property rights, shmoperty rights (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

Credit to rock first off since I think he has started a thread related to this and i know he definitely has brought it up, but I find this story absurd. 

The owner has been battling for years to get this guy off his property and it is the trespasser that gets the sympathy and support to be able to stay? 

i can see wanting to help him live somewhere else, but to want him to be able to stay???

 

[BladeRunner]

Credit to rock first off since I think he has started a thread related to this and i know he definitely has brought it up, but I find this story absurd. 

The owner has been battling for years to get this guy off his property and it is the trespasser that gets the sympathy and support to be able to stay? 

i can see wanting to help him live somewhere else, but to want him to be able to stay???

I have ZERO sympathy for squatters - the land, nor cabin is not his to begin with.  Put him in a shelter.

 

[rockaction]

Credit to rock first off since I think he has started a thread related to this and i know he definitely has brought it up, but I find this story absurd. 

The owner has been battling for years to get this guy off his property and it is the trespasser that gets the sympathy and support to be able to stay? 

i can see wanting to help him live somewhere else, but to want him to be able to stay???

I don't know if I started a thread on this particular type of property right, but this is bordering on adverse possession. If you have lived on a plot of land long enough, demarcated it, and taken open and hostile possession of it for an appropriate number of years (appropriate depends on jurisdiction and/or common law) you take possession of the land by right. It's an interesting footnote in property law designed for situations exactly like this. The landowner has to be or should be aware of how his land is being used in order for him or her to enforce eviction, and this sounds like it is right on the cusp of that. 

I sympathize with both. There is an expectation and an interest in property if you stay on the land long enough with either notice to the owner or adverse and hostile possession of his land. The squatter, there for over twenty-five years or so, actually meets adverse possession requirements in most states unless the landowner has previously taken action against him. In this case, it sounds like he's on state land and not in compliance with state environmental and regulatory law rather than being kicked off for squatting. 

Here are the requirements in NH. Oh, after reading them, he sounds like he's afoul of the law because he claims he had the owner's permission. That negates adverse possession. He also probably doesn't believe he has title, which seems to be a requirement in NH. In other states, at least when we learned it, that was not required. You could set up shop even if you didn't believe title was yours. Perhaps I forgot or was mistaken. But this guy should not have claimed the owner gave him permission, as now the owner has the right to remove him from the land. 

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-hampshire-law/new-hampshire-adverse-possession-laws.html

I honestly sympathize with both individuals. When you've been on land that long, we generally say, "it's yours" for the very reasons that the elderly gentleman is giving the judge. But the judge is bound to boot him. 

 

[rockaction]

I started a graffiti thread where I asked whether public use of private lands if the art ascends to the level of making it a historical register gave anybody pause. Tim was quick to point out that graffiti was anathema to landlords, but that wasn't my point. I was writing about Banksy, world-renowned graffiti artist. 

I asked at what point does private property become public via that. 

I think I've also started adverse possession threads, but I cannot recall them. I got sober in 2019 and have forgotten half the #### I've written on these boards. My apologies for that. 

 

[Manster]

Dudes squatting, period. He made his choice, just like the landowner made his/her choice to buy the property......Nothing is being enforced.....yea the dude lived on the property for a long time, still doesn't make it right.

An aside, but kind of related....

My wife and I want to rent our house and buy another property.  We've decided that we don't want to be landlords because we would reeeeeally need the monthly rent to make it all work and in today's climate, especially in a place like Oregon, deadbeat renters are a real thing......you can't get rid of em....it's bull####.

 

[rockaction]

Dudes squatting, period. He made his choice, just like the landowner made his/her choice to buy the property......Nothing is being enforced.....yea the dude lived on the property for a long time, still doesn't make it right.

An aside, but kind of related....

My wife and I want to rent our house and buy another property.  We've decided that we don't want to be landlords because we would reeeeeally need the monthly rent to make it all work and in today's climate, especially in a place like Oregon, deadbeat renters are a real thing......you can't get rid of em....it's bull####.

Adverse possession is almost as old as Hammurabi's Code. Its origins, according to Google, date back to 2000 B.C. It is to ensure that land is being used rather than merely accumulated. It's especially true of forest or farmland, which is exactly what this was. Adverse possession, in my opinion, is a good doctrine and one that should be applied because property rights are necessarily exclusionary, but people need to eat and live. It's part of the bargain we strike for private property in the first place and in my opinion doesn't go far enough. 

Sorry to hear about your landlord/deadbeat tenant problem. That is a significant problem and eviction should also be easier under today's law. That is more consumer protection than anything else. It is not coming from the same theory that adverse possession is, which again, is to ensure that land is being used, not merely accumulated by the wealthy or powerful. Landlord/tenant law is driven by other forces and concerns, even though the two seem intertwined in their concern for the non-rightful owner. One is about settling title, the other about calling it into question at times. 

Here is a brief history, according to Wiki 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Here is how it functions in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adverse_possession&action=edit&section=8

 

[parasaurolophus]

Adverse possession is almost as old as Hammurabi's Code. Its origins, according to Google, date back to 2000 B.C. It is to ensure that land is being used rather than merely accumulated

to "ensure that land is being used" isnt actually a societal good. 

how old it is, the methods, the madness, is all meaningless to me. if somebody is squatting on your property, you should be able to boot them. if they wont leave you should be able to call the cops and they should be yanked. 

none of this "he told me i could live here."

no written lease, buh bye. 

 

[rockaction]

to "ensure that land is being used" isnt actually a societal good. 

how old it is, the methods, the madness, is all meaningless to me. if somebody is squatting on your property, you should be able to boot them. if they wont leave you should be able to call the cops and they should be yanked. 

none of this "he told me i could live here."

no written lease, buh bye. 

I'll take the 4,000 years of legal wisdom over your certainty and absolutism, thanks. 

 

[jplvr]

We rented part of our office building to one of the dumbest lawyers I’ve ever met. One day he came to us for a case he wanted to take and wanted advice. 
 

During the housing crisis, a house was foreclosed and sitting vacant for at least a summer. Some fella in the subdivision got tired of looking at the eyesore, since no one was even cutting the grass. He took it upon himself to clean it up for the good of the ‘hood. 
 

Not wanting his good deed to go unrewarded, he decided someone should at least occupy the place, and he decided to rent it out. He went so far as to file a Quit Claim Deed to himself at the county courthouse. Someone took him up on it and moved in. 
 

The renter paid for a few months, but then just stopped all of the sudden. The “landlord” also figured out during this that his wife was banging the renter, so I’m guessing that’s how the renter figured out he was an unknowing squatter and owed no rent to the cuckhold. 
 

The lawyer desperately wanted to represent the “landlord” in this case, but I just laughed at him and said I thought the renter at least had squatter’s rights. 

 

[the rover]

to "ensure that land is being used" isnt actually a societal good. 

this is just fundamentally wrong, which is why every western legal system discourages waste.  

 

[rockaction]

this is just fundamentally wrong, which is why every western legal system discourages waste.  

Adverse possession helps settle title when legal systems can't determine it. It also prevents land from being unused and monopolized. We discourage waste all the time in property law, including preventing negligent wasting of inherited yet mandatorily soon-to-be transferred property. 

 

[jplvr]

Adverse possession usually just comes into play in accidents, like placing a fence on the wrong side of the line by 20 feet and someone raising hell 50 years later. I would hope this isn’t the most useful law for this case. 

 

[the rover]

Adverse possession usually just comes into play in accidents, like placing a fence on the wrong side of the line by 20 feet and someone raising hell 50 years later. I would hope this isn’t the most useful law for this case. 

this is also wrong.  adverse possession needs to be hostile.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'll take the 4,000 years of legal wisdom over your certainty and absolutism, thanks. 

Haha. Don't ever want to hear you question a law again.

 

[parasaurolophus]

this is just fundamentally wrong, which is why every western legal system discourages waste.  

Lol. 

We have prohibitions on development all over the place in this country. I live in CO the houses are slammed on top if each other in places because of "open space"

Of course you will just be you and argue that is not waste, but well, you are you.

 

[rockaction]

Haha. Don't ever want to hear you question a law again.

Generally and honestly, laws I question haven't survived 4,000 years of vetting. 

 

[jplvr]

this is also wrong.  adverse possession needs to be hostile.  

Huh? Maybe it is different for other states, but what I stated is at least true for Alabama. I’m just a title insurance agent (20+ years), but the few times I’ve dealt with it, it has always been a fence issue which was decided as I posted. Every time this comes up as an issue for me, the first question I ask is how long the fence has been there. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Generally and honestly, laws I question haven't survived 4,000 years of vetting. 

Has it? That link you provided mentions england making squatting a criminal offense. And if I follow the hyperlink for the new law mentioned it says the rights of landlords that leave buildings vacant have been strengthened.  

 

[the rover]

Huh? Maybe it is different for other states, but what I stated is at least true for Alabama. I’m just a title insurance agent (20+ years), but the few times I’ve dealt with it, it has always been a fence issue which was decided as I posted. Every time this comes up as an issue for me, the first question I ask is how long the fence has been there. 

the first word of adverse possession is adverse.  that's because you can't gain title by a simple mistake.  it has to be open and hostile.   

 

[Thunderlips]

This owner doesnt' know any rousties,carnies,toughs or hooligans to give a couple of axe handles to and pay them with a quarter and a bottle of moonshine to run this guy off? Used to be able to hire a dozen Irish a dime each to do this kind of work.  Man...America has gone downhill.  

 

[rockaction]

Has it? That link you provided mentions england making squatting a criminal offense. And if I follow the hyperlink for the new law mentioned it says the rights of landlords that leave buildings vacant have been strengthened.  

Generally, adverse possession, as I stated upthread, applies to farmland and forest land or unused land in very, very large parcels or acreage. Read a law school property book sometime. Adverse possession almost always involves rights to a ton of land. The doctrine often does not apply to cities and buildings because land transfer there is dynamic, title is settled, and adverse squatting is difficult. In addition, squatters there butt up against nuisance, arson, and other wasting laws that are in conflict with the goals that adverse possession is trying to advance.

So you have strong city laws, less so in the country. 

In other words, a city block is much different than a block sitting on a hundred acres of land in the forest or farmland. We want to make sure those country or forest lands are being used for the betterment of society. In a city setting, they would be used for the betterment but for the squatters squatting in them, so kicking the squatters out is our goal in that case. There's a distinction to be made. The doctrine itself makes it difficult for adverse possession to happen in the city, largely because of the title to the building or land is totally settled and the landlords want the people out so they can rent to others. The prongs of the test can't be satisfied in cities.

 

[the rover]

Lol. 

We have prohibitions on development all over the place in this country. I live in CO the houses are slammed on top if each other in places because of "open space"

Of course you will just be you and argue that is not waste, but well, you are you.

waste has a specific meaning.  it's a legal term and it's really not a matter of what you think it is.  

 

[bigbottom]

Credit to rock first off since I think he has started a thread related to this and i know he definitely has brought it up, but I find this story absurd. 

The owner has been battling for years to get this guy off his property and it is the trespasser that gets the sympathy and support to be able to stay? 

i can see wanting to help him live somewhere else, but to want him to be able to stay???

I’m with you on this. I’m also curious whether you support the Keystone XL pipeline project and the use of eminent domain to take private property for the benefit of a foreign corporation. 

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m with you on this. I’m also curious whether you support the Keystone XL pipeline project and the use of eminent domain to take private property for the benefit of a foreign corporation. 

No way.  I will NEVER support eminent domain.

 

[bigbottom]

No way.  I will NEVER support eminent domain.

I do think there are some situations in which eminent domain is appropriate, but the Keystone XL pipeline is well on the inappropriate side of that line for me. Glad you agree. Keystone is a project where I think most libertarian leaning conservatives should be up in arms but many I speak to seem to enthusiastically support it.

 

[[scooter]]

No way.  I will NEVER support eminent domain.

I do think there are some situations in which eminent domain is appropriate, but the Keystone XL pipeline is well on the inappropriate side of that line for me. Glad you agree. Keystone is a project where I think most libertarian leaning conservatives should be up in arms but many I speak to seem to enthusiastically support it.

Good post. But @BladeRunner seems to have supported Keystone in the past, or at least supported the jobs that came with it. Jobs which were a direct product of eminent domain.

So it's safe to say that after killing thousands of jobs by kai-boshing the Keystone pipeline (and NOT replacing them) that her answer was a commitment to eliminating even more jobs?  Fantastic.