On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:44:02 PM UTC-7, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 02:38:58 -0400, micky

wrote:



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:49:11 -0700, Ashton Crusher

wrote:



Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession

I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not

be adverse to the real owner.



If there was a fence, even one in disrepair, that was between the

neighbors and this piece of land, that kept the neighbors from walking

on the land, except maybe to get a ball or newspaper that got tossed

there, that probably meets the standard.







That still doesn't necessarily make it adverse or hostile to the real

owners interest. The real owner starts with an interest in it, and it

was it would appear, his yard. For the neighbor to ALSO be using it

as "yard" is not necessarily hostile to the actual owner. The fence

might be worth a claim of exclusive use if it truly prevented the real

owner from getting to it IF HE WANTED TO but since it's most likely

not topped with barbed wire that could also be a questionable claim.





And if the real owner wasn't even aware

of this it's not a "hostile" possession.



I think you're wrong about this. "Hostile" doesn't mean you growl at

the neighbors when they come near the boundary. It's definition,

which varies some by state, can be found on the web. But as in my

previous paragraph, the existing fence probably makes his possessoin

hostile.





I think hostile is tied in with the adverse part. The two words are

intended to convey the notion that the interlopers use prevents,

thwarts, or takes over the use of the land buy the real owner in a way

that is detrimental to the real owners interests. That such use is

actually "hostile", i.e. detrimental, harmful to the what the real

owner intended the land to be used for. Think of a sand and gravel

pit out in the boondocks. A owns the land but has done nothing with

it B comes along and start taking sand and gravel from it. A knows

about it be just lets it go on. That's what I would consider hostile

use along with open and notorious. Let that go on for 10 years and A

might find out the B now owns a gravel pit.



I don't think you have a leg

to stand on.



But I do agree that it's not cut and dried. If only because we've

only heard one side of the story. Very unlikely but perhaps both

neighbors gave the OP's predecessor a 50 year lease on the land, rent

paid in advance, which expires tomorrow.





All the owner needs to do is say "Hey, I see you've been mowing my

lawn. The darn contractor built the fence in the wrong spot. I was

going to have him move it but he said he'd rebate me $1000 bucks if I

left it where it is. So I did since I have plenty of space. You can

use it until I need to rebuild the fence someday." and things can go

like that forever with on adverse possession possible.



True, but any lawyer would tell the real owner to "put it in writing and renew it periodically" otherwise you wind up in court on a "he said, she said" basis.

snip

Harry K

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 7:05:09 PM UTC-7, Jon Danniken wrote:
Let us assume a hypothetical situation in which you have been

maintaining property which meets the criteria for adverse possession as

given according the following statute:



http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.620



Let us further assume that this is part of an urban residential

property, and which consists of about 1000 square feet, along two

property lines, formed by old fences a half-dozen feet from your plotted

property line.



Assume you have, for 20 years, maintained this property by mowing it as

needed whenever you mowed your real propety. Additionally, assume that

the neighbors on both affected sides are unaware of the discrepency, and

consider the fenceline to be the actual property line.



Assuming you just discovered this situation at a time in which you are

planning to build your own perimeter fence, would you, A.) build your

fence one the line of the existing fence, thus taking advantage of the

adverse possession to which you are legally entitled, or B.) build your

fence along your plotted property line?



Personally, I would choose option B, to both avoid future conflicts with

future property owners, as well as to not be a dick about it.



What are your thoughts?



Jon

Jon:

Here's a web site for the Court of Appeals for the State of New York. On this site they make all of that court's decisions available to the Public:

http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions.htm

On the right hand side there's a link called "Advanced Decision Search". Click on that link, and when you get to the Search Court of Appeals Deciions dialogue box, leave the whole thing blank and go right to the bottom and type in Adverse Possession where it says "Search Full Text" and then select "Exact Match" in the drop down list immediately below. Then click on the Find button.

There have been three cases concerning Adverse Possession in the State of New York since 2006, and one of them involves two individuals, neither of which was aware of where their true property boundary was. Read:

Walling v Przybylo (2006 NY Slip Op 04747)

When you find court case citations, such as this:


The [*4]Appellate{**7 NY3d at 232} Division determined: "In the absence of an overt acknowledgment, our courts have recognized since Humbert v Trinity Church [24 Wend 587 (1840)], that an adverse possessor's claim of right or ownership will not be defeated by mere knowledge that another holds legal title" (24 AD3d 1, 4 [3d Dept 2005] [citation omitted]).


Humbert v Trinity Church is a court case that is reported in a set of court case transcripts called "Wend" (presumably short for "Wendell") in book # 24 and starting on page 587.

If you simply take that citation down to the law library at your local university, the librarians there will give you Wend 24 and you can photocopy the transcript of that case.

Similarily, your city will have a library typically located in the same building as court cases are heard (so judges and lawyers have easy access to the transcripts of previous cases with similar facts) where you can look up and photocopy that case yourself. If you print off the case cited above (Walling vs Prysbylo), any of the librarians in that library will be able to help you understand what certain words and phrases mean.

The librarians of those law libraries will also have access to the decisions of other courts, but typically there's a small fee for getting them to search for case law concerning whatever topic you're interested in, and for the printing or photocopying they do for you.


SEE ALSO:
http://www.morelaw.com/cases/adverse...ion.asp?page=8

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:

I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if

you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a

piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part

of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,

someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the

property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be

paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.



If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.

How would someone else be paying it?



In the case in question the party seeking to possibly make
use of adverse possession is not listed as the owner. The
present owner of the property, who presumably has a title
and deed showing they own the property next door is listed as the
owner and has been paying the taxes. The fact that a fence is
in the wrong place doesn't change that.



If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the

official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.



--

Wes Groleau



Words of the Wild Wes

http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:

I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if

you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a

piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part

of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,

someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the

property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be

paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.



If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.

How would someone else be paying it?



If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the

official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.



Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?

Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not
saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.

Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering
fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar
common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

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.




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. What you're arguing
makes no sense. 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.

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.






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

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

Wrong.


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.
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.




Or

put more accurately, the actions by the adverse possessor are

permitted. It's non-permission that takes at least a little effort on

his part.















The parties are reverese in my case compared to the OP's. I'm the



original and legal possessor. I'm in the process of writing up a



license for my n'bor or his agent to walk on the part of my lawn he



thinks he owns, to mow the grass, and to trim the bushes. He's



actually had my permission from the beginning, but now I'm putting it



in writing and will file it with the county clerk's office.







OTOH, he has indicated to some degree hostile possession. Once when I



was mowing the lawn, and once when I was up on a ladder trimming the



bushes, he told me "You don't have to do that". when I said I think I



do, the second time he said "Sometimes I'd like to knock your head



off."



In that case, what makes you think he's going to sign the

agreement you're drawing up?



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.




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.

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

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. 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.
___________________________ __________
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.
___________________________ __________
Bill Warner date
This type of agreement can be used to grant permission for parking, using a shortcut
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.

While such wording wouldn't hurt, I doubt you'd ever need it.

There is also law concerning the duty people have when doing each other "favours".

For example, if I ask to borrow your car to drive my date to the Prom, I have a much higher duty to look after your car to make sure no harm comes to it than if the situation were reversed and the benefit of my having possession of your car was to you.

If you came to me and asked me to allow you to park your car on my property for a few days until they finished paving the street in front of your house where you normally park, then the benefit of my doing that favour is to you. Or, if you asked me to use your car to drive your mother to the supermarket to do her weekly grocery shopping, then the benefit of that favour goes to you. In that case, I have a much lower responsibility to ensure that no damage is done to the car while it's in my possession. If someone comes along and spray paints your car while it's parked in front of my house, then you can't sue me for failing to take reasonable care to protect your car while it was in my possession, such as parking it in my garage.

That is, when you ask someone to do YOU a favour, then the onus is on you to find someone who you trust is responsible enough, or has sufficient resources (like a garage large enough to accomodate yet one more car) that you feel confident entrusting your car to.

It's the same thing with allowing someone to use your land. If you allow them to grow something on your land, then the benefit of that favour is to them since they will harvest whatever is grown. They have a much higher responsibility to take care of your land (and ensure that no harm comes to it (such as someone dumping toxic waste onto it), or harm comes to you as a result of granting that permission. If the situation were reversed, and you were sick and asked them to farm your land for you, then the benefit of them doing you that favour goes to you, and they have a much lower responsibility to ensure no harm comes to your land as a result of them farming it for you.

If I recall correctly, if the benefit of someone doing you a favour is to you, then that other person need not exercise any higher level of responsibility "than he has". Which means that it's up to you to pick a RESPONSIBLE person to ask a favour of. If the person you ask to do you a favour is irresponsible, you have no one to blame for the harm that comes to your property than yourself.

So, in a case like the one you cited, no judge would hold you partially responsible if you allowed your neighbor onto your land to grow flowers, or whatever, and their hired help injured themselves while working on your land. The benefit of the favour is to your neighbor, and it's his responsibility to ensure that no harm comes to you, or your land, as a result of you're doing him that favour.

So far as I know, the only exception occurs when you're aware of a hazard on your land that the Neighbor isn't aware of, such as a tree root or rock sticking up out of the ground that someone could trip on or a low hanging branch of a tree that someone could hit their head or, perhaps conceivably, poke their eye out on a secondary or tertiary branch of that low hanging branch.

So, while having something in writing absolving you of all responsibility for whatever happens on that land wouldn't do any harm, it almost certainly wouldn't be needed since the benefit of you're allowing your neighbor to use your land is to him, and not to you, and every judge would recognize that.

Few, if any, judges are mentally retarded, and every one of them would recognize that your letting your neighbor use your land is a benefit to him, and therefore he has the responsibility to ensure that no harm comes to you or your land by granting him permission to use your land.

If the Mexican fell and cut his hand off on your property, the onus would be on the Mexican or your neighbor to prove that you were aware of a hazard on your land that you failed to reveal to the neighbor, such as a rock or tree root sticking out of the ground. If tree roots grow without your knowledge (Duh!) then there is no way the Neighbor or the Mexican can prove that you were aware of the hazard at the time you gave permission to use your land to your Neighbor. In that case, you can't be held responsible for the Mexican cutting off his hand since you were unaware of any hazards that could come about in future when you gave your permission to use your land.

This is entirely why the addage "Lack of knowledge of the law is no defense" rings true.
As long as you act in a responsible manner, your butt is covered. It's only when you pretend not to know what to do that you put yourself at risk.

On 9/2/2013 3:50 AM, wrote:



Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.

How about a citation? Show us the statute in one of those states that
requires it (payment of taxes).

You gave an example of a common law "test" as it were. Common law may
be the foundation of our laws but they have evolved over time and
statutes and case law are all that matter when you get down to it.

Once again if you have adjacent property owners who share a common,
LEGAL boundary line between their two properties and for whatever reason
one neighbor places a fence that encroaches upon the others' property
the land so "taken" by the encroaching party IS subject to claim by
adverse possession and there's no way that that party is going to be
paying taxes on the land. Assume both are deeded as exactly .5 acres.
Each pays taxes on that .5 acres however the guy who put his fence 5'
over on the others' land should be (under your theory)paying on .5023
acres and the wronged party (the actual owner of the land)is paying on
..4077 acres. I guarantee you that they are not.

Granted the laws are different in different states. In IL taxes does
not enter into the equation other than to prove, perhaps, that the
rightful owner has not abandoned the property. A deed by adverse
possession may still be had if the non-owner maintains or uses the land
as his own.

On 8/31/13 10:49 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Since grazing cattle isn't sufficient to establish adverse possession
I doubt that mowing it is sufficient. Plus your "possession" has not
be adverse to the real owner. And if the real owner wasn't even aware
of this it's not a "hostile" possession. I don't think you have a leg
to stand on. It would be different if you had been using this strip
to access your garage, that could have been considered hostile, open,
notorious, and adverse to the real owner and at the least you might
have a good chance to get an easement to continue such use if the
owner suddenly decided he didn't like you and told you to get off. But
mowing it, ... don't think so...

My mom has been letting a neighbor graze her pasture ground
gratis. I called our attorney to ask what issues that might raise.
Almost his first words were about adverse possession. Then he raised
the liability issue. Questions about who had to maintain fencing, etc.
were next.
This is in Nebraska. We have fencing laws and all that sort of stuff
in place.

Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines. Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.

Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. He sells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet to owner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first), parcel "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.

Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been paying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has assessed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.

Ivan Vegvary

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
...
Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines.
Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.

Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. He
sells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet to
owner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first),
parcel "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.

Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been
paying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has
assessed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.

Ivan Vegvary

I would think the person doing the survey would be lible. He should have
said that the fellow only had 99 feet left to sell after he sold the first
100 feet.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 9:17:01 AM UTC-7, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message

...

Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines.

Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.



Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. He

sells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet to

owner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first),

parcel "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.



Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been

paying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has

assessed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.



Ivan Vegvary



I would think the person doing the survey would be lible. He should have

said that the fellow only had 99 feet left to sell after he sold the first

100 feet.

This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of title' and not location.
When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.

Ivan Vegvary

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
...

I can see that on buying all of a piece of land that has a deed, but when
split up I would think a survey might be needed as new boundies are being
generated.


When I bought a house with about 3 acers of land a few years ago,I did not
get a survey either . I did not think I needed one as I was buying all of
one plot of land so the deeded area would not change. Also one side was a
road, one side is a creek and only one side is next to another piece of land
and I could see the old posts from some previous survey. The property is
shaped similar to a triangle so only 3 sides.
This is in North Carolina for whatever differance that may make.


I know of some property that the land marks on the deed are not any good at
all. One was a refferance to a center pole of a barn. That barn burnt down
50 years ago and a new barn was built many feet from the origional.




This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get
surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title
companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of
title' and not location.
When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of
the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.

Ivan Vegvary

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Vegvary
wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2013 9:17:01 AM UTC-7, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message

...

Paying taxes on disputed land is more prevalent than this group imagines.

Saw many cases in my 50 years as professional land surveyor.



Owner "A" has 200 foot wide property which in reality is only 199 feet. He

sells the west 100 feet to owner "B". Later he sells the east 100 feet to

owner "C". Keep in mind that "B" has senior rights (he came first),

parcel "C" is junior. Owner "A" is completely out of the picture.



Dispute arises. Fence in wrong place. Note that both parties have been

paying taxes on the one foot strip in question. The County Assessor has

assessed both parcels as having 100 foot of width.



Ivan Vegvary



I would think the person doing the survey would be lible. He should have

said that the fellow only had 99 feet left to sell after he sold the first

100 feet.

This is the west coast. (S.F. Bay Area region) Rarely do people get surveys upon purchase. Not the custom here and not required by title companies on residential properties since all they insure is 'chain of title' and not location.
When a survey is requested, yes, the problem will show up. The duty of the surveyor is simply to disclose, no liability involved.

If they don't find/disclose it or if they are the doing the original
subdivision, they certainly are liable. It comes under the heading of
"errors and omissions".

In article ,
Harry K wrote:


YOu claim to have "seen statutes requiring it" Should be simple for you to
come up with a cite then.

I got title to an abandoned country school lot bordering my place by AP. How?
Under Washington law AP takes 10 years except IF one pays the taxes on it
only 7years is needed. Lawyer looked up the law and came up with the
solution dthat I pay the back taxes on it for the last 7 years. Done deal

schools/school boards pay property tax in Washington?



Note that there is nothing in the AP law REQUIRING having to pay the taxes,
only that if one does it only takes 7 years.

Harry K

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:

I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if

you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a

piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part

of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,

someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the

property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be

paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.



If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.

How would someone else be paying it?



If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the

official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing
it.



Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the
taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems
unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?

Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not
saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.

or the owner can take the property by saying his taxes have been paid
(by him?)



Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering
fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar
common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:



I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if



you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a



piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part



of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,



someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the



property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be



paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.







If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.



How would someone else be paying it?







If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the



official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.







Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you

pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's

lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable

to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,

then why aren't you paying taxes on it?



Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away

from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.

After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to

see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts

have treated it in other states.



Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering

fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar

common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.

One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.

So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.

My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.

Harry K

On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:



I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if



you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a



piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part



of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,



someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the



property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be



paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.







If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.



How would someone else be paying it?







If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the



official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.







Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.


And I'll say it again for at least the third time: Provide a cite for that.

snip

That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you

pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's

lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable

to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,

then why aren't you paying taxes on it?



Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away

from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.

So tell us just how that squatter managed to start paying the taxes. He has to prove he owns the property before the tax people start sending him the bill.



After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to

see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts

have treated it in other states.


And I'd like to see your cite for at least one state that has that restriction.


Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering

fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar

common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

True, most states IIANM require a fence to be erected a few inches on one's side of the line.

Harry K

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 01:50:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:

I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if

you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a

piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part

of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,

someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the

property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be

paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.



If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.

How would someone else be paying it?



If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the

official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.



Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too.

Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states,
the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it
is?

If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?

Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the
land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?

Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not

You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the
results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is
saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.

But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception
of the law.

saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.

Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering
fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar
common occurances, where you can't claim AP.

And then there are the other states with no such clause.

Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further
out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess
AP is again a possibility.

This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of
feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house
every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's
not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the
exclusion.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:40:11 AM UTC-7, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,

Harry K wrote:





YOu claim to have "seen statutes requiring it" Should be simple for you to

come up with a cite then.



I got title to an abandoned country school lot bordering my place by AP.. How?

Under Washington law AP takes 10 years except IF one pays the taxes on it

only 7years is needed. Lawyer looked up the law and came up with the

solution dthat I pay the back taxes on it for the last 7 years. Done deal



schools/school boards pay property tax in Washington?







Note that there is nothing in the AP law REQUIRING having to pay the taxes,

only that if one does it only takes 7 years.



Harry K

It was a special deal put together by a coalition of the adjacent landowner (Last president of the school board), his lawyer and help from the county tax office. The lot lay across a section line, half on my side, half on his. The title was a total mess as it had been donated by two different families way back when, heirs proliferated, etc, etc. Tax man wanted the title claeard up, both me and the adjacent landowner wanted the same so that weed infested patch and awkward corner for him could be eliminated. I was a babe in the woods and just did as they asked. Was it true back taxes? Dunno but Washington law allows AP after only 7 years "if the claimant had paid taxes". Takes 10 years without that proviso.

Harry K

If the OP is serious about getting an answer to his question, what he should be doing is spending some time reading case law, and researching the reasons why judges made the rulings they did in cases with similar facts as his. Those will be the decisions that the judge in his case (if it ever goes to court) will turn to for guidance in making his decision.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 9:40:58 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 9/2/2013 3:50 AM, wrote:







Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.



How about a citation? Show us the statute in one of those states that

requires it (payment of taxes).


Too lazy to go look? Is California a big enough example?

Here's a recent case in California, where actor Larry Hagman's estate
won an adverse possession case over a church, with one of the issues
being that the church had not paid taxes on the land in question.
Had they paid the taxes, the estate would have had no claim, because
payment negates any AP claim.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html


"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.

That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement. "







You gave an example of a common law "test" as it were. Common law may

be the foundation of our laws but they have evolved over time and

statutes and case law are all that matter when you get down to it.


I didn't give an example of a common law test. It told you that
some states have laws that require those trying to claim AP to have paid the
taxes on the property in question.






Once again if you have adjacent property owners who share a common,

LEGAL boundary line between their two properties and for whatever reason

one neighbor places a fence that encroaches upon the others' property

the land so "taken" by the encroaching party IS subject to claim by

adverse possession and there's no way that that party is going to be

paying taxes on the land.

Again, that is precisely the point. If you're not paying the taxes,
then you're not going to take the other guy's property, who has been
paying taxes on it, by a fence that is 3 ft off from where it should be.
At least not in a state that requires paying taxes.



Assume both are deeded as exactly .5 acres.

Each pays taxes on that .5 acres however the guy who put his fence 5'

over on the others' land should be (under your theory)paying on .5023

acres and the wronged party (the actual owner of the land)is paying on

.4077 acres. I guarantee you that they are not.

I guarantee you that in most cases, they are not either. Which is
precisely the point. The guy who has the piece on the larger side
of the fence can't win a claim of AP because he hasn't paid the
taxes on it. That's in those states where paying the taxes is
required. And as I said, you'd have to look at case law in the
other states.

Also some states have de minimus provisions in AP law that
exclude claims over things like a fence that's a few feet off.






Granted the laws are different in different states. In IL taxes does

not enter into the equation other than to prove, perhaps, that the

rightful owner has not abandoned the property. A deed by adverse

possession may still be had if the non-owner maintains or uses the land

as his own.

And if I were a judge, the "using the land as his own" test would
fail if the person trying to assert AP had not been the one paying
the taxes on the land. That's why I said you'd need to see the
actual laws and the case law for the situation involved.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:



On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:







I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if







you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a







piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part







of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,







someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the







property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be







paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.















If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.







How would someone else be paying it?















If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the







official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.















Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying



to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,



part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the



person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks



via AP, just as if he owned the property.



That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you



pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's



lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable



to me. And apparently to some states too. If you think you own it,



then why aren't you paying taxes on it?







Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away



from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.



After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not



saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to



see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts



have treated it in other states.







Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering



fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar



common occurances, where you can't claim AP.



YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.



Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html

"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.

That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."





One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.



So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.


Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,
but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk
in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my
tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?
If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name
of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.
They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount
due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the
check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that
once a year.




My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.



Harry K

Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:32:41 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:



On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:







I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if







you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a







piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part







of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,







someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the







property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be







paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.















If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.







How would someone else be paying it?















If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the







official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.















Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying



to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,



part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the



person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks



via AP, just as if he owned the property.





And I'll say it again for at least the third time: Provide a cite for that.



I just did. But let me say it again, for at least the hundredth
time here. If you're so interested, why are you too lazy to use
google?

On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:39:56 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 01:50:00 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:



I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if



you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a



piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part



of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,



someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the



property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be



paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.







If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.



How would someone else be paying it?







If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the



official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.







Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying

to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,

part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the

person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks

via AP, just as if he owned the property.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you

pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's

lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable

to me. And apparently to some states too.



Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states,

the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it

is?



I have said from the beginning that it's some states that have
laws that require the payment of taxes by the party claiming AP.
I never said it was all. And I said that I'd be interested in
seeing the case law in those other states, because unless you know the
exact wording of the law for each state and how the courts have
interpreted it, you don't know what effect who's been paying the
taxes has.








If you think you own it,

then why aren't you paying taxes on it?



Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the

land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?



I can think of plenty of examples. Here's one. A guy buys a property,
gets it surveyed. The surveyor puts in concrete markers that show the correct property lines. Then they guy puts up a fence that is two feet over on to
the neighbor's property. You're going to tell me that because his
tax bill hasn't changed, he thinks it includes the property he just
encroached on? That he is the one paying the taxes on it now? Good grief!






Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away

from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.

After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not



You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the

results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is

saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.



Wow, imagine that.




But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception

of the law.



Now I'm supposed to find your examples for you too?





saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to

see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts

have treated it in other states.



Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering

fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar

common occurances, where you can't claim AP.



And then there are the other states with no such clause.



wow, imagine that. I say there are some houses that have granite
countertops. You figure out that there are also some that do not.
That's remarkable.




Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further

out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess

AP is again a possibility.



This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of

feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house

every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's

not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the

exclusion.

Wow, now you can read the minds of unknown law makers in unknown
states. Very impressive.

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:05:09 PM UTC-4, Jon Danniken wrote:
What are your thoughts?

I rank "adverse possession" right up there with "squatter's rights." Total BS enacted by greedy politicians looking to get something for nothing.

Fence on the property line. As tall and solid as I could make it so I don't have to look at the ******** that the place I was maintaining turns into when I stop.

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.

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.

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.

**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?



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.

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.


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.

**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.


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?

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?) 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.

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. 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?**

But thinking that didn't alleveiate my worry. But... a unilateral
permission won't make things worse than they already are. 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.

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.

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.

sOn Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:



On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:


snip


saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to







see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts







have treated it in other states.















Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering







fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar







common occurances, where you can't claim AP.







YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.







Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:


Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.



http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html



"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.



That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."











One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.







So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.





Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,

but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk

in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my

tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?

If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name

of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.

They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount

due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the

check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that

once a year.


Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.








My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.








Harry K



Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.

YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".

Harry K

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:04:30 PM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:
sOn Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:



On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:







On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:





snip





saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to















see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts















have treated it in other states.































Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering















fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar















common occurances, where you can't claim AP.















YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.















Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:





Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.







http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html







"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.







That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."























One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.















So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.











Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,



but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk



in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my



tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?



If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name



of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.



They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount



due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the



check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that



once a year.





Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.

















My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.

















Harry K







Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.



YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".



Harry K

Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.

All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsur...Possession.pdf

Harry K

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:04:30 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
sOn Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:



On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:







On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:





snip





saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to















see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts















have treated it in other states.































Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering















fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar















common occurances, where you can't claim AP.















YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.















Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:





Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.



Yeah, I'm the one who was right, but I'm still supposed to be
the lazy one because you're too lazy and stupid to use google
to figure out that what I posted was true. You acted like it
was unheard of. Yet, there it is, in the huge state of California,
among others.









http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html







"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.







That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."




One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.


So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.






Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,



but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk



in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my



tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?



If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name



of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.



They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount



due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the



check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that



once a year.





Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.



Typical. I'm supposed to do everything, including google for
you. You asked a question about how someone could pay the
property taxes on a piece of property they don't own. I just
gave you the way it can be done. I spelled it out above.
Now, if that won't work, you could tell us why it won't.
Instead you just post some snide remark.

You sure as hell can walk into the tax collectors office
here in any of the towns I've lived in and pay the taxes
owed on any property. They don't ask for proof that you
own it. They ask the name and address, or block and lot #.
You give them a check or cash. If it's a check, they don't
give a rat's ass who's name is on the check. You think
there aren't plenty of folks, where for example there are
more than one person living together in a house and only
one of their names is on the title/tax records and only
that person can go pay the bill? And that
the person at the tax collectors window is going to ask
you to prove that you somehow have a right to pay the taxes?
They take the money from anyone there willing to pay it.
Good grief, you're dumb!





My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.

















Harry K







Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.



YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".



Harry K

You might try answering questions and using google, instead of hiding, being deceptive, and then bitching when I'm nice enough to use Google to prove that you're wrong.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 9:55:14 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:04:30 PM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:

sOn Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:



On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:







On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:















On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:











snip











saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to































see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts































have treated it in other states.































































Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering































fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar































common occurances, where you can't claim AP.































YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.































Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:











Finally you ot off your lazy rear and provided a sort of cite. Why didn'tyou just provide the direct cite to the law. Clue, it was buried in the cite you did give.















http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_...ossession.html















"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity..















That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."















































One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.































So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.























Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,







but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk







in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my







tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?







If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name







of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.







They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount







due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the







check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that







once a year.











Yep, suuurrreee you can. Pull the other one.



































My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.



































Harry K















Apparently you figured out how to pay the taxes.







YOu might try reading my reply to someone else where I explained it. I had nothing to do with the "how".







Harry K



Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.



All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:



http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsur...Possession.pdf



Harry K

Good that you finally figured out how to use Google. And why
didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:

"PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES
Some states require the trespasser to have paid the taxes on the property for the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met except the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse possession. (See "Easements," below)."


As for it being "all one wanted to know about adverse possession",
it's titled "California Adverse Possession", from a CA govt DOT website, dumb ass.