Couple Loses Land to Squatters' Rights Law

[Just_A_Guy]

Story here.

Most states have some form of adverse possession legislation. If you own land you don't live on, be sure to drop in on it periodically and know what's happening there. Otherwise, you may lose it.

[pam]

Another ridiculous situation. What's the law in Utah Jag?

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's a website that compares different states. What it says about Utah sounds right (I don't do much property law), though I thought the period in Utah was 10 years (the website says it's 7). I'm too lazy to look up the appropriate statute right now, though. Edited October 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

In Utah, the duration of such possession is seven (7) years. The person claiming title by adverse possession must pay taxes and assessments on real estate during the time of adverse possession. Utah Code §78-12-7.1 through 21.

This states they must pay taxes and assessment to claim title by adverse possession...does that mean that if the actual owners have been making all those payments then the one filing the claim has no claim to it?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think so; but you'd be better off talking to someone who specializes in property law. B)

[pam]

Hey I thought you were the resident attorney here? hahahaha

Not that I own any land..I was just curious. It just seems like an unfair law. I've known people that have purchased property and held onto it for years to give it to their children when they come of age. It just seems a shame that they could possibly lose it. But then again..I guess the key is to keep an eye on it. If you see someone squatting..kick them off.

[annewandering]

I know that if you allow usage of your water by anyone else for 10 years in Idaho you can not deny it to them after that. You may own it but they have a right to use the amount they have been using for that time period forever.

It is sad because you can not help a neighbor or allow your water to even run off your land. If it does you lose the right to stop it.

[miztrniceguy]

Build a wall around your property to collect all the water runoff....eventually you will have a lake.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know that if you allow usage of your water by anyone else for 10 years in Idaho you can not deny it to them after that. You may own it but they have a right to use the amount they have been using for that time period forever.

It is sad because you can not help a neighbor or allow your water to even run off your land. If it does you lose the right to stop it.

Depending on the state, actually, you might be able to do something like that. One of the requirements for adverse possession is that the use is hostile--not by consent of the person who holds the title to the land.

If you own land (or an appurtenant right to land, like an easement or a water right (though water law is a whole other ball of wax, especially in the West)), you can often stop an adverse possession claim from arising by merely drafting a "license" that allows the person to use the land, but states clearly that you can revoke the license anytime you want. Sign it, and get the person using the land to sign it, and you should be good to go. No "hostile" use = no adverse possession.

FWIW, when the LDS Church was suing the RLDS Church over the Kirtland temple some years ago, I'm told the court dodged the issue of having to choose the "real" successor to Joseph Smith by simply giving the temple to the RLDS on a claim of adverse possession.

[Guest alianneL]

Squatting is a pretty simple concept. It's setting up camp on a parcel of land or moving into an abandoned or unused dwelling. (However, moving into a house that has a family still living there is considered home invasion, not squatting.). Under the law of adverse possession, however, it's not as easy as just pitching a tent on a piece of land and after a certain period of time has passed claiming that it is yours. Through adverse possession, someone must be on the land for a period of five to fifteen years, depending on the state. During that time, the person must hold the property hostile to the owner's rights - in other words, the person couldn't be there under the permission of the owner. Speaking of squatters rights I've read that in the summertime of 2011, a Texas man rose to infamy with the adverse possession of a $330,000 estate in Flower Mound, Texas. The courts, however, have decided that Kenneth Robinson's adverse possession is not lawful, and he has been evicted. Article resource:Courts are kicking adverse possession practitioners out of homes. The life of a squatter is fraught with pitfalls and confrontations at each turn -- and so is the life of the landlord who has to deal with the unwanted resident.

Edited February 17, 2012 by alianneL

[Guest]

Alianne, great that you resurrected this thread...

There's a group in Florida that are taking advantage of the Adverse Possession law and the current foreclosure-heavy environment to grab abandoned houses that are going into foreclosure. Basically, they go around neighborhoods - usually the new subdivisions built in the early 2000's timeframe - and find houses that have been abandoned by their homeowners. They then move into the house, pay the property taxes (that are usually left hanging by the previous owners), and just sit there. The house could go into foreclosure and then the bank tries to resell the house. In this economy, it has been taking longer to sell homes. So that, in the end, the bank finally gets the house sold, the new owners go to the house and find out that they can't take possession of it due to the "adverse possessors".

This group is trying to gain public sympathy by saying they're "collecting houses" for the homeless...

[pam]

Anatess the previous post was spam. Which is was the link led to. It was only resurrected to post spam.

Edited February 17, 2012 by pam

[annewandering]

Alianne, great that you resurrected this thread...

There's a group in Florida that are taking advantage of the Adverse Possession law and the current foreclosure-heavy environment to grab abandoned houses that are going into foreclosure. Basically, they go around neighborhoods - usually the new subdivisions built in the early 2000's timeframe - and find houses that have been abandoned by their homeowners. They then move into the house, pay the property taxes (that are usually left hanging by the previous owners), and just sit there. The house could go into foreclosure and then the bank tries to resell the house. In this economy, it has been taking longer to sell homes. So that, in the end, the bank finally gets the house sold, the new owners go to the house and find out that they can't take possession of it due to the "adverse possessors".

This group is trying to gain public sympathy by saying they're "collecting houses" for the homeless...

Good for them. Oh and anyone that buys a house without looking at it is an idiot.

Edited February 17, 2012 by annewandering

[HEthePrimate]

In some ways it might be nice if tenants could claim title to property owned by absentee slumlords. You know, the type of landlords who collects rents, but do next to nothing to maintain the property, so the tenants end up living in substandard conditions. If you ask me, taking rents but not providing adequate services is called "theft." This is an especially big problem in university districts, where dissatisfied tenants leave, but there's always somebody to replace them. Maybe the landlords would be spurred to take better care of the properties (and by extension their tenants) if they faced the threat of losing title if they didn't!