View Single Post
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
Tim Smith Tim Smith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Want to buy 10' of neighbors yard and build a fence

In article g2E2i.19900$5Z6.11506@trndny05,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:
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!!


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.

--
--Tim Smith