wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 16, 8:54 am, "Ivan Vegvary" wrote:
"Tim Smith" wrote in message

...





In article GNv2i.7111$vu2.5936@trndny01,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:
After seven years (or some interval of time), adverse possession
kicks
in
and the land is yours.

WRONG!!
1) The possession has to be truly adverse. That is, both parties must
know
about it, disagree about it, and disagree over a seven year period (or
whatever the statute of limitations in that state).

That sure doesn't fit in with my recollection from property classes in
law school, and a bit of Googling verifies that it is mostly wrong:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm
--Tim Smith

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!!

Ivan Vegvary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It's not up to us to show you that the requirements of hostile, open,
and notorious extend to mean that there must be communication between
the parties. It's up to you to show that it does, because your are
the one making the claim. A credible link, other than your own
opinion, would be a good start.

You continue to make a good case as to how those that seek to do their
own lawyering can get into trouble. You are trying to interpret what
"open, hostile, and notorious" means, without knowing what these mean
in the legal context, or case law. In particular, you seem to think
hostile means that the parties must be fewding and in contact with one
another. In reality, it has a specific legal meaning, which is very
different from what you think it means:


http://www.expertlaw.com/library/rea...ossession.html
Hostile - Hostility exists where a person possesses the land of
another intending to hold to a particular recognizable boundary
regardless of the true boundary line. That is, possession is "hostile"
to the title owner's interest in the property. If possession was not
hostile, it may still be possible to advance a claim of ownership
under a theory of "acquiescence". You cannot claim "adverse
possession" if you are engaged in the permissive use of somebody
else's land.

Open & Notorious - You engage in acts of possession consistent with
the property at issue in a manner which was capable of being seen.
(This does not mean that you must have been observed in your acts of
ownership but, had the actual owner or members of the public been in a
position to see you, your acts must have been observeable). You need
not use the property in a manner that exceeds that which would be
expected of the actual owner - that is, it may be possible to claim
adverse possession of a vacation property on the basis of use only
during the vacation season, or to claim adverse possession of a vacant
parcel of land by engaging in typical acts of maintenance for the
parcel.


No where does this say or even come close to implying that there has
to be any contact between the parties at all. Hostile simply means
that your possession must be hostile to the owners interest. If you
have any credible links that say otherwise, please post. And if you
were familiar at all with adverse possession, you would know that in
many cases, there is never any contact at all between the parties.
Because if there is contact and the owner by title has just a glimmer
of intelligence, he will take the necessary steps to avoid the adverse
possession. Except, perhaps if he chooses to be his own lawyer and
blows it.

I've given expert testimony in over a dozen cases regarding adverse
posession. Admitedly, California only. All of the cases, where defendant
was an absentee owner, and had no knowledge of the trespass, were dismissed.
One defendant moved to Hawaii for 12 years. He won his case. Granted,
these were not appealed to a higher court. Acquiescense or easement through
use probably would have been the winning argument.

I want to apologize. Let's back up to the very top of the discussion. I
meant to say that most agencies tightly regulate (Subdivision Acts, etc.)
boundary creations and transfers. The OP should go to his agency and follow
their approval procedures. Having done so, and having the boundary shift
approved, then, YES, YES, YES, take the transfer either to your attorney or
to your title company, whichever applies in your state.
Simply trying to grab the land is morally reprehensible. I think we all
agree on that.

Ivan Vegvary