Adverse Possession

Page 3 of 5  
On Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:53:45 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).
When you are done whining about it, how about learning how to trim posts. I had to eliminate near a thousand blank lines in my reply.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:31:11 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you. But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google, doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used google in a small fraction of the time it took you to make all those posts.
For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 6, 2013 5:33:14 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You answered him with your usual "look it up yourself" instead of following usenet protocol and providing a cite.
Look at all the bandwidth you could have saved if you had just done what is required and given a cite.
And then in your vast google ability you couldn't even come up with a good cite but provided an obscure appellate court case.
But keep on whining, I quit.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:04:57 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

Really? You have a cite where I said that? See how that works?

Look at all the bandwidth that YOU could have saved just googling "adverse possession taxes". Good grief!

Imbecile. The appellate court ruling showed not only the law, but the law applied in a case where who paid the taxes determined who won and lost. You on the other hand, find a document by an unknown author on a California Dept of Transportation website to be the definitive source on AP law for the whole USA. At least you figured out how to find it with google though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://tinyurl.com/7gbecl5
--
nestork

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

And I'll say it again for at least the third time: Provide a cite for that.
<snip>

So tell us just how that squatter managed to start paying the taxes. He has to prove he owns the property before the tax people start sending him the bill.

And I'd like to see your cite for at least one state that has that restriction.

True, most states IIANM require a fence to be erected a few inches on one's side of the line.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:32:41 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

I just did. But let me say it again, for at least the hundredth time here. If you're so interested, why are you too lazy to use google?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 01:50:00 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states, the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it is?

Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?

You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.
But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception of the law.

And then there are the other states with no such clause.
Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess AP is again a possibility.
This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the exclusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:39:56 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

I have said from the beginning that it's some states that have laws that require the payment of taxes by the party claiming AP. I never said it was all. And I said that I'd be interested in seeing the case law in those other states, because unless you know the exact wording of the law for each state and how the courts have interpreted it, you don't know what effect who's been paying the taxes has.

I can think of plenty of examples. Here's one. A guy buys a property, gets it surveyed. The surveyor puts in concrete markers that show the correct property lines. Then they guy puts up a fence that is two feet over on to the neighbor's property. You're going to tell me that because his tax bill hasn't changed, he thinks it includes the property he just encroached on? That he is the one paying the taxes on it now? Good grief!

Wow, imagine that.

Now I'm supposed to find your examples for you too?

wow, imagine that. I say there are some houses that have granite countertops. You figure out that there are also some that do not. That's remarkable.

Wow, now you can read the minds of unknown law makers in unknown states. Very impressive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09-01-2013 15:03, micky wrote:

We can't see WHO but we can see how much.
http://acimap.us/PATI
I'm sure we're not the only county that does this.
--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Everywhere I've lived property tax records are public information. I can find out exactly what my neighbor paid in taxes and whether they're delinquent on their taxes. This information is often published in the newspaper. NSA is not required.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not be adverse to the real owner. And if the real owner wasn't even aware of this it's not a "hostile" possession. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open, notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But mowing it, ... don't think so...
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, Jon Danniken

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:49:11 PM UTC-7, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.
In the theoretical situation, the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.
wrote:

That language comes up in negligence law. Not here, I think.

But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the fence.
Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you mean, the answer is no.
If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge on the part of the real owners.
Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.
Exclusive Uninterrupted Notorious Unpermitted Claim of Right Hostile.
Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow. IMO other clauses come at the issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have to worry about this.
Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow! Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in case law.

AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited, untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it, That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse possession.
This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where the boundary is. But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

He has a valid point. How do you know they knew? The AP wasn't living in their house, or taking up the whole property. It's very common for fences not to be in the correct place and for neighbors not to know the exact property boundary. The neighbors saw the fence, but that doesn't mean they also knew where the correct property line was.

That is what hostile means, that you don't have permission. It's an essential part of any AP statute.
IMO other clauses come at the

I'd be very interested in the issue of property taxes. Presumably the owner has been paying them on that piece of property all these years. Most of the AP statutes I've read require the AP to be paying the taxes, ie treating the property in question as if the AP actually owned it. I would not be surprised to fing that is implied and interpreted that way under other parts of the statute, eg the "open" part. If you're not paying the taxes, I'd say you're not be open about your possession of said property. There has to be Oregon case law that could answer this.

Exactly and I think that likely means AP isn't going to work.
But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or

IF it's important there, which I agree, then I think it's also likely to be important here. The true owner has been paying the taxes for 10 years. Can someone claim they have been "openly" treating a piece of land as their own when they have not been paying the taxes on it, but the neighbor has and the neighbor also has the title and survey that shows they bought and paid for it? I don't think so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:59:40 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

I think it means they knew the OP was using all the land on his side of the fence.

Hostile looks at things from the OP's pov. Pemitted or not refers to the original owner's pov.
The parties are reverese in my case compared to the OP's. I'm the original and legal possessor. I'm in the process of writing up a license for my n'bor or his agent to walk on the part of my lawn he thinks he owns, to mow the grass, and to trim the bushes. He's actually had my permission from the beginning, but now I'm putting it in writing and will file it with the county clerk's office.
OTOH, he has indicated to some degree hostile possession. Once when I was mowing the lawn, and once when I was up on a ladder trimming the bushes, he told me "You don't have to do that". when I said I think I do, the second time he said "Sometimes I'd like to knock your head off."

Yeah but nothing about taxes in this statute.

Maybe not. There is surely an absence of case law on a lot of things in little Maryland.

I think it means the taxes are irrelevant.
It true for me and probably everywhere that the amount of taxes I owe is partly dependent on how much land I have, and that means if the ownership actually changes hands to the OP, each tax bill shoudl be recalculated, and that the "real owners" have overpaid their taxes for years, paying for the land they no longer own, and may have lost retroactively. But I don't think dollar amounts matter in deciding if AP applies.
What who pays the taxes is meant to show is who thinks he owns the land. Very few people calculate their square footage and check on the rate per square foot and multiply and compare that number to the tax bill, and then complain if it's different, and more importantly, the OPs two neighbors probaby never did that. They pay whatever the bill says, so their paying is not an indicium of their owning the displuted land.
ANOTHER BIG PROBLEM WITH TAXES is a direct result of the owners' problems. How does the owner prove the taxes he's paid covered the land in question. He'd likely have to get someone from the tax office to testify that they considered the original owner to own the land in question when they, the tax office, calculated his taxes.
This is also not an issue with a separate parcel of land, where each party claims all of it.

I dont' think so. On the separate parcel paying taxes means one thinks one owns the land. Here, it only means he doesn't know how much land he owns, how much the taxes are meant for, or he wouldn't pay taxes for land beyond the fence.

I do. FWLIW I asked on the legal group about my own property, where the issue is the boundary, and though silence doess't mean much, no one who replied brought up taxes. If I post there again, I will ask about taxes.
And, if I end up in court, I will definitely mention that I've been paying the taxes. Thank you for pointing it out...... Thinking about this for the first time: He of course will say, How do you know you've been paying the taxes? We haven't estabilished where the boundary is.
I will say, Yes we have. Look at the plat. That's what matters. The plat is hard to read because of all the things marked on it, but with help he should be able to read it. . Amazingly in a way, it's a little easier to read on the computer, where I can enlarge it a lot more than I think I could with a magnifying glass.
My property is 6-sided, which is where some of the confusion comes in. The neighbor's is 4-sided, and he may think mine is too. Also I have a fence and the land in question is outside the fence. He probably thinks any land outside the fence is his. Although for the first several years he lived here, I and only I mowed the lawn and trimmed the bushes there. So he might just be pulling my chain, though he sure seems sincere.
(I also have a survey, which I have to look at again but I think it's easier to read.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 2:51:22 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:

So what? It doesn't prove that the neighbor knew the land on the other side of the fence was actually his.

Permitted or not clearly involves both parties. If one party agrees to allow the other to use their property, then it's permitted and not hostile.

In that case, what makes you think he's going to sign the agreement you're drawing up?

There may be in the case law.

It's hard to imagine that in an entire state there hasn't been a single case where the issue of who paid the taxes on a piece of property in an AP case hasn't come up.

Clearly in some states it does, because unless you've paid the property taxes on the piece of land, you can't assert AP.

Again, some states have laws that say it does indeed matter.

He's paid taxes on the lot. He has a survey and title that show where that lot begins and ends. Good grief!
He'd likely have to get someone from the tax

Again, it is in states that say you can't use AP if you have not been paying the taxes on the property.

That's reassuring.
If I post there again, I will

And why is that? You don't have a title? A survey with pins in the ground?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

As I said, I don't think the neigbor has to know this. It's not in the statute and no case is listed related to this. he only has to know that someone else is using the land.

That's one case, if he agrees.
If he doesn't agree, if he says nothing but still permits it, then its permitted but it may also be hostile.
If permission and no hostility were locked together. if they were the same concept, then they wouldn't be listed separately in the Eunuch rule, or some statutes.
Permission doesn't require any thoughts or awareness on the part of the actual owner. He doesn't have to *give* permission. If he sees or could see what's going on and does nothing, that's permission. Or put more accurately, the actions by the adverse possessor are permitted. It's non-permission that takes at least a little effort on his part.

I don't expect him to. I'm giving him permission. He then has it whether he wants it or not. The lawyers on the legal ng agreed that giving permission is unilateral.
If you tell your kid, You can go out to play. You don't have to be back until 6, he has permission to go out and not come back until 6 whether he wants to go out or not.

Not in Oregon afaict.

AIUI, lowest level courts don't make precedent and their decisions are recorded but not reported in "reporters". They apply only to the case at hand. Unless they are appealed, then the decision gets listed in the Annotated Statutes of Oregon, and what I incorrectly said was probably called the Northwest Reporter. Actually it's called the Pacific second Reporter, I think.
If you look at the cases in the second column of the OP's statute page, Annotations, there are two citations for each one. The first includes " Or App " , Oregon Appellate, and the second includes "P2d", which I think is Pacific second, meaning they closed out the original Pacific series and started Pacific second. For example, "Exclusivity requires use consistent with ownership, not physical exclusion of all others. Slak v. Porter, 128 Or App 274, 875 P2d 515 (1994)". The numbers 128 and 875 are volume numbers in the series. The numbers 274 and 515 are page numbers in the respective books.
But what I really know is that wrt to a couple of statutes that I was involved in, there were no notes referring to cases with issues that had anything to do with any issues in my case.

I'ld like to see the exact words. I'll bet it's talking about cases where the whole parcel is claimed by the AP, not some chunk of his neighbor's land.

He may or may not have a survey. Either way, I'll have to think about this. ............

The deed only refers to the plat, no meets and bounds..

AFAICT, there are no pins in the ground, not for my lot and not for the whole subdivision. I borrowed a metal detector and looked. My lot is in the corner of the subdivision, so there maybe should have been a pin for the whole area there, not just my lot, but there wasn't.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/13 6:47 PM, micky wrote:

Do you need to prove you gave your neighbor permission? If so, how?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 18:58:07 -0500, Dean Hoffman

If it gets to court or even maybe before that, I think so.

Don't know the tiny details yet, but I'll file the paper with the County Clerk's office, just like a contractor files a lien or bank files a mortgage. (I called the county clerk and whoever answered saw no problems. There's probably a short form to fill out and a fee to be paid.) I'll also send him a certified letter with the letter of permission (a license?) and some background, in case he's forgotten. And some making nice.
I had single women living on both sides of me for a couple years, who were polite but not too friendly, and I understood that. When one of them sold her house to a single guy, I hoped we'd be friends. I still don't know what I did that annoyed him. I've asked him and he doesn't answer and I've told him what the only thing I can imagine is, and how that would be a misunderstanding related to the fact I thought he was a lot younger than he is and had never owned a home before. And that's true, but he hasn't said that was the reason. . He's polite, but he's still not friendly, and he's angry when I mow that little piece of lawn.
Years ago I asked him to go for a drive so we could talk about it. He declined, but seemed a little friendlier afterwards.
At one point I offered him in a letter 250 dollars for new stereo equipment (or whatever) to reimburse him for his mowing my grass and trimming the bushes,(even though he started with the bushes because he didn't like the way I was trimming them, not because they weren't trimmed) but he didn't reply. Later I realized that another neighbor, a guy in his 20's, was mowing the lawn, not him. This guy mows the front lawns of 3 of his n'bors. I'm not sure if he charges them or not. They're little, 20 feet by 25 feet, but if he doesn't charge it's still very nice of him. I told him the little triangle was mine, not the neighbor's, but he still mows it, and usually before I would.
I also realized that the n'bor doesn't trim the bushes either. Somehow he got the HOA to do that. I wrote the HOA telling them it was my land and they don't need to waste their money havng the landscaping company do that, but that letter was ignored too, perhaps because the corrupt 20 year president of the HOA doesn't like me (or most other people.) . The letter of permission will have a sentence giving them permission too.
So in other words, the neighbor has done precious little to maintain the land but it's hard for me to say how much because I'm not outside when he is. I cut my offer of 250 down to 125.
I've done trimming, weeding, mulching, spraying weeds under the bushes, mowing, and spraying the lawn for weeds, but a) not that much of it, and b) most people haven't seen me do any of it, since usually no one is outside when I'm doing these things.
On top of all of this, the landscaping company in the last 2 or 3 years, once a year in the spring cleans up the bed around the bushes and makes the bed 1/2 inch bigger on each side. That's bad because the bed for the previous 32 years had indicated my property line on each side. That's a big reason why I tried to get them to stop.
Sorry. More than you wanted to know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.