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.