Adverse Possession

Page 5 of 5  


B for obvious reasons. The other (not so obvious reason) would be upon selling, you might run into trouble with the survey unless/until you went to court to and got the adverse possession sorted out.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, Jon Danniken
Despite all my discussion and assesrtion and speculaton about adverse posession, that's just thread drift. I'm not pushing you to claim AP.
I have no objection to your choice of B, or to talking to the neighbor etc.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 7:05:09 PM UTC-7, Jon Danniken wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon:
Here's a web site for the Court of Appeals for the State of New York. On this site they make all of that court's decisions available to the Public:
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions.htm
On the right hand side there's a link called "Advanced Decision Search". Click on that link, and when you get to the Search Court of Appeals Deciions dialogue box, leave the whole thing blank and go right to the bottom and type in Adverse Possession where it says "Search Full Text" and then select "Exact Match" in the drop down list immediately below. Then click on the Find button.
There have been three cases concerning Adverse Possession in the State of New York since 2006, and one of them involves two individuals, neither of which was aware of where their true property boundary was. Read:
'Walling v Przybylo (2006 NY Slip Op 04747)' (http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_04747.htm )
When you find court case citations, such as this:
The [*4]Appellate{**7 NY3d at 232} Division determined: "In the absence of an overt acknowledgment, our courts have recognized since Humbert v Trinity Church [24 Wend 587 (1840)], that an adverse possessor's claim of right or ownership will not be defeated by mere knowledge that another holds legal title" (24 AD3d 1, 4 [3d Dept 2005] [citation omitted]).
Humbert v Trinity Church is a court case that is reported in a set of court case transcripts called "Wend" (presumably short for "Wendell") in book # 24 and starting on page 587.
If you simply take that citation down to the law library at your local university, the librarians there will give you Wend 24 and you can photocopy the transcript of that case.
Similarily, your city will have a library typically located in the same building as court cases are heard (so judges and lawyers have easy access to the transcripts of previous cases with similar facts) where you can look up and photocopy that case yourself. If you print off the case cited above (Walling vs Prysbylo), any of the librarians in that library will be able to help you understand what certain words and phrases mean.
The librarians of those law libraries will also have access to the decisions of other courts, but typically there's a small fee for getting them to search for case law concerning whatever topic you're interested in, and for the printing or photocopying they do for you.
SEE ALSO: http://www.morelaw.com/cases/adverse_possession.asp?page=8
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines. Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.
Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. He sells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet to owner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first), parce l "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.
Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been pa ying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has asse ssed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.
Ivan Vegvary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would think the person doing the survey would be lible. He should have said that the fellow only had 99 feet left to sell after he sold the first 100 feet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 2, 2013 9:17:01 AM UTC-7, Ralph Mowery wrote:

This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of title' and not location. When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.
Ivan Vegvary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I can see that on buying all of a piece of land that has a deed, but when split up I would think a survey might be needed as new boundies are being generated.
When I bought a house with about 3 acers of land a few years ago,I did not get a survey either . I did not think I needed one as I was buying all of one plot of land so the deeded area would not change. Also one side was a road, one side is a creek and only one side is next to another piece of land and I could see the old posts from some previous survey. The property is shaped similar to a triangle so only 3 sides. This is in North Carolina for whatever differance that may make.
I know of some property that the land marks on the deed are not any good at all. One was a refferance to a center pole of a barn. That barn burnt down 50 years ago and a new barn was built many feet from the origional.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Vegvary

If they don't find/disclose it or if they are the doing the original subdivision, they certainly are liable. It comes under the heading of "errors and omissions".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Danniken wrote:

I rank "adverse possession" right up there with "squatter's rights." Total BS enacted by greedy politicians looking to get something for nothing.
Fence on the property line. As tall and solid as I could make it so I don't have to look at the shithole that the place I was maintaining turns into when I stop.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.