If the OP is serious about getting an answer to his question, what he should be doing is spending some time reading case law, and researching the reasons why judges made the rulings they did in cases with similar facts as his. Those will be the decisions that the judge in his case (if it ever goes to court) will turn to for guidance in making his decision.
Too lazy to go look? Is California a big enough example?
Here's a recent case in California, where actor Larry Hagman's estate won an adverse possession case over a church, with one of the issues being that the church had not paid taxes on the land in question. Had they paid the taxes, the estate would have had no claim, because payment negates any AP claim.
"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.
That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement. "
I didn't give an example of a common law test. It told you that some states have laws that require those trying to claim AP to have paid the taxes on the property in question.
Again, that is precisely the point. If you're not paying the taxes, then you're not going to take the other guy's property, who has been paying taxes on it, by a fence that is 3 ft off from where it should be. At least not in a state that requires paying taxes.
Assume both are deeded as exactly .5 acres.
I guarantee you that in most cases, they are not either. Which is precisely the point. The guy who has the piece on the larger side of the fence can't win a claim of AP because he hasn't paid the taxes on it. That's in those states where paying the taxes is required. And as I said, you'd have to look at case law in the other states.
Also some states have de minimus provisions in AP law that exclude claims over things like a fence that's a few feet off.
And if I were a judge, the "using the land as his own" test would fail if the person trying to assert AP had not been the one paying the taxes on the land. That's why I said you'd need to see the actual laws and the case law for the situation involved.
Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:
"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.
That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."
Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live, but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #? If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner. They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that once a year.
Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.
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?
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.
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.
I found one webpage that agrees with you, but given the limited reliability of the web, that's not enough to convince me. I'lll look some more but I don't know when.
Yes and no. It's not definitive, but in practice, it's not likely they'd list both, and separately, if they were the same. I'm sure they discussed this when I doing my short stint in law school, and he must have drawn a distinction.
Whether I turn out to be right or not, it made sense. Not everything that makes sense is incorporated into law, and certainly not n all 50 states.
Of course you can find a case, or a thousand hypothetical cases, which match your understanding. I said they function indiependently, so of course in some cases they will coincide. That doesn't prove they must coincide.
Same answer.
Not wrong.
You're answering on the basis that unpermitted and hostile are the same. I havent' agreed to that yet.
As I said, when I'll have time to read more, I don't know. Your opinion gets one vote and that other source that I think agreed with you got one vote, and I get one vote**, so we're about tied by now.
**I"m reminded of Lincoln's cabinet meeting where everyone in the cabinet disagreed with him. They voted. Lincooln said 12 nays, one aye, the ayes have it. LOL I wish I remembered what the issue was.How is this a different opinion?
An agreement is different because it takes two poeple. A license can be unilateral.
If you give your kid permssion to go out, and he hasn't decided if he will or not, that's unilateral. It's a license. If you say, you can go out until 6, but only if you do your homework from 7 to 9, and he agrees to that, that's an agreement. It's not unilateral.
Well of course someone will say that. I would get an actual agreement if I could. And I'm going to try again to get him to look at the plat with someone next to him who he might listen to who will explain what the plat shows. But it probably won't work. He' either won't do it or it won't change his mind. And even if somehow he does believe me after this, he's still not going to say so in writing.
The only time someone would agree to this in writing is if he faced denial of use if he didn't sign. If the owner said, No, you can't park here and if you do, I'll tow your car away. Or, you can't garden here and if you do, I'll stomp down whatever grows.
All this guy does is get someone else to mow the lawn and trim the bushes. What can I do, glue the bushes back together and glue the grass ends back onto the grass? I'd have to get an injunction, and I'd have to enjoin the HOA too**, and that will cost me a lot if a lawyer does it, and I'm not sure I could succeed if I do it myself, but I would succeed in antagonizing both parties.
**I certainly don't want to enjoin the nice guy who mows the grass sometimes. I like him and he lives 3 houses away and will never claim he owns my land. And he does a good job when he mows. I should get him a present.It's easy to give advice. But if Bill has his mind made up, he likely won't even acknowledge that he was told it wasn't his property, let alone acknowledge that it isn't. If your next-door neighbor came over to land you owned while you were planiting a garden, and he said he owned it, would you say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know" and write an acknoledgement of any kind?
Thanks for this. It needs a bit more, according to my lawyer/friend, but it's a good start.
There are a few people (10%?) who would sign this, but my neighbor is not one of them. He truly thinks he owns it (so why would he sign it?) or he knows he doesn't but feels entitled to it for some reason (so why would he sign it?) or he knows he's going to lose eventually but enjoys annoying me (so why would he sign it?) I tend to think that even if he started out lying, by now he really believes he owns it. People tend to believe their own lies after enough time.
One doesn't need an agreemnent to grant permission. I would not pay for this guy's course.
I first read Nestork's reply to this post, because it's a lot shorter and I was tired last night, and when I saw this paragraph from you, I felt my stomach fall into a pit. But later a bunch of thoughts occurred to me.
First, an agreement between me and my neighbor cannot bind a third party who didn't agree to it. So the Mexican can sue me just as easily even if I have this agrement signed by my n'bor. What peoiple normally do is get party C to hold harmless party B (me) and to promise to reimburse me for any amounts paid to a third party.
Now it is a 100 times less likely that my neighbhor will sign. And he shouldn't. We're sharing the land. What if I myself left the dangerous item on the land and it was my fault a gardner or workman gets hurt. Why should C sign something agreeing to remimburse me for what I pay the injured party?**
But thinking that didn't alleveiate my worry. But... a unilateral permission won't make things worse than they already are. My n'bor C already acts like he owns the land and if he had a reason to hire someone to work on it, or walk over it, he would do it now. But there are no hazards. Kids one summer threw bush bed stones into the lawn, but they are long since gone. If I were to see anything else, I'd pick it up too, but I haven't seen anything but a little litter in
20 years.And if something did happen, my homeowners insurance company would defend me in court,
It's not enough to own land on which someone is hurt. To be liable, I have to have been negligent and my negligence has to be the proximate cause of the person's injury. It's not going to happen.
But I still appreciate your raising this, because maybe it will affect the wording of the license or the letter than I will send with it.
**So the paragraph could say that liability will be based on who is negligent and he will remimburse me if [a court says] he's negligent. That might well help, but as I said, he'll never sign it.
You're just keep repeating the same thing over and over, but you haven't go t a single cite to back it up. You even admitted that you found a referenc e that agreed with what I said about permission. There are plenty more that say the same thing. So, where is yours that agree with what you claim?
You keep re-writing what I say. I did not say unpermitted and hostile are the same thing. I said the use of the property being unpermitted is *part* of what makes it hostile. If it is permitted, then it is not hostile and the person can't make an AP claim.
You're not very good at math, are you?
come-owners-46934.html
eir written acknowledgement. For example, you could give someone permission to park on your land, use a shortcut across your property, or to garden or grow crops. This can not only defeat adverse possession claims, but also a claim to an easement (use permit) across your property.
Good grief! It says to GET THEIR WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. You said the legal newsgroup said you could do the permission unilaterally, which I guess is just mailing a letter, no response required.
Funny thing how everytime I go to install licensed software, it requires I acknowledge ACCEPTANCE of the license before it allows me to install it. Or how about this. Let's say I mail you a license that says you are now authorized to use the Klu Klux Klan clubhouse for parties. I run around saying Micky is licensed to use the KKK clubhouse. Somehow that doesn't seem right.
And in the case of AP, you have another party who claims they own your piece of land, that they are in fact the legal and rightful owner. So, you send them a piece of paper saying " I Micky license you to use that piece of land". That's like you sending it to me, saying you own my house or are the King of Siam. I chuck it in the trash can and ignore it. That sounds exactly like the kind of hostile action that a reasonable person asserting AP would take.
You can try that argument in court if the neighbor makes the AP claim.
You can take pictures and videos of YOU trimming those bushes and mowing that grass too. There goes his claim of "exclusivity" which in the AP laws I've read is required. If you're both using the property, he has no claim.
I wouldn't like an AH that is planting stuff on my property, mowing my grass whether I want it mowed or not, and claiming that I don't own what I know I own.
use your land. If
and, step over and
don't have to
No, I don't think someone that thinks your land is rightfully his and that believes he owns it and who may file an AP claim is going to sign a permission agreement. That is precisely the point. It's just that I suspect that free legal advice on a newsgroup where they said you can just send him a unilateral license, and that's sufficient, doesn't smell right.
f he has your
rk, N.J. give
e-foot strip of
right to revoke this
to James Brown is
And I'd ask, why would you sending him a piece of paper, that he refuses to acknowledge make a good defense against an AP claim? If he signs it yes. If he pisses all over it, tears it up, and continues doing what he's been doing, because he says the property is his and you're "license" doesn't apply, well that sure sounds exactly like just continuing his hostile possession of your property to me.
or he knows he doesn't but feels entitled to it for some reason
But you have lots of faith and base your decisions on free legal answers from a newsgroup.
ssession claims,
low). When you
ur land being used
You're absolutely right, he can sue you just as easily. I think his chances of winning will be greatly diminished though if you have a properly written agreement to hold you harmless.
What
If it was my property, he can sign it in return for his enjoyment of continuing to use my property. Or he can choose not to sign it and stay the hell off of my property. Real simple.
I'm not so sure about that either. If he hires a Mexican and sends him over to your property now, the Mexican is trespassing and was sent there by an illegal act of the neighbor that you had nothing to do with. You "license" the neighbor to use your property and a lot has changed.
My n'bor C
Except that AH's that trespass and don't give a damn about your property rights are the first ones to sue and point the finger at you if something bad happens.
Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.
Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.
YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".
Harry K
Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.
All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:
Harry K
Yeah, I'm the one who was right, but I'm still supposed to be the lazy one because you're too lazy and stupid to use google to figure out that what I posted was true. You acted like it was unheard of. Yet, there it is, in the huge state of California, among others.
Typical. I'm supposed to do everything, including google for you. You asked a question about how someone could pay the property taxes on a piece of property they don't own. I just gave you the way it can be done. I spelled it out above. Now, if that won't work, you could tell us why it won't. Instead you just post some snide remark.
You sure as hell can walk into the tax collectors office here in any of the towns I've lived in and pay the taxes owed on any property. They don't ask for proof that you own it. They ask the name and address, or block and lot #. You give them a check or cash. If it's a check, they don't give a rat's ass who's name is on the check. You think there aren't plenty of folks, where for example there are more than one person living together in a house and only one of their names is on the title/tax records and only that person can go pay the bill? And that the person at the tax collectors window is going to ask you to prove that you somehow have a right to pay the taxes? They take the money from anyone there willing to pay it. Good grief, you're dumb!
You might try answering questions and using google, instead of hiding, being deceptive, and then bitching when I'm nice enough to use Google to prove that you're wrong.
rote:
s a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.
n'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.
uire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity .
's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."
of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPE RTY to begin with.
r 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.
had nothing to do with the "how".
time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.
e-Possession.pdf
Good that you finally figured out how to use Google. And why didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and wh ich you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:
"PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES Some states require the trespasser to have paid the taxes on the property f or the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met except the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse posses sion. (See "Easements," below)."
As for it being "all one wanted to know about adverse possession", it's titled "California Adverse Possession", from a CA govt DOT website, du mb ass.
You might try remembering that the cite is required from the person MAKING THE CLAIM.
As for that answer you want? I provided it it, go look for it a few posts up. Getting lazy again are you?
Harry K
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:11:11 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrot e:
rse-Possession.pdf
And your fingers were having a problem that you couldn't find that 'oh, so simple' search string and post and actual on point cite rather than an obsc ure cite to an appellate court ruling?
And why
which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:
Since it was simple to read and came near the top, why bother. I posted it as it is a very excellent discussion of many of the sub conversations in th is thread. You could have done it if you weren't so apparently google handi capped
for the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met excep t the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to us e the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse poss ession. (See "Easements," below)."
Hey! I see you know how to C&P!
Yep and it discusses the subject in general not just California. You did s ee the "Some states"? It is obvious from the start that it is not Californ ia specific.'
Now if you are done with your ad hominems.
Clue: You can avoid all this chit chat in the future by just provided a ci te to the next claim you make when it is asked for.
Harry K
ote:
I readily do that if it's something obscure or that's hard to find. But I think it's a good idea for people like you to learn hot to use google and educate yourselves sometimes, instead of sitting there like a lazy ass. I knew it to be true. You didn't. Why the hell is it *my* obligation to go find what anyone can find with google in a couple minutes?
verse-Possession.pdf
o simple' search string and post and actual on point cite rather than an ob scure cite to an appellate court ruling?
Why should I have to do the simple search for you? Fact is, I was right. If you cared that much about it, as opposed to shooting your mouth off, you could have done the search. As for it being an "obscure cite to an appellate court ruling", it was an excellent example not only of the fact that who pays the property taxes on a piece of property that's in dispute matters greatly in some states, it also shows the law actually applied and interpreted by an appellate court in a real world case. And in my world, that beats *your* cite which was a link to a document on a California DOT website. I'd say the decision of an appellate court is more relevant than the opinion of an unknown author on a DOT website. The DOT decides about highways, not law. Plus the newspaper article seemed appropriate for your comprehension level.
said and which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:
I see. So, I'm wrong for not providing cites to anything that is questioned, apparently so as to prove and educate people on here. But when you finally use a simple google search to prove that I'm right, it's OK for you not to post the short section you found that proves exactly what I said. Go figure.
rsations in this thread. You could have done it if you weren't so >apparent ly google handicapped
You finally use google to find out that I was correct, after making post after post, "Waaah, where's a citation?, Where oh where is a citation? Help! I've fallen and I can't get up..." and I'm the one that's handicapped?
ty for the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met exc ept the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse po ssession. (See "Easements," below)."
Yes, and apparently you don't, because you could have posted that little piece that says I'm right, but chose not to. Gee, I wonder why?
see the "Some states"? It is obvious from the start that it is not Califo rnia specific.'
The fact that it's the subject in general, written by some unknown person in the California Dept of Transportation, titled California Adverse Possession, also means it's *not* "all you want to know" about AP, which is what you posted.
cite to the next claim you make when it is asked for.
You can avoid all this by not making an ass out of yourself and just doing a simple google search yourself when you think something isn't true.
BTW, you still want to claim that it's difficult or impossible for anyone to go make a real estate tax payment on any piece of property? Or is it time to admit you're wrong on that too?
Yeah, I buy that if it's some EXTRAORDINARY claim. If it's something that would require someone who gives a damn to do some extensive searching, because it's hard to find. But not when it's one that any dumb ass that's interested can find by googling "Adverse possession taxes". You posted how many separate posts and how many paragraphs expressing disbelief? "waaahh... waaah.... where's the cite?" Just 3 words in google would have produced the answer.
I don't really give a damn. It's obvious you've finally accepted the fact that taxes do matter and that in fact it's not impossible or even difficult to pay real estate taxes on a property you don't own.
It's funny to see a Google Groupie whine about snipping.
So why didn't you do that instead of posting an obscure appellate court ruling?
You sure do seem to care a lot.
ROFLMAO. Do you plan to grow up some day?
Harry K
Just to please you I left in what seems to be forty quadjullion lines of blank lines in Trad's post when I replied. That suit you?
Harry K
Trying to win an arguement online is like trying to open your mouth so wide that your head turns inside out.
It can probably be done, but no one has succeeded in doing it yet.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.