Want to buy 10' of neighbors yard and build a fence

[HeyBub]

When he moves out, build the fence. Chances are the new owners won't notice.

After seven years (or some interval of time), adverse possession kicks in and the land is yours.

[bigjim]

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Lenders REQUIRE a survey. That's that.

[aemeijers]

Oh, BS, as usual. It is a case by case thing. In the case of a recorded subdivision, they often accept the recorded plat as a valid description of the property they have a security interest in. Been that way on deals I have been involved with in several states.

Not that a survey is a bad thing, mind you, especially if you live in an area that has dispensed with abstracts. One of these days, I'll bother to get a survey on this place. In the meantime, having assisted in surveys as a kid, my own quick'n' dirty measures off the easily found benchmark in the back yard agreed with the deed, so I sleep easy.

aem sends...

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Yes, in some cases a photo copy of the last one that is never checked for accuracy. Eventually it would come back to bite you in the ass though, but if there are no recorded changes you may slip it by.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

That can be very important depending on the lot sizes and zoning. In our town, a shed must be built a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. If the line moves, so does the potential shed location.

If 10 feet is that important to the OP, it probably will be to the new buyer also. I doubt this deal will ever be done.

[Ivan Vegvary]

Wrong! This is not a DIY project for either the seller or the buyer. I have done over 300 Lot Line Adjustments for clients. (Licensed Land Surveyor and Registered Civil Engineer) The jurisdictions in which I have performed these adjustments all require proper platting, measurements, descriptions, stake out on the ground, etc. In other words there are enough protections. If something goes wrong the client simply sues the Engineer/Surveyor just as he would sue his lawyer. While I have not worked in every state of the union, I believe that the majority of states use title companies to guarantee transfer and ownership and not lawyers. I think Louisiana is an exception. As an example, most agencies required a description and plat of each property before the transfer, after the transfer and a separate description of the transfer. That is 5 plats and legal descriptions total. In California, if this client were to go to a lawyer, he would pay about $

150 for the advice of "go hire a Land Surveyor". Been there, done that.

Ivan Vegvary

[Ivan Vegvary]

WRONG!!

1) The possession has to be truly adverse. That is, both parties must know about it, disagree about it, and disagree over a seven year period (or whatever the statute of limitations in that state). 2) The adverse possessor also has to pay the taxes for the same duration (seven years). This provision is not impossible to meet if the properties were mis-measured to begin with (e.g., very common. Somebody buys the west 50 feet of the Jones property. Later somebody buys the east 50 feet of the Jones property. One day they discover that there is only 98 feet total. They argue over the 2 feet. The tax assessor thought there were two 50 foot parcels and taxes accordingly. Both parties are paying taxes on the same 2 feet). 3) After meeting the above, you still have to go to court through a "Quiet Title" procedure. Expensive.

Of course if instead of "Adverse Possession", you simply meant "Acquiescence" those standards are easier to meet.

Ivan Vegvary

[Tim Smith]

That sure doesn't fit in with my recollection from property classes in law school, and a bit of Googling verifies that it is mostly wrong:

Only true in some states.

[trader4]

You completely avoided the central issue. If someone doesn't have a clue about how this transaction should take place, they are asking for trouble if they don't have someone looking out for THEIR interests. You seem to think proper plating, surveying, provide all the protection he needs. I gave you a scenario where at the start of this, the neighbor crafts a purchase contract all favorable to him. Is the surveyor or title agency going to solve that?

Suppose the neighbor drafts a contract that says $10,000 is due him right now upon signing the contract, before anything is done, let alone title is transfered. Let's assume the buyer hasn't even heard of the word escrow. Who's gonna look out for him on day 1? How about if the seller goes bankrupt before the transfer is completed and there was no escrow because he signed a contract all favorable to the seller.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

To put that $10K in perspective, my lawyer (in upstate NY) charged a flat $400 for my house purchase. It seems a pittance compared to $10K, in return for knowing you've minimized or eliminated the possibility of nightmares later.

[Banty]

Of course details are missing - but it can be important to the OP and not that important to the neighbor.

However, his current neighbor has it against his interest as it may complicate his sell. He should approch his new neighbor with the idea. After building, and while maintaining, a good relationship with that neighbor.

Banty

[Banty]

You should teach a course titled - -

Shitting in your Nest 101: How to piss off the people you have to live with for years

Banty

[trader4]

LOL. Yes, I've never heard that there was any requirement for both parties in an adverse possession to know about it and continously disagree about it. AFAIK, the possessor has to make use of the property as if it were his own, ie maintaining it, or occupying it, and it has to be obvious to anyone that cared to look. But, I've never heard of any reqt of direct contact. In fact, in the typical adverse possession case, the parties are not in contact, because if they were, there are simple legal steps the owner could take to prevent the adverse possession. Therefore, the most common thing is for the parties to not have contact.

Now this is a good example of why telling a newbie that he should go about buying a piece of his neighbor's land without a lawyer is bad advice. A lawyer knows the law, has experience doing these transactions and is there to protect your interests and make sure you don't get screwed.

[Ivan Vegvary]

I guess you didn't want to read down to the first paragraph of your above citations. to wit: "A trespasser is entitled to legal ownership of property if his occupation of the property is hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for a period of years set by state statute."

What part of "hostile, open and notorious" make you think that there is no requirement that both parties must know and disagree about the trespass?

Get your money back on your law classes!!

Ivan Vegvary

[trader4]

It's not up to us to show you that the requirements of hostile, open, and notorious extend to mean that there must be communication between the parties. It's up to you to show that it does, because your are the one making the claim. A credible link, other than your own opinion, would be a good start.

You continue to make a good case as to how those that seek to do their own lawyering can get into trouble. You are trying to interpret what "open, hostile, and notorious" means, without knowing what these mean in the legal context, or case law. In particular, you seem to think hostile means that the parties must be fewding and in contact with one another. In reality, it has a specific legal meaning, which is very different from what you think it means:

- Hostility exists where a person possesses the land of another intending to hold to a particular recognizable boundary regardless of the true boundary line. That is, possession is "hostile" to the title owner's interest in the property. If possession was not hostile, it may still be possible to advance a claim of ownership under a theory of "acquiescence". You cannot claim "adverse possession" if you are engaged in the permissive use of somebody else's land.

Open & Notorious - You engage in acts of possession consistent with the property at issue in a manner which was capable of being seen. (This does not mean that you must have been observed in your acts of ownership but, had the actual owner or members of the public been in a position to see you, your acts must have been observeable). You need not use the property in a manner that exceeds that which would be expected of the actual owner - that is, it may be possible to claim adverse possession of a vacation property on the basis of use only during the vacation season, or to claim adverse possession of a vacant parcel of land by engaging in typical acts of maintenance for the parcel.

No where does this say or even come close to implying that there has to be any contact between the parties at all. Hostile simply means that your possession must be hostile to the owners interest. If you have any credible links that say otherwise, please post. And if you were familiar at all with adverse possession, you would know that in many cases, there is never any contact at all between the parties. Because if there is contact and the owner by title has just a glimmer of intelligence, he will take the necessary steps to avoid the adverse possession. Except, perhaps if he chooses to be his own lawyer and blows it.

[jJim McLaughlin]

What a maroon.

"Hostile, open and notorious" are defined in English common law cases stretching back nearly a thousand years, and in searate lines of case law in 49 US states after 1789.

Many states have decided to codify by egislation ow adverse possession works. Many more have not.

To think, as Ivan does, that a "Black's Law Dctionary" type definition of"adverse possession" is all th OP needs is an amazing dislay of ignorance and ignorance.

People relying upon olks like Ivan for legal advice have helped make me a comfortable lving as a lawyer over the years.

Keep it up Ivan! You go, guy. And I hope lots of folks take your expert legal advice posted in a Usenet forum.

Heh, heh, heh.

[Tim Smith]

Which part of that do you think imparts such a requirement?

"Hostile" means, depending on the state, one of:

(1) The trespasser be aware he is trespassing, or

(2) The trespasser occupy the land. It doesn't matter if he knows that he is trespassing, or

(3) The trespasser must NOT know he is trespassing.

The second meaning is the one used in the majority of states. Not nothing in any of these depends on the property owner being aware of the trespass.

How about "open and notorious". That simply means that the trespass must be readily apparent to anyone who cares to investigate. There is no requirement that the owner ACTUALLY investigate and/or notice the trespass.

So, putting this all together, we've got:

(1) The property owner does not have to know about the trespass. The trespass merely must be done in a way that makes it so the owner could easily know if he wished to check, and

(2) In most states, the trespasser does not have to know he is trespassing. Only in the states that follow the first definition of "hostile" must he know. That is 11 states.

In fact, in 3 states, the trespasser must NOT know he is trespassing.

And if you go check the case law, you'll find that all the cases support this.

Apparently, judges don't have your incredible gift of being able to look at a phrase that consists of technical legal terms like "hostile, open and notorious" and then make a half-assed guess at what they mean based on a vague approximation of their ordinary English meanings.

[Ivan Vegvary]

I've given expert testimony in over a dozen cases regarding adverse posession. Admitedly, California only. All of the cases, where defendant was an absentee owner, and had no knowledge of the trespass, were dismissed. One defendant moved to Hawaii for 12 years. He won his case. Granted, these were not appealed to a higher court. Acquiescense or easement through use probably would have been the winning argument.

I want to apologize. Let's back up to the very top of the discussion. I meant to say that most agencies tightly regulate (Subdivision Acts, etc.) boundary creations and transfers. The OP should go to his agency and follow their approval procedures. Having done so, and having the boundary shift approved, then, YES, YES, YES, take the transfer either to your attorney or to your title company, whichever applies in your state. Simply trying to grab the land is morally reprehensible. I think we all agree on that.

Ivan Vegvary

[cas]

One of my neighbors wanted to buy a strip of land from me, it was going to cost them more than it was worth. They finally resorted to trying to take it by adverse possession but that failed (they started to mow it and stuff and told the judge that "her grandmother" (who they inherited the house from) had gardened on it for years. Too bad the "for years" ended when she died in the 60s.

You could ask the owner if he'd be willing to sell a strip if land. I'd consult a surveyor along with your city planning people then get a lawyer. Then my neighbors did their research it was going to cost about 1k for the survey and transfers/plot updates plus any other fees the city or lawyer would levy.