confused or unknown boundaries. Often a judge will use it as a fall back on how to clear up a boundary problem. That is now how the law is written, but is sometimes how it is applied.

I agree with dodge man and that is exactly how it applies in my situation.

It's fun watching these two orange CUTs face off on law that happened many years before my grandfathers were born. I think I will sit on the side the Green side lines and enjoy the action and wonder how this applies to property issues today.

 

[Garybake]

Not wanting to sidetrack this from strum456 but until he posts his survey completed I throw this out.
Inside Edition posted a story tonight about a man who used adverse possesion to claim a forclosed house by changing the locks and squatting.
He is now in trouble for SELLING ebooks and telling people to break in and change locks causing quite a bit of damage in different states. This was in Texas.
Part of the story;

Imagine living in a lovely house in a beautiful Texas suburb for just $16.00.

Well for one man this amazing bargain became a reality. Ken Robinson, a self proclaimed real estate guru, claimed a $340,000 McMansion, complete with granite countertops, top of the line appliances and even a billiards room for the price of just four Big Macs.

That's right, for just sixteen bucks, Robinson took over a 3,200 sq. ft home, complete with a pool, in suburb outside Dallas, TX.

So how's this possible?

After the previous owner walked away when the home went into foreclosure, Robinson swooped in and took advantage of a little known law dating back to the Wild West called "adverse possession," which is sometimes still used today to settle property disputes. Robinson says he legally could occupy the home after filing a one page affidavit at the county clerk's office. The filing cost: just $16.00.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

Isn't that the same state where some folks believe they can secede from the United States? That story is dubious.

 

[yelbike]

Strum, I see your concern about being a teacher. Let the law people take care of your problem. The surveyor is great, then send them a registered letter. Use law enforcement if needed.

I'm with Eddie, don't let them use your land. You paid for it, its yours. I would be concerned about liabilities if they are hunting and using your land. They have not taken care of it as you said they left drebris behind.

I see your trying to be a good neighbour and would rather not make "waves", remember good fences make good neighbours. I'm not saying put up a fence, just keep them off.

As for going over to speek with them, I do think its a good I idea but be completely willing to leave immediately if the conversation is not going the direction you intended. You will know for sure if they're jerks or not.

I had a similar situation and chose not to speak with my neighbour as guns were involved. I called the RCMP and the Conservations officer, they dealt with the problem efficently. Problem solved.

 

[strum456]

The latest update:

The surveyor came out and said that there werent enough points to go by on this end of the property. He explained that he would have to leapfrog from another area of the property with known points so he could find the line. As a result, his estimate increased 4x. I dont understand surveying, but his reasoning sounds odd to me. Especially since he was the last to survey this parcel, and he did the neighbors land too. He says he didnt do that part of my land, but I have a map and a legal description and they both have his name on them. I cant figure it out why, but I think he just doesnt want to do the job.

At this cost, I feel that the neighbor sharing the line should pay 50% of the survey costs, if a survey is needed. I decided to look up their number, but it is not listed. It looks like my dad and I are going to have to go knock on their door tomorrow afternoon. My intentions are to show the neighbors the maps and the stakes that I located and try to get them to agree on the line. If we cant come to an agreement, wouldnt it be fair that they help pay for the survey?

 

[Hardscrabbler]

I bought this section a couple years ago. It boarders our farm and was origonally part of our farm back when my grandfather bought it. I was fortunate enough to buy it back from who my grandmother sold it to.

The problem: A neighbor has been using a wooded acre or so as if it is theirs for some time now. They have a camp fire, a couple tree stands, and other stuff on what is now my propertly. The previous owner was older and likley not aware of any of this. I dont really even have a problem with these people using my property, even though I have never even talked to them before. If any of my neighbors want to use our property, they are welcome to use it as long as they dont run the hay down, steal, litter, etc.. Anyway, today is now the second time that they have blocked my quad trails with brush and debris. I also had a couple cooking grates stolen just recently. It seems as if these people are trying to keep me out of my own land. I found the corner stakes, and had my dad confirm that they were correct. I just dont understand why they are choosing to block my trails rather than asking me if it would be ok if they continue to hunt and camp. I am concerned that if I approach them, this will turn into a property line dispute or they will try squatting on me. Thoughts?

I had a similar problem with people driving their ATV's and hunting without permission. I've even had them pull out property markers after I had it surveyed. I solved my problem by giving the exclusive rights to hunt on my property to a Deputy Sheriff who was looking for a place to hunt. For the right to hunt he keeps trespassers off. I also posted no trespassing signs.