On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:54:08 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:38:19 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Sunday, September 1, 2013 7:47:10 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:





Hostile looks at things from the OP's pov. Pemitted or not refers to







the original owner's pov.











Permitted or not clearly involves both parties. If one party



agrees to allow the other to use their property, then it's permitted



and not hostile.







That's one case, if he agrees.







If he doesn't agree, if he says nothing but still permits it, then its



permitted but it may also be hostile.







Nonsense. The whole concept of if it was permitted use is in relation

to it being hostile or not. It's not hostile possession if the

rightful owner *permitted* it. If the owner gave permission, then

it's not hostile and you have no claim of AP.



I found one webpage that agrees with you, but given the limited

reliability of the web, that's not enough to convince me. I'lll look

some more but I don't know when.







If permission and no hostility were locked together. if they were the



same concept, then they wouldn't be listed separately in the Eunuch



rule, or some statutes.





They are linked together, the concept is the same.

How some statutes list them doesn't matter.



Yes and no. It's not definitive, but in practice, it's not likely

they'd list both, and separately, if they were the same. I'm sure

they discussed this when I doing my short stint in law school, and he

must have drawn a distinction.



What you're arguing

makes no sense.



Whether I turn out to be right or not, it made sense. Not everything

that makes sense is incorporated into law, and certainly not n all 50

states.



It's backwards. We have a guy trying to make

an adverse possession claim, call him Joe, against property owner

B. You're saying that if property owner B doesn't give permission

to Joe, that because he sees Joe use his property and does nothing,

that he has then permitted Joe to use it. Well, then AP would not

apply and Joe has not claim, because the use was permitted.



Of course you can find a case, or a thousand hypothetical cases, which

match your understanding. I said they function indiependently, so of

course in some cases they will coincide. That doesn't prove they

must coincide.



The whole concept of permitted or not is that if property owner B

gives permission, then Joe has no AP claim period. An example would

be property owner B agrees to allow Joe to park his truck on his

property. Then he has given permission, it's permitted, and Joe

has no AP claim.



Same answer.











Permission doesn't require any thoughts or awareness on the part of



the actual owner. He doesn't have to *give* permission.



Wrong.



Not wrong.


You're just keep repeating the same thing over and over, but you haven't got a single cite to back it up. You even admitted that you found a reference that
agreed with what I said about permission. There are plenty more that say
the same thing. So, where is yours that agree with what you claim?







If he sees



or could see what's going on and does nothing, that's permission.



Wrong. Because if the use is permitted, goodbye adverse possession.



You're answering on the basis that unpermitted and hostile are the

same. I havent' agreed to that yet.



You keep re-writing what I say. I did not say unpermitted and hostile
are the same thing. I said the use of the property being unpermitted
is *part* of what makes it hostile. If it is permitted, then it is
not hostile and the person can't make an AP claim.




It cannot be permitted and hostile. If the neighbor sees or could have

seen what's going on, that's part of the open and notorious part and

has nothing to do with permission.



As I said, when I'll have time to read more, I don't know. Your

opinion gets one vote and that other source that I think agreed with

you got one vote, and I get one vote**, so we're about tied by now.



You're not very good at math, are you?




**I"m reminded of Lincoln's cabinet meeting where everyone in the

cabinet disagreed with him. They voted. Lincooln said 12 nays, one

aye, the ayes have it. LOL I wish I remembered what the issue

was.





=.......................





I don't expect him to. I'm giving him permission. He then has it



whether he wants it or not. The lawyers on the legal ng agreed that



giving permission is unilateral.







That's reassuing....



Here is a differing opinion:



http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ers-46934.html



�Give written permission to someone to use your land, and get their written acknowledgement. For example, you could give someone permission to park on your land, use a shortcut across your property, or to garden or grow crops. This can not only defeat adverse possession claims, but also a claim to an easement (use permit) across your property.



How is this a different opinion?


Good grief! It says to GET THEIR WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. You
said the legal newsgroup said you could do the permission unilaterally,
which I guess is just mailing a letter, no response required.









If you tell your kid, You can go out to play. You don't have to be



back until 6, he has permission to go out and not come back until 6



whether he wants to go out or not.





I don't know which position is right. Maybe you can do it

unilateraly. But I do know that letting your kid go out and play

and an agreement or license are two very different things.



An agreement is different because it takes two poeple. A license can

be unilateral.



Funny thing how everytime I go to install licensed software, it
requires I acknowledge ACCEPTANCE of the license before it allows
me to install it. Or how about this. Let's say I mail you a
license that says you are now authorized to use the Klu Klux Klan
clubhouse for parties. I run around saying Micky is licensed to
use the KKK clubhouse. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

And in the case of AP, you have another party who claims they
own your piece of land, that they are in fact the legal and
rightful owner. So, you send them a piece of paper saying " I
Micky license you to use that piece of land". That's like you
sending it to me, saying you own my house or are the King of Siam.
I chuck it in the trash can and ignore it. That sounds exactly
like the kind of hostile action that a reasonable person asserting
AP would take.




If you give your kid permssion to go out, and he hasn't decided if he

will or not, that's unilateral. It's a license. If you say, you

can go out until 6, but only if you do your homework from 7 to 9, and

he agrees to that, that's an agreement. It's not unilateral.



You can try that argument in court if the neighbor makes the AP
claim.








And here's another reference on AP that says to get an

actual agreement:



Well of course someone will say that. I would get an actual

agreement if I could. And I'm going to try again to get him to look

at the plat with someone next to him who he might listen to who will

explain what the plat shows. But it probably won't work. He'

either won't do it or it won't change his mind. And even if somehow

he does believe me after this, he's still not going to say so in

writing.



The only time someone would agree to this in writing is if he faced

denial of use if he didn't sign. If the owner said, No, you can't

park here and if you do, I'll tow your car away. Or, you can't

garden here and if you do, I'll stomp down whatever grows.



All this guy does is get someone else to mow the lawn and trim the

bushes. What can I do, glue the bushes back together and glue the

grass ends back onto the grass? I'd have to get an injunction, and

I'd have to enjoin the HOA too**, and that will cost me a lot if a

lawyer does it, and I'm not sure I could succeed if I do it myself,

but I would succeed in antagonizing both parties.


You can take pictures and videos of YOU trimming those bushes
and mowing that grass too. There goes his claim of "exclusivity"
which in the AP laws I've read is required. If you're both using
the property, he has no claim.







**I certainly don't want to enjoin the nice guy who mows the grass

sometimes. I like him and he lives 3 houses away and will never claim

he owns my land. And he does a good job when he mows. I should get

him a present.


I wouldn't like an AH that is planting stuff on my property, mowing
my grass whether I want it mowed or not, and claiming that I don't
own what I know I own.








http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/l122/l122content.pdf



See page 6.



"One effective way to thwart a possible claim is by giving permission to use your land. If

Bill is out planting a garden in your backyard, treating it as his own land, step over and

say "Hello, you are on my property by a few feet, but that's okay." You don't have to

throw him off your property; simply claim it. Then put the permission in writing and

obtain an acknowledgment from Bill.



It's easy to give advice. But if Bill has his mind made up, he likely

won't even acknowledge that he was told it wasn't his property, let

alone acknowledge that it isn't. If your next-door neighbor came

over to land you owned while you were planiting a garden, and he said

he owned it, would you say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know" and write an

acknoledgement of any kind?



No, I don't think someone that thinks your land is rightfully his and
that believes he owns it and who may file an AP claim is going
to sign a permission agreement. That is precisely the point. It's just
that I suspect that free legal advice on a newsgroup where they said you
can just send him a unilateral license, and that's sufficient, doesn't
smell right.





The chain has been broken. He can tend that garden

for forty years and still never acquire a legal claim to your property if he has your

permission.

An example of written permission is shown below.

Agreement Granting Permission to Use Property

I, James Brown, owner of the property located at 123 Maple Terrace, Newark, N.J. give

my permission to Bill Warner to plant and tend a garden located on a five-foot strip of

my property bordering the east side of the property line. I reserve the right to revoke this

permission at any time.



Thanks for this. It needs a bit more, according to my lawyer/friend,

but it's a good start.

___________________________ __________

James Brown date

I, Bill Warner, acknowledge that my use of this strip of land belonging to James Brown is

by permission only, and that the permission may be revoked at any time.



There are a few people (10%?) who would sign this, but my neighbor is

not one of them. He truly thinks he owns it (so why would he sign

it?)

And I'd ask, why would you sending him a piece of paper, that he
refuses to acknowledge make a good defense against an AP claim?
If he signs it yes. If he ****es all over it, tears it up, and
continues doing what he's been doing, because he says the property
is his and you're "license" doesn't apply, well that sure sounds exactly
like just continuing his hostile possession of your property to me.





or he knows he doesn't but feels entitled to it for some reason

(so why would he sign it?) or he knows he's going to lose eventually

but enjoys annoying me (so why would he sign it?) I tend to think

that even if he started out lying, by now he really believes he owns

it. People tend to believe their own lies after enough time.



___________________________ __________

Bill Warner date

This type of agreement can be used to grant permission for parking, using a shortcut



One doesn't need an agreemnent to grant permission. I would not pay

for this guy's course.



But you have lots of faith and base your decisions on free legal
answers from a newsgroup.





across property or even growing crops. It not only can defeat adverse possession claims,

but also a claim to an easement across your property (See "Easements" below). When you

use such a written permission, be absolutely sure that the portion of your land being used

is described in enough detail so that it is easily identifiable."







I'd also add a good section relieving you of any responsibility for

any liability for injuries, damages, etc the person using your property

may incur. Let's say you give the neighbor your "unilateral license" to

screw around with those bushes on your property. He hires an uninsured

Mexican, who trips, cuts off his hand and then sues YOU.



I first read Nestork's reply to this post, because it's a lot shorter

and I was tired last night, and when I saw this paragraph from you, I

felt my stomach fall into a pit. But later a bunch of thoughts

occurred to me.



First, an agreement between me and my neighbor cannot bind a third

party who didn't agree to it. So the Mexican can sue me just as

easily even if I have this agrement signed by my n'bor.

You're absolutely right, he can sue you just as easily. I think
his chances of winning will be greatly diminished though if you
have a properly written agreement to hold you harmless.


What

peoiple normally do is get party C to hold harmless party B (me) and

to promise to reimburse me for any amounts paid to a third party.



Now it is a 100 times less likely that my neighbhor will sign. And

he shouldn't. We're sharing the land. What if I myself left the

dangerous item on the land and it was my fault a gardner or workman

gets hurt. Why should C sign something agreeing to remimburse me for

what I pay the injured party?**



If it was my property, he can sign it in return for his enjoyment
of continuing to use my property. Or he can choose not to sign it
and stay the hell off of my property. Real simple.




But thinking that didn't alleveiate my worry. But... a unilateral

permission won't make things worse than they already are.

I'm not so sure about that either. If he hires a Mexican and sends
him over to your property now, the Mexican is trespassing and was
sent there by an illegal act of the neighbor that you had nothing
to do with. You "license" the neighbor to use your property
and a lot has changed.




My n'bor C

already acts like he owns the land and if he had a reason to hire

someone to work on it, or walk over it, he would do it now. But

there are no hazards. Kids one summer threw bush bed stones into the

lawn, but they are long since gone. If I were to see anything else,

I'd pick it up too, but I haven't seen anything but a little litter in

20 years.



And if something did happen, my homeowners insurance company would

defend me in court,



It's not enough to own land on which someone is hurt. To be liable, I

have to have been negligent and my negligence has to be the proximate

cause of the person's injury. It's not going to happen.



Except that AH's that trespass and don't give a damn about
your property rights are the first ones to sue and point the
finger at you if something bad happens.





But I still appreciate your raising this, because maybe it will affect

the wording of the license or the letter than I will send with it.





**So the paragraph could say that liability will be based on who is

negligent and he will remimburse me if [a court says] he's negligent.

That might well help, but as I said, he'll never sign it.