Adverse possession. What problem does it solve?

[jamil]

So I've been reading up on adverse possession, and I get that we have a lot of common law artifacts in our laws. But why does this one stay around. I mean, what problem does it solve? The only answer I can think of, is to have yet another reason to hire a lawyer.

I understand that property lines sometimes are disputed, and sometimes there are grey areas, clerical mistakes, whatnot. But adverse possession is mostly about gaining title to property you know isn't yours. I just don't see that as a solution to any real problem.

And while reading about it, I see where in some states if you have Title Insurance one can't adversely possess land. WTF is that? Somehow buying a product from a private company can make it so someone can't use a law against you? I'm all for evening out the whole mess and giving property owners at least some tool to use against squatters, but I just don't see how that follows. It's like listening to kids try to explain the very arbitrary rules to a game they've just made up. Even the requirement that the adverse possessor must pay taxes on the land during the time the land was adversely possessed, isn't actually followed.

I just don't get the need. Maybe someone can explain.

 

[gunrunner0]

I believe part of the thinking behind it, at least originally, was to make sure land was put to use, and not left abandoned and unused. If someone is using the land, it's benefiting society, this is evident in the adverse possession laws of some states which prescribe shorter time requirements for possessors who have been paying taxes.

Furthermore, it acts as a tool to quiet title, which I believe is why it sticks around. It can reduce the ability of of previous title holders making claims on subsequent purchasers.

 

[Libertarian01]

This is a legal precedent that I also disagree with. While I can see the logic presented in gunrunner0's answer, that dates from a time when the efficiency of farming was minimal, so every acre needed to be in use.

I have a friend who's father died some years ago. The father left land down in Florida for his two (2) children to use. This includes my buddy who lives here in Indiana and his sister who lives in Texas. Dad had this dream that his kids could have someplace way out of the way to go and vacation together, thus keeping the family bonded together in some way. At this time neither sibling wants the land, so it just sits there. Whatever Dad wanted isn't going to happen, at least not for many years.

However, the land just sits. Neither of them goes to check on it. The property taxes get paid, but who wants to drive from Indiana or Texas just to look at a vacant parcel of a few acres (if that) of empty land.

The idea that someone could come along and start building on it, "improving" it, and therefore own it is sickening. Just because the kids haven't decided to build there doesn't mean they never will, but even if they don't it is still their land!

This would be a section of common law or precedent that I would not oppose being updated.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So I've been reading up on adverse possession, and I get that we have a lot of common law artifacts in our laws. But why does this one stay around. I mean, what problem does it solve? The only answer I can think of, is to have yet another reason to hire a lawyer.

Adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence? The problem of usage of property.

Adverse possession by individual or government? Who is the actor here?

I understand that property lines sometimes are disputed, and sometimes there are grey areas, clerical mistakes, whatnot. But adverse possession is mostly about gaining title to property you know isn't yours. I just don't see that as a solution to any real problem.

The problem of waste.

And while reading about it, I see where in some states if you have Title Insurance one can't adversely possess land. WTF is that?

Because, under that state's law, title insurance counts as activity and one is not sleeping on his rights.

Somehow buying a product from a private company can make it so someone can't use a law against you?

Yes, but there are many examples of this.

I'm all for evening out the whole mess and giving property owners at least some tool to use against squatters, but I just don't see how that follows. It's like listening to kids try to explain the very arbitrary rules to a game they've just made up. Even the requirement that the adverse possessor must pay taxes on the land during the time the land was adversely possessed, isn't actually followed.

Development of property law is over a thousand years old. Would a law review article on its history and development help?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[jamil]

Adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence? The problem of usage of property.

Adverse possession by individual or government? Who is the actor here?

Well, either really. The question is about satisfying my curiosity and not about anything specific. I think it's ridiculous that a person can own land, have the boundaries recorded, and then someone can just take it away by intentionally trespassing on that property.

The problem of waste.

I think that's not a problem and it certainly doesn't need solved. It's no one's business.

Now that I think about it, I have some in-laws who bought some land in Colorado. They had no intention of building on it or occupying it. They bought it before the housing bust because they thought they could make money off it. Now, it's just sitting there not being used--at least not as far as they know. They're hoping someday they can sell it for more than they paid for it. I'm thinking I should tell them they probably need to protect themselves from squatters trying to take their land by adverse possession.

Because, under that state's law, title insurance counts as activity and one is not sleeping on his rights.

I think that still sounds like arbitrary rules kids would devise for their made-up games.

I think that property OWNERSHIP in itself should be all the activity necessary to retain the legal boundaries on file. All that should matter in settling boundary squabbles is what's on file at the clerk's office.

Development of property law is over a thousand years old. Would a law review article on its history and development help?

Usually I enjoy reading about history, but for this it's probably not going to interest me unless it contains information that might convince me there's a problem with the idea of property ownership that this solves.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think it's ridiculous that a person can own land, have the boundaries recorded, and then someone can just take it away by intentionally trespassing on that property.

One's ownership of property has never been absolute. Maybe to children playing a game, but never in the law has it been absolute.

I think that's not a problem and it certainly doesn't need solved. It's no one's business.

If waste is not a problem, why the century upon century of law combatting it?

Waste is not a problem to children who do not see the consequences. However, to society it is a problem. That's why Parliament, state legislatures have been so active to combat it.

I think that still sounds like arbitrary rules kids would devise for their made-up games.

I think that property OWNERSHIP in itself should be all the activity necessary to retain the legal boundaries on file. All that should matter in settling boundary squabbles is what's on file at the clerk's office.

Property law is not a game. One's right to property is not absolute (perhaps in an L. Neil Smith comic, but not in reality). Adverse possession is a legal means to keep ownership of property in productive hands, not the idle.

Usually I enjoy reading about history, but for this it's probably not going to interest me unless it contains information that might convince me there's a problem with the idea of property ownership that this solves.

Entire libraries have been written on property law. I'll see if I can find a solid hornbook for ya.

 

[Stang51d]

The property right behind us has been adversely possessed, just about a year ago by the guy that owns beside it. Not the whole property, but the part that he has been using for 20 some years. I don't know all of the details, but the orig property owner, that it was adversely possessed from is a relative of mine, and he is a total a$$ hole. Therefore, while I don't totally agree with the law, I'm ok with it in this case.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Another issue you have to consider is that when you see any map with straight borders, whether they are national borders or property lines, in most cases, if you see a straight line of any significant length, you are seeing the evidence of lines drawn by people who have little or no idea what is on the land they are dividing up. When divided by a knowledgeable person, the lines generally will not be straight because they will follow natural features like mountain ranges, rivers, or other such geographic phenomena. Conversely, if you look at a map of Africa, the boundaries will stand in evidence of a continent cut up by colonial powers which had yet to explore the land they were dividing.

Moving this to a more local level with adverse possession, in most cases I have seen it applied, it involved moving the fence 10 or 15 feet in a relatively small area to conform to the land rather than grabbing acres of land.

 

[HoughMade]

Encourages people to maintain and use their land, not to ignore it, and let it sit unused.

 

[T.Lex]

@OP:
Attorney unemployment.

 

[HoughMade]

@OP:
Attorney unemployment.

Sales of Mercedes, BMW and Lexus All Fall in April - 24/7 Wall St.

 

[T.Lex]

Sales of Mercedes, BMW and Lexus All Fall in April - 24/7 Wall St.

Damn Tesla.

 

[T.Lex]

One mostly-serious observation on adverse possession: the timeline to achieve it is relatively long. It isn't like leaving a field fallow for a couple season (which is actually a use) is enough. It is actually a fairly heavy burden to prove entitlement to property by adverse possession.

Someone has to ignore their own property for quiet a while to lose it under this theory. If you lose something you never kept track of, is it really losing it?

 

[22rssix]

So with property law. How long would it take before a home owner could take legal action to claim the property if even possible?

lets say if someone has a house with part of the backyard that is not on their deed. Part of the backyard is owned by someone else and the taxes are current. The back yard is maintained by the homeowner and no return calls or responses back from the owner. Could the homeowner claim adverse possession?

 

[T.Lex]

So with property law. How long would it take before a home owner could take legal action to claim the property if even possible?

lets say if someone has a house with part of the backyard that is not on their deed. Part of the backyard is owned by someone else and the taxes are current. The back yard is maintained by the homeowner and no return calls or responses back from the owner. Could the homeowner claim adverse possession?

It depends on whatever their lawyer says after a complete discussion of the full situation, including due diligence on the facts of the case.

 

[HoughMade]

It depends on whatever their lawyer says after a complete discussion of the full situation, including due diligence on the facts of the case.

I see a lot of questions around here and not a lot of retainer.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this adverse possession stuff gets VERY complicated, VERY quickly - particularly with the prevalence of title insurance and what it might cover.

Sure, here on INGO we can handle constitutional issues, criminal defense, prosecutorial discretion, and even the occasional civil liberty. Its problems with Blackacre that are too complex.

 

[HoughMade]

Constitutional stuff is fun for me and seldom (but not never) what I get paid to do. I'll through in my 2 cents on those issues.

...I'm going too need some $$$ to look closely at adverse possession.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

I wish this applied to vehicles. My neighbor has nice Chevelle that just sits in his garage, I'd drive it everyday if it meant I could have it.