On Thursday, September 5, 2013 5:53:45 AM UTC-7, email@example.com 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.
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.
On Friday, September 6, 2013 5:33:14 AM UTC-7, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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
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.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 01:50:00 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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
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
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
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.
Wow, now you can read the minds of unknown law makers in unknown
states. Very impressive.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Claim of Right
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
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
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.
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.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:59:40 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
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
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
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
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.)
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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
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
He may or may not have a survey. Either way, I'll have to think
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
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 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.
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.