Squatter's rights;

[Rockbadchild]

I just found out this is a thing in most Canadian province as well ....

 

[2LaneCruzer]

True. Under common law, if you owned property, you had a legal right to access it, even if it was across someone else's land. Much of this was acquired by adverse possession over the years, but even if it had never been accessed, you still had the right, even if you had to pay for it.

 

[MH8675309]

I 100% hate this idea. If it were up to me, squatters rights would be declared unconstitutional. Essentially, it is government taking without compensation (5th Amendment violation). Just because the government isn't keeping the property doesn't change the fact that the government is taking it from the owner and giving it to someone else. This should not be confused with taking due to unpaid taxes (though they should still be required to pay the remaining market value to the owner).

Well that brings up a good question - who paid the property taxes all those years? In Michigan the law says that the people had to aggressively use or occupy the property AND also pay the taxes. That doesnt mean a judge will render in favor of what the law says though. It seems more and more that judges take it on themselves to interpret what the law means. This is insane

 

[RjCorazza]

Not directly squatter's rights or adverse possession, but my late parents estate had property issues when the estate was settled. The neighbor next door was using 20' of my parents vacant lot for his driveway. The use was with written permission, and revocable so adverse possession was off the table.
We had to hire an attorney as the neighbor refused to move his driveway over, and we were unable to sell the property because no title issuance company would touch it. The attorney said there are several other ways property can be taken, such as easement of necessity (or something similar). Crazy expensive and drawn out court battle with no certainty of winning. Anyway, the attorney contacted the daughter of the 85 year old neighbor and explained the situation, adding that they would also not be able to sell their house and land with this unsolved encroachment. 2 weeks later bulldozers made a new driveway on his own property.

 

[Straightgrain3016]

"Yield-Not One Inch"

Defending private property helps trespassers to learn how to respect things that aren't their's.
We paid 2 years of back taxes & posted an adjacent lot when the owner passed away; to secure it from the county & prevent squatters & poachers from moving-in.

Edit: we hauled out several loads of rubbish.
I searched for months & found the next generation; we bought the land from them (6 acres of mature timber for $19K).

I ran people (mostly hunters) off who claimed they had certain rights which were totally imaginary.

I hope our posterity cares enough to do the same.

 

[TheMan419]

Who paid taxes on the property for those 20yrs, and would the "new" owner be liable for those? And the "previous" owner reimbersed?

In Indiana, at least, to get adverse possession you have to prove you paid all the taxes and special assessments you reasonably believed were due on the property. There are a ton of other requirements too. Simply building a fence over the line is not generally sufficient. However the period is 10 years not 20.

 

[SuperiorLakeEffect]

Well that brings up a good question - who paid the property taxes all those years? In Michigan the law says that the people had to aggressively use or occupy the property AND also pay the taxes. That doesnt mean a judge will render in favor of what the law says though. It seems more and more that judges take it on themselves to interpret what the law means. This is insane

I don't think you have to pay the taxes in MI. This is a case involving some property just a mile or so through the woods from ours. No mention of taxes in the decision.

It's interesting reading. And a reminder to always follow up on your paperwork.

GENE R ARNTSEN TRUST V CARL W LAITILA (Per Curiam Opinion)

GENE R ARNTSEN TRUST V CARL W LAITILA

law.justia.com

 

[turnkey4099]

I 100% hate this idea. If it were up to me, squatters rights would be declared unconstitutional. Essentially, it is government taking without compensation (5th Amendment violation). Just because the government isn't keeping the property doesn't change the fact that the government is taking it from the owner and giving it to someone else. This should not be confused with taking due to unpaid taxes (though they should still be required to pay the remaining market value to the owner).

Squater's rights rest solidly on the principle "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" that the adverse use was happening. Period of years svaries in states. In mine I think it is 7 years without the original owner doing anything about it. A simple registered letter to the squatter periodically can allow him to keep using it but prevents the "knew or should have known' bit from working in the squater's favor.

Been there and done that for an adjoing abandoned school house lot. It was sorta worked in conjunction with one of the original farmers who donated land for the school house. There were so many people involved by the the time I bought my lot that they went that way and I got the lot. I did pay back taxes only it though. They were only a pittance.

 

[tradosaurus]

So if my house sits on 100 acres I guess i would have to roam my property annually to make sure there are no squatters.

After buying my house and 45 acres and after cutting a walking trail around my property I found that part of my walking trail is on the neighbors property line (10 ft wide worth). I only found out after I was looking at my land survey. The neighbor actually built their barbed wire fence 10 ft inside their property line. This had to have been at least 20 years ago.

 

[MossRoad]

Imagine you inherit a land parcel at the beach only to find somebody built a house on it 20 yrs ago...and it's not really yours now.
There might be a fire.

And a prison term for arson, manslaughter, polluting the wetlands, etc.

 

[BadDecisions]

Some of the squatters right are downright scary, and time lengths are scary short as well. I know here in Arizona, depending on circumstances, a squatter can take title to a property in only 2 years though most are 5 or 10 years.

In my case, I have several acres of vacant land bordering my own, broken up in to 4 separate properties, and I've been using that land as a driveway for years. 2 of the owners, to my knowledge, haven't been out here ever in the nearly 8 years I've been living here, and the prior owner of my property isn't aware of them ever visiting in the 5 or so years he owned it. One of them was recently as he was looking at building on the land, and one purchased his land about a year and half ago. He was out frequently for a while as he was planning on building a house, but then pulled out pretty quick once he learned that he was told VERY wrong about the well situation on the land. Long story short, shared wells are VERY common out here in rural Arizona, with private wells really only being found on high end properties due to the cost of drilling them hundreds of feet down through rock. Sounds like they just assumed that since basically everyone else has a shared well out here, that my private well was also just another shared well, that he would be able to hook up to...which ain't happening. Once he learned that he would be paying ~$60K to have a well drilled, his plans to build came to a screeching halt. I suspect that the well drilling cost is largely why none of these properties have been developed thus far.

Not a one of them have ever expressed any opposition to my using of the land as a driveway, either verbally or written. I've been running the tractor down it on a regular basis to keep the driveway maintained, and it's clearly getting used on the regular. The area has clearly been getting used as a driveway long before I bought my property, and I just continued using it without even thinking about it. It wasn't until that guy bought the property that I even started looking in to it, only as a way to be prepared in the event he tried to force any ownership claims against me, or some other weird issue came up.

The guy with the incorrect assumption about the wells did ask if I'd be OK with rerouting the driveway once he built a house, which I didn't have a problem with, which was all of a 10 second conversation once. Based on my understanding of Arizona squatter's rights, I'm only about 18 months away from being able to claim squatter's rights on at least the 3 other properties, and potentially the 4th as well, depending on if that "move your driveway after I build a house" rises to the legal level of protecting his land, especially as a house was never constructed, nor has _any_ level of improvement taken place there.

That said, I have zero interest in stealing other people's property, though it's something that has crossed my mind as a way to protect the area in the event that any undesirable activity ends up happening there.

 

[dodge man]

I am a land surveyor and I also hate adverse possession. I’ve read more than one case of adverse possession where the true owner got royally screwed.

One way it can be useful is when a boundary is in doubt. The “true” boundary is vague by the deeds but there is a fence there. It goes to court and the judge says the fence is it by adverse possession. Even though this is a misuse of the law it’s often a good way to resolve it.

There is saying called “beating the bounds”. You are suppose to take your oldest son around your boundaries when he is young, pick him up by his feet and bonk his head on the corner stones once a year. Of course it was never done this way but the logic is to walk your boundaries every so often. You are obligated to defend these boundaries as needed. That doesn’t mean shooting trespassers but taking legal action as needed.

 

[Rockbadchild]

So if my house sits on 100 acres I guess i would have to roam my property annually to make sure there are no squatters.

After buying my house and 45 acres and after cutting a walking trail around my property I found that part of my walking trail is on the neighbors property line (10 ft wide worth). I only found out after I was looking at my land survey. The neighbor actually built their barbed wire fence 10 ft inside their property line. This had to have been at least 20 years ago.

I have a similar situation... but need to check with a lawyer to what consist of proof and occupancy... like a trail might not be enough to consist of occupancy... in my case it is a none resident of our county who own the land behind mine and he never set foot on it and there is a creek that separate it so he cant access the back half, he gave me hunting rights on it so I made trails on his property its been 20 + years but I don't occupy it so I don't think it would qualified... think I would need a cabin...

 

[BadDecisions]

You are obligated to defend these boundaries as needed. That doesn’t mean shooting trespassers but taking legal action as needed.

This is a concept seen in many other areas as well, notably in patent and trademark law. We've all heard the stories about some massive corporation like say Microsoft going after some little guy for having a product with a name that is vaguely similar to one of their products. Say for example little ol' Bob makes an app called Windower. Microsoft sues Bob for trademark infringement because Windower is too close in name to Windows, claiming people may be confused. People understandably get upset over the giant evil corporation trying to bury the little guy just trying to make it in life...The reality is that Microsoft probably doesn't give a flying hoot about Bob's $1000/year software sales, but they're legally bound to protect their trademark. Once they start letting even little things slide, it sets a precedent that they're not protecting their interests, and eventually they lose the legal protections. It's happened a number of times that even megacorps lose their backside this way after ignoring a few "little guys", then one of the big boy competitors comes along and they have no defense.

I get it from the land use side of things, where a lot of these kinds of laws stemmed from the early days of the country when land was being given away cheap or free in exchange for working the land in some capacity. The government had a vested interest in developing the new world, and an interest against someone collecting huge swaths of land to just sit on it in perpetuity. Though I suspect this is also why there are relatively low caps on the amount of land that can be obtained via adverse possession. Like many others, old laws persist to modern day with little to no change to accomodate modern differences.

I have a similar situation... but need to check with a lawyer to what consist of proof and occupancy... like a trail might not be enough to consist of occupancy... in my case it is a none resident of our county who own the land behind mine and he never set foot on it and there is a creek that separate it so he cant access the back half, he gave me hunting rights on it so I made trails on his property its been 20 + years but I don't occupy it so I don't think it would qualified... think I would need a cabin...

There does seem to be regional differences in what constitutes "occupancy". Here in Arizona, seems that any "improvement" would be considered occupancy such as a driveway, whereas others it seems that actually living full time on the property is needed to establish occupancy. So even a cabin may not reach the threshold, if it's only an "occasional weekender" kind of thing. Though it also seems as if most areas it seems that the burden lies on the person making the adverse posession claim falls on that person to prove that it actually has taken place for X years or more where simply saying "I put that cabin up 20 years ago" would not be enough. You'd actually have to prove somehow that the cabin did in fact go up in 2003 or earlier (or whatever time frame is in your jurisdiction), and you've been using it continuously since.

I suspect that overall, while it SEEMS like a scary simple thing to do, the actual incidences of people winning/losing land in this way is extremely rare due to a very high bar of proof to clear.

 

[MH8675309]

I don't think you have to pay the taxes in MI. This is a case involving some property just a mile or so through the woods from ours. No mention of taxes in the decision.

It's interesting reading. And a reminder to always follow up on your paperwork.

GENE R ARNTSEN TRUST V CARL W LAITILA (Per Curiam Opinion)

GENE R ARNTSEN TRUST V CARL W LAITILA

law.justia.com

This is what we are taught and have been taught for years in our continuing education classes. But - just because its law doesnt mean a judge wont decide differently. That part needs to change otherwise someone can legally steal land

 

[Jstpssng]

he gave me hunting rights

That right there excludes him from worrying about it. Generally adverse possession means that you occupied it without permission.

 

[Rockbadchild]

That right there excludes him from worrying about it. Generally adverse possession means that you occupied it without permission.

ho right … so then by giving permission you are disqualified … lol this thing seem upside down… then if thats the case what about if someone have been formally trespass ? must be excluded form the squatters right as well ?

 

[TractorTYMe]

I don't own land I'm gonna find state that grands outlaws extended rights, good way to get some land by squatting.

 

[SuperiorLakeEffect]

This is what we are taught and have been taught for years in our continuing education classes. But - just because its law doesnt mean a judge wont decide differently. That part needs to change otherwise someone can legally steal land

Interesting, how is that decided in a case like this if the Judge chose to look at it? Laitila clearly thought it was his land, so I assume when he paid his tax bill, he thought it was for that land.

Does this require some kind of screw up on the part of the township to charge the wrong person taxes? Or accept payment from them?

EDIT: A little googling reveals this: Michigan Legislature - House Bill 4846 (2003)

So it would appear the person claiming adverse possession doesn't need to pay the taxes, but if the person who actually owns the land hasn't been paying them, it's up for grabs.

 

[dodge man]

In Illinois if you are paying the taxes it shortens the time for adverse possession to kick in.