mm wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 07:53:45 -0700, "z" wrote:


user wrote:

Call me odd, but I have little interest in benefiting from someone
else's stupididity, especially if it ends up ultimately raising my
tax bill. ;-)

You shouldn't encourage stupidity; it tends to spread too much anyway.

It's hard to win on adverse possession. Generally, in most states, 6
elements must be proved. They called it the Eunuch rule. It's
generally not fair that someone gets property from another without
paying for it, so the rules are stiff.

It might be easier in your state, but these are one set of rules:

E Exclusive
U Uninterrupted
N Notorious
U Unpermitted
C Claim of Right
H Hostile

Exclusive, the party making the claim didn't let anyone else use
the land. Might have that here.
Uninterrupted, the other 5 characteristics aren't interrupted, for
7 (or 10?) years in some states, different amounts in others. Might
have that here, at least eventually.
Notorious, use by the claiming party was known or should have been
known (obvious) to others, or maybe it is only needed to be known to
the owner. Probably have that here, since he told him to mow it and
maintain it.
Unpermitted The owning party has not granted permission to use the
land. Probably don't have this here. The owner said he could use it.
If the claiming party says he didn't have permission, he might have to
deny that his use was notorious and that it was hostile, and he would
give up his claim of right, if that exists (see below). This might
mean that it is even harder to gain adverse possession unless it is of
land that the owner doesn't see often, where the owner lives miles
away. If the owner can see the land from where he lives, and someone
else uses it, (?and that can be seen by the owner?), I think it would
be hard to claim it's unpermitted, much less prove it.
Claim of Right, never sure about this one, but I think there has to
be conflicting deeds or an unclear property description or something
that gives the claiming party some legal reason to think he owns it. I
always wanted more examples of what would be a claim of right. They
might have been in the part of the book I didn't read! Probably
doesn't have that in this case. Hmmm, this might include if the owner
said "It's yours" or "I think you own this" or "It's yours now". I'm
really not sure, and I don't know from the story if that happened
here. I knew I should have studied this part.
Hostile, the claiming party didn't let anyone else use the property,
or didn't let them use it like an owner would, not sure. Either way,
I'm not sure about this, since probably no one else was trying to use
it. Maybe someone has to try to use it, or this seems a lot like
Exclusive. So maybe the claiming party doesn't have this here.

It's been 32 years since I learned this, and I never knew it that
well**, so there are probably a bunch of misstatements, but this is
the sort of thing one needs. **But it is easy to remember the
phrase, "the eunuch rule". That's why they made it up.

Diligent landowners try not to let even one of these 6 things occur.
Pay attention to the plazas in front of downtown office buildings, the
ones used by anyone, maybe to take a shortcut at a corner, or to sit
and have lunch. There is often a brass insert in the sidewalk, next
to the public sidewalk, at the property line, that says "Use of the
plaza permitted to the public by owners". This means the use was
permitted, not unpermitted, and the "public" can't gain adverse
possession.

In addition, most of these plazas are closed off with cones and tape
once a year. They call it cleaning, but as big a purpose is to make
possession by the public "interrupted", not uninterrupted.

Might not see this so much in the suburbs, because the plaza is
usually between the building and the parking lot, which it is clear is
owned by those who own the building. And because the only people
walking through are those who have come to do business in the
building. This might not be the same as the general public.


This has been an issue for me because my next door neighbor has taken
over trimming some of my bushes, that I didn't trim short enough to
suit him. He also got less angry at me at the time, and it occurs to
me he might be planning on claiming adverse possession, or maybe he's
less angry because the bushes are shorter, or because I invited him
out for a drink to discuss things. He didn't accept, but maybe merely
making the gesture made him less angry. But He might be trying to
gain adverse possession, and I've tried to make sure he doesn't have
all 6 elements, but I've been lethargic some years and not done a good
job. He only has one element for sure, Notorious. He also mows a
small part of grass next to the bushes.

Of course even if he did own it, he'd take care of it at least as well
as I do. He might cut down the bushes, though.

Like mint plants. It's not like your neighbor is stupid but
good-hearted; sounds like the neighborhood could clearly benefit from
him getting one of those kid tv show moral lessons. Besides, you don't
have to claim your extra acreage until it's time to sell the place.....
(I probably wouldn't do it either, of course, but I can be an armchair
general as well as anybody else. You fight him, I'll hold your coat.).

I'm sure he appreciates the coat holding.

- Rich

Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm not familiar with any individuals
actually winning on such a case, although I hear about it, mainly in
the form of access roads that are on somebody else's property. There's
a road through Radio City Center in NYC that they close on Sundays just
to keep it from defaulting back to the city, as you describe. What I
remember in my nonexpert dilletantish interest is that the requirements
vary wildly from state to state on whether you know the property is not
yours; some states you have to know it's not yours, some states you
have to not be aware that it's not yours; some states just don't care
either way. Weird.