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

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, Jon Danniken
wrote:



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


I'd talk to the neighbors. Not seeing the property, you may actually
cause some problems if you put the fence on your line. Do the other
property owners have easy access to the land in question? Will you
create an inaccessible no-mans-land that is not easily mowed? Do the
neighbors incur some expense to move their fences?

They may just agree to leave things as they are if the land is of
little use to them and not contest anything. In any case, you may
open up some expensive legal situations even if the law is on your
side. All you need is the wrong judge.

On 08/31/2013 08:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd talk to the neighbors. Not seeing the property, you may actually
cause some problems if you put the fence on your line. Do the other
property owners have easy access to the land in question? Will you
create an inaccessible no-mans-land that is not easily mowed? Do the
neighbors incur some expense to move their fences?

The existing fences can be assumed to be either partial (dilapidated)
fences with multiple points access through the fenceline, or low (three
foot high) fencing. As such, the "no-mans-land" would be accessible by
them.

They may just agree to leave things as they are if the land is of
little use to them and not contest anything. In any case, you may
open up some expensive legal situations even if the law is on your
side. All you need is the wrong judge.

Good things to think about; thanks Ed.

Jon

What Jon Danniken is saying MIGHT be true, depending on where you live.

Both Canada and the USA inherited our system of laws from Britain, so we all follow the British "Common Law". France, and all of it's colonies, follow the French "Civil Code". And both the British Common Law and the French Civil Code evolved from the "Corpus Juris Civilis" which the Emporer Justinian I ordered made up to fully document Roman Law.

600 years ago in Britain, forgery was the quickest, easiest way to get rich. With no public education administered by the government and paid for by taxes, few people could read or write. And, that was convenient if you wanted to get rich quick by challenging a will. When rich old Lord Pompous died, and his will left his estate of Blackacres to his son, you can show up with a forged will claiming that Lord Pompous had a fling with your mother, and you are Lord Pompous' illegitimate child. And to prove your story, you show a will signed by Lord Pompous with his customary "X" granting half of Blackacres to you, and the other half to his known son.

Since few people could read or write at the time, it was customary for the wealthy to employ the services of a "notary public" who could read and write and would transcribe what a person says and commit it to paper and vouch for the credibility of that paper. The problem is that notary publics could be bribed to forge false wills, and so you could often have a half a dozen different wills popping up after someone wealthy died, each as legitimate on their surface as the others.

The doctrine of Adverse Possession arose as a means of dealing with the problem of widespread forgery. It allowed judges to recognize the claims of people well known in the community to succeed against the apparantly superior claims of total strangers who showed up only after a death and wanting to claim part of the estate.

So, if your father died, you could protect yourself from forgers by having your neighbors vouch for the fact that they knew that you and your dad grew rye on that land and built a pig stye on it, and farmed that land like it was your own for years before he died, and the judge could then use the principle of Adverse Possession to rule in your favour instead of the other guys who he suspects of being forgers, even though he can't prove that any of the wills are forgeries.

Fast forward 400 years...

In Britain and France, up until about the year 1850, the rights to property were recorded in something called a "land registry" where every time a property was sold or divided amongst heirs or whatever, the change in ownership of the land would be documented at the land registry. So, if you wanted to buy a piece of land, you had to search through all of the changes of ownership in the files of the land registry for, in some cases, centuries, to be sure that the seller of the land actually owns it. Since that time, however, there have been laws that require that the seller only prove his claim of ownership over the past 40 years.

The problem with that system is that the documentation of sales and wills would be damaged by continuous handling, and at a time before photocopiers, often only the owner of the land would have the original bill of sale or will, and the land registry would only have forms claiming such originals exist. But, in a fire like the London fire of 1666, in which 1/2 of the city went up in flames, then not only could the land registry go up in flames, your house could too, and with it your proof that you owned the land you lived on. So, not only did you lose your house because insurance didn't exist back then, you also lost the ability to prove you owned the land you built that house on.

So, in the mid-1850's an Australian by the name of Torrens applied the same system that Australia used to register the ownership of ships to the sale or inheritance of land. In Torrens' system, any time a buyer and a seller agree on the sale of a piece of land, the buyer applies to the "Land Titles Office" to register the sale. The Land Titles Office, which is part of the government, then reviews the paperwork documenting the ownership history of the land to ensure the seller owns what he wants to sell and that there are no liens or other encumbrances on that land. If there aren't any, the land titles office then charges the buyer a fee to register his title to the land. That is, the new title isn't registered until that government agency checks that the seller owns what he's wanting to sell, and it's free of any claims by anyone else.

With the adoption of Torrens' system throughout most of Canada and the USA, most jurisdictions have passed legislation that provides that the title of the registered owner CANNOT be extinguished by adverse possession. That's because the Land Titles office is where you go if you have a lien against a parcel of land, or if the owner of some land owes you money and can't or won't pay it back. So, the people in the Land Titles Office also register any claims to that land by mortgagors, lien holders, creditors or whatever, but they wouldn't know if someone is squatting on that land. So, with the adoption of Torrens' system came laws extinguishing the rights of squatters to claim ownership by Adverse Possession.

So, if you build your fence where the old fence was, you do so at your own risk. That's cuz if your state or province uses the Land Titles system as opposed to the older Land Registry system, Adverse Possession doesn't apply, and if and when the mistake is discovered, your neighbors can have you tear down the part of your fence that's on their land... and there's no time limit on that, so it can happen 50 years down the road.

So, if you live in the older populated parts of US or Canada, like Boston, Philadelphia, New York or Quebec City, there's a good chance your city or province still uses the old land registry system. But, if it's the newer land titles system, your title to the land is guaranteed by the city, state or province, and cannot be extinguished by Adverse Possession.


PS:
I'm no lawyer, but I read a text called:
The Law and Business Administration in Canada
Third Edition
By J. E. Smythe and D. A. Soberman
Published by Prentice Hall of Canada
every bit of 25 years ago when I first bought my apartment block, and I still have that book and re-read the part on Adverse Possession and how recording ownership of land has changed over the centuries.

On 09/01/13 03:10 am, nestork wrote:
What Jon Danniken is saying MIGHT be true, depending on where you live.

Both Canada and the USA inherited our system of laws from Britain, and
600 years ago in Britain, forgery was the quickest, easiest way to get
rich. With no public education administered by the government and paid
for by taxes, few people could read or write. And, that was convenient
if you wanted to get rich quick by challengine a will. When rich old
Lord Pompous dies, and his will leaves his estate of Blackacres to his
son, you show up with a forged will claiming that Lord Pompous had a
fling with your mother, and you are Lord Pompous' illegitimate child.
And to prove, you show a will signed by Lord Pompous with his customary
"X" granting half of Blackacres to you, and the other half to his know
son.

Since few people could read or write at the time, it was customary for
the wealthy to employ the services of a "notary public" who could read
and write and would transcribe a person's intentions to paper and vouch
for the credibility of that paper. The problem is that notary publics
could be bribed, and so you could often have a half a dozen different
wills popping up, each as legitimate on their surface as the others.

The doctrine of Adverse Possession arose as a means of dealing with the
problem of widespread forgery. It allowed judges to recognize the
claims of people well known in the community for generations to succeed
against the apparantly superior claims of total strangers who showed up
after a death claiming to be illegitimate children of the deceased.

In Britain and France, up until about 1850, the rights to property were
recorded in something called a "land registry" where every time a
property was sold or divided amongst heirs or whatever, the bill of sale
or will would be registered. So, if you wanted to buy a piece of land,
you had to search through all of the bills of sales and wills registered
in that land registry for, in some cases, centuries, to prove that the
seller of the land really owns what they're wanting to sell. Since that
time, however, there have been laws that require that the seller only
prove his claim of ownership over the past 40 years.

The problem with that system is that the bills of sale and wills would
be damaged by continuous handling, and at a time before photocopiers,
often only the owner and the land registry would have originals of the
bill of sale or will by which the owner could defend his claim to his
land. And, in a fire like the London fire of 1666, which 2/3 of the
city went up in flames, then not only did the land registry go up in
flames, your copy did too. So, not only did you lose your house because
insurance didn't exist back then, you also lost the ability to prove you
owned the land you used to live on.

So, in the mid-1850's an Australian by the name of Torres applied the

"TorreNs" not "Torres".

Perce


same system that Australia used to register the ownership of ships to
land sales and the inheritances of estates. In Torres' system, any time
a buyer and a seller agree on the sale of a piece of land, the buyer
applies to the "Land Titles Office" to register the sale. The Land
Titles Office, which is part of the government, reviews the ownership
history of the land to ensure the seller owns it and that there are no
leans or other encumbrances on that land. If there aren't any, the land
titles office then charges the buyer a fee to register his title to the
land. And, with the adoption of that system throughout most of Canada
and the USA, most jurisdictions have passed legislation that provides
that the title of the registered owner CANNOT be extinguished by adverse
possession.

This is a much better system because if the owner of a parcel of land is
ever sued, a judge can give the successful plaintiff the right to
register a lien against that land at the land titles office. So, if the
owner every tries to sell it, the lien holder is payed first out of the
sale of the land. Similarily, if a landowner ever goes bankrupt, then
his creditors can force the sale at auction of any land he owns to
recover their losses. And, since the civil servants working in the land
titles office would have no idea if a squatter had been living on that
land for the past 25 years, the title registered at the land titles
office effectively prevents that squatter from claiming that he now owns
the land cuz of adverse possession.

So, if you build your fence where the old fence was, you do so at your
own risk. That's cuz if your state or province uses the Land Titles
system as opposed to the older Land Registry system, Adverse Possession
doesn't apply, and if and when the mistake is discovered, your new
neighbors can have you tear down the part of your fence that's on their
land.

So, if you live in the older populated parts of US or Canada, like
Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Quebec City or Halifax, there's a good
chance your city or province still uses the old land registry system.
But, if it's the newer land titles system, your title to the land is
guaranteed by the city, state or province, and cannot be extinguished by
Adverse Possession.


PS:
I'm no lawyer, but I read a text called:
The Law and Business Administration in Canada
Third Edition
By J. E. Smythe and D. A. Soberman
Published by Prentice Hall of Canada
every bit of 25 years ago when I first bought my apartment block, and I
still have that book and re-read the part on Adverse Possession and how
recording ownership of land has changed over the centuries.

In article ,
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

without reading the link above, I believe that not only do you have to
have had "possession" (and I doubt that mowing it would qualify) and the
original owners need to have been aware of the possession

and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,
after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back
taxes

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article ,

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



without reading the link above, I believe that not only do you have to

have had "possession" (and I doubt that mowing it would qualify) and the

original owners need to have been aware of the possession



I don't believe that is correct. Every statue I've seen on this,
including the one presented here, doesn't say the owner needs to have
been aware of the adverse possession. Only that the one doing the
adverse possession do it openly, so any reasonable person could see
it. The typical case example is someone moving into an
abandoned property and living there for the required period.




and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,

after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back

taxes

It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It
could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in
question, you are concealing your claim to it.

There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of
who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.

As to what to do, one factor missing is what the effect of the
few feet is to each property. If it's doesn't make a drastic
difference in lot value, usability, access, etc to the OP, I'd
opt for getting the new fence where it belongs. It's probably
going to avoid a lot of legal fees, at the very least.

On 9/1/2013 7:42 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:


and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,

after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back

taxes

It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It
could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in
question, you are concealing your claim to it.

That makes absolutely no sense - maybe you should go back and read it again.

Think about it...

We're talking about "Parcel X" a strip of land 20' wide and 100' long,
for instance. Joe actually owns it per survey and deed. The taxes are
charged on a deeded parcel so who gets the tax bill? Joe! Jon's fence
mistakenly encroached upon the land of Joe, that same 20'x100' strip.
How in the hell is he going to get a bill from the county for that strip
if he doesn't own it? Until such time as there is a judicial
determination that it is or isn't Jon's land due to adverse possession,
the county is going to keep billing Joe and Joe will continue to pay it
- or not.



There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of
who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.

Doubt that it makes any difference at all in Oregon. It doesn't elsewhere.


As to what to do, one factor missing is what the effect of the
few feet is to each property. If it's doesn't make a drastic
difference in lot value, usability, access, etc to the OP, I'd
opt for getting the new fence where it belongs. It's probably
going to avoid a lot of legal fees, at the very least.

Not to mention that it's the RIGHT thing to do. You don't own the land
it rightfully belongs to your neighbor. The only improvement made is
the fence which is being replaced, right? Just put it where it belongs
and consider it a "mulligan" and go forward.g

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:13:01 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 9/1/2013 7:42 AM, wrote:

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:





and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,



after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back



taxes



It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real

owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it

would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've

seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes

on the property for the required period as well. That seems

reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in

question as their own. That might be implied in some of the

verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It

could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in

question, you are concealing your claim to it.



That makes absolutely no sense - maybe you should go back and read it again.



Think about it...



We're talking about "Parcel X" a strip of land 20' wide and 100' long,

for instance. Joe actually owns it per survey and deed. The taxes are

charged on a deeded parcel so who gets the tax bill? Joe! Jon's fence

mistakenly encroached upon the land of Joe, that same 20'x100' strip.

How in the hell is he going to get a bill from the county for that strip

if he doesn't own it?

That's precisely the point, the the rightful owner *is* the one
paying the taxes on the land. And as I've said, I've seen statutes
for adverse possession that specifically require that the
AP be paying the taxes. If the AP believes that piece of property
that is his neighbor's is actually his, then why isn't he acting
like a legitmate property OWNER and paying the real estate taxes on it?
He knows property is taxed. He thinks he's getting this for free?
If no one is paying the taxes, that's one thing. But when the
rightful owner by title is paying the real estate taxes, I think
any court is going to take that into strong consideration versus
someone arguing that they are now the rightful owner because
a fence is off by 6 ft. Also, I've seen state statutes where
they specifically rule out de minimus claims of adverse possession
over a fence that is a few feet off, like this one.





Until such time as there is a judicial

determination that it is or isn't Jon's land due to adverse possession,

the county is going to keep billing Joe and Joe will continue to pay it

- or not.







There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of

who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.



Doubt that it makes any difference at all in Oregon. It doesn't elsewhere.



BS.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adverse_possession


"Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A means by which one can legally take another's property without paying for it. The requirements for adversely possessing property vary between states, but usually include continuous and open use for a period of five or more years and paying taxes on the property in question."

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:57:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:13:01 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

On 9/1/2013 7:42 AM, wrote:



On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:











and then there is the issue of property taxes: claiming the property,







after paying legal fees would undoubtedly put you at liability for back







taxes







It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real



owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it



would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've



seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes



on the property for the required period as well. That seems



reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in



question as their own. That might be implied in some of the



verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It



could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in



question, you are concealing your claim to it.







That makes absolutely no sense - maybe you should go back and read it again.







Think about it...







We're talking about "Parcel X" a strip of land 20' wide and 100' long,



for instance. Joe actually owns it per survey and deed. The taxes are



charged on a deeded parcel so who gets the tax bill? Joe! Jon's fence



mistakenly encroached upon the land of Joe, that same 20'x100' strip.



How in the hell is he going to get a bill from the county for that strip



if he doesn't own it?



That's precisely the point, the the rightful owner *is* the one

paying the taxes on the land. And as I've said, I've seen statutes

for adverse possession that specifically require that the

AP be paying the taxes. If the AP believes that piece of property

that is his neighbor's is actually his, then why isn't he acting

like a legitmate property OWNER and paying the real estate taxes on it?

He knows property is taxed. He thinks he's getting this for free?

If no one is paying the taxes, that's one thing. But when the

rightful owner by title is paying the real estate taxes, I think

any court is going to take that into strong consideration versus

someone arguing that they are now the rightful owner because

a fence is off by 6 ft. Also, I've seen state statutes where

they specifically rule out de minimus claims of adverse possession

over a fence that is a few feet off, like this one.











Until such time as there is a judicial



determination that it is or isn't Jon's land due to adverse possession,



the county is going to keep billing Joe and Joe will continue to pay it



- or not.















There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of



who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.







Doubt that it makes any difference at all in Oregon. It doesn't elsewhere.







BS.





http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adverse_possession





"Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary



A means by which one can legally take another's property without paying for it. The requirements for adversely possessing property vary between states, but usually include continuous and open use for a period of five or more years and paying taxes on the property in question."

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

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

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It

Paying taxes is not part of openness. Onlookers don't know who pays
how much for what land for taxes. When you mail the money in, they
don't open your mail, and if you pay on the net, they haven't hacked
your computer (and shouldnt' be required to.)

Openness refers to what the neighbors can see and what the original
owner could see if he looked.

could be argued that by not paying the taxes on the piece in
question, you are concealing your claim to it.

There must be case law in Oregon showing what the effect of
who pays the taxes is on the case outcome.

I got the impression that the second footnote on the page the OP
posted pointed to a list of all appealed cases related to the statute.
And this list seemed to match the list of "annotations" in the second
column on the OP's page.

Except for the fact that they don't have a date on either page, as
usual, and we can't tell how recently it was updated. Of course
pocket parts only come out once a year too. But there is also an
unsorted list of court decisions that comes out monthly or weekly.
Before preparing for trial and again before going to trial, a lawyer
should check cases on that list to see if any are relevant to his
case.

As to what to do, one factor missing is what the effect of the
few feet is to each property. If it's doesn't make a drastic
difference in lot value, usability, access, etc to the OP, I'd
opt for getting the new fence where it belongs. It's probably
going to avoid a lot of legal fees, at the very least.

You may well be right.

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 3:03:18 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:





It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real

owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it

would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've

seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes

on the property for the required period as well. That seems

reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in

question as their own. That might be implied in some of the

verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It



Paying taxes is not part of openness.

It is in my world. If you believe you own a piece of property,
you better be paying the taxes on it, or at least nobody better
be. You sit there for 10 years, let the neighbor pay the taxes
on a piece of property you claim to own, you don't pay, and that
is open? I'd say you're hiding what you're up to. If you were
legit, you'd be paying the taxes.




Onlookers don't know who pays

how much for what land for taxes.

Onlookers aren't the issue.



When you mail the money in, they

don't open your mail, and if you pay on the net, they haven't hacked

your computer (and shouldnt' be required to.)



Irrelevant




Openness refers to what the neighbors can see and what the original

owner could see if he looked.



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.

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.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

On 09-01-2013 15:03, micky wrote:
Paying taxes is not part of openness. Onlookers don't know who pays
how much for what land for taxes. When you mail the money in, they

We can't see WHO but we can see how much.

http://acimap.us/PATI

I'm sure we're not the only county that does this.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 15:03:18 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


It's not stated, but it's a reasonable assumption the real
owner of the property has been paying the taxes, otherwise it
would have gone up for tax sale. In most of the AP statutes I've
seen, for AP to work, it has required that the AP pay the taxes
on the property for the required period as well. That seems
reasonable, as it shows they are treating the property in
question as their own. That might be implied in some of the
verbage of the Oregon stature too, ie the "openly" part. It

Paying taxes is not part of openness. Onlookers don't know who pays
how much for what land for taxes. When you mail the money in, they
don't open your mail, and if you pay on the net, they haven't hacked
your computer (and shouldnt' be required to.)

Everywhere I've lived property tax records are public information. I
can find out exactly what my neighbor paid in taxes and whether
they're delinquent on their taxes. This information is often
published in the newspaper. NSA is not required.

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...



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:49:11 PM UTC-7, 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...







On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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

I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.

In the theoretical situation, the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.

Harry K

I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably
posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns
about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:


I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.
In the theoretical situation,

That language comes up in negligence law. Not here, I think.

the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.

But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession
of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the
fence.

Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you
mean, the answer is no.

If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge
on the part of the real owners.

Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states
I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse
possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.

Exclusive
Uninterrupted
Notorious
Unpermitted
Claim of Right
Hostile.

Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are
clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not
mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow. IMO other clauses come at the
issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have
to worry about this.

Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so
weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One
state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow!
Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in
case law.

Harry K

AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited,
untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it,
That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just
ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse
possession.

This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all
five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where
the boundary is. But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or
farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an
issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably

posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns

about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:





I also didn't read the link but most such laws and legal rulings require that the proper owners "knew or _should have_ known.

In the theoretical situation,



That language comes up in negligence law. Not here, I think.



the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.



But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession

of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the

fence.



He has a valid point. How do you know they knew? The AP wasn't
living in their house, or taking up the whole property. It's
very common for fences not to be in the correct place and for
neighbors not to know the exact property boundary. The neighbors
saw the fence, but that doesn't mean they also knew where the
correct property line was.





Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you

mean, the answer is no.



If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge

on the part of the real owners.



Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states

I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse

possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.



Exclusive

Uninterrupted

Notorious

Unpermitted

Claim of Right

Hostile.



Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are

clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not

mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow.

That is what hostile means, that you don't have permission.
It's an essential part of any AP statute.


IMO other clauses come at the

issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have

to worry about this.



Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so

weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One

state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow!

Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in

case law.



I'd be very interested in the issue of property taxes. Presumably
the owner has been paying them on that piece of property all these
years. Most of the AP statutes I've read require the AP to be
paying the taxes, ie treating the property in question as if the
AP actually owned it. I would not be surprised to fing that is
implied and interpreted that way under other parts of the statute,
eg the "open" part. If you're not paying the taxes, I'd say you're
not be open about your possession of said property. There has to
be Oregon case law that could answer this.






Harry K



AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited,

untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it,

That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just

ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse

possession.



This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all

five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where

the boundary is.

Exactly and I think that likely means AP isn't going to work.


But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or

farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an

issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.

IF it's important there, which I agree, then I think it's also
likely to be important here. The true owner has been paying the taxes for 10 years. Can someone claim they have been "openly" treating a piece of
land as their own when they have not been paying the taxes on it, but
the neighbor has and the neighbor also has the title and survey that
shows they bought and paid for it? I don't think so.

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 05:59:40 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I have a particular interest in this becasue, as I have probably

posted, I have a neigbhor who seems to sincerely believe that he owns

about 200 or 300 square feet of my land.



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
....



the real owners probably could claim they couldn't have known unless they had some reason to get a survey.



But anyhow, the neighbors did know that the land was in the possession

of the OP. Every time they walked into their yard, they saw the

fence.



He has a valid point. How do you know they knew? The AP wasn't
living in their house, or taking up the whole property. It's
very common for fences not to be in the correct place and for
neighbors not to know the exact property boundary. The neighbors
saw the fence, but that doesn't mean they also knew where the
correct property line was.

I think it means they knew the OP was using all the land on his side
of the fence.



Do you mean that they have to know they owned it? If that's what you

mean, the answer is no.

If you had read the link, you'd see t here was no mention of knowledge

on the part of the real owners.

Oregon has a pretty clear statute, compared to the couple other states

I know. Not for Oregon but in general the elements of adverse

possession can be remembered by the EUNUCH rule.



Exclusive

Uninterrupted

Notorious

Unpermitted

Claim of Right

Hostile.



Unpermitted doesn't seem to be present here, since the n'bors are

clearly permitting it, but at the same time, permission is not

mentioned in the Oregon statute anyhow.

That is what hostile means, that you don't have permission.
It's an essential part of any AP statute.

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

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."


IMO other clauses come at the

issue of permission from the other direction, and the OP doesn't have

to worry about this.



Claim of right is mentioned in the statute. Some states have so

weakened claim of right that it's hardly a condition anymore. One

state says iirc if you're using it, you have a claim of right. Wow!

Oregon doesn't define this so clearly in the statute, but it may in

case law.



I'd be very interested in the issue of property taxes. Presumably
the owner has been paying them on that piece of property all these
years. Most of the AP statutes I've read require the AP to be
paying the taxes, ie treating the property in question as if the

Yeah but nothing about taxes in this statute.

AP actually owned it. I would not be surprised to fing that is
implied and interpreted that way under other parts of the statute,
eg the "open" part. If you're not paying the taxes, I'd say you're
not be open about your possession of said property. There has to
be Oregon case law that could answer this.

Maybe not. There is surely an absence of case law on a lot of things
in little Maryland.

Harry K

AIUI, adverse possession came up mostly with tracts of uninhabited,

untilled land, where it was not clear that either party owned it,

That's why open and notorious were issues. If both of them just

ignored the land, the new one had insufficient basis for adverse

possession.



This is where taxes come in too. In my case and the OP's case, all

five of us are paying the tax bill we receive. The question is where

the boundary is.

Exactly and I think that likely means AP isn't going to work.

I think it means the taxes are irrelevant.

It true for me and probably everywhere that the amount of taxes I owe
is partly dependent on how much land I have, and that means if the
ownership actually changes hands to the OP, each tax bill shoudl be
recalculated, and that the "real owners" have overpaid their taxes for
years, paying for the land they no longer own, and may have lost
retroactively. But I don't think dollar amounts matter in deciding
if AP applies.

What who pays the taxes is meant to show is who thinks he owns the
land. Very few people calculate their square footage and check on
the rate per square foot and multiply and compare that number to the
tax bill, and then complain if it's different, and more importantly,
the OPs two neighbors probaby never did that. They pay whatever
the bill says, so their paying is not an indicium of their owning the
displuted land.

ANOTHER BIG PROBLEM WITH TAXES is a direct result of the owners'
problems. How does the owner prove the taxes he's paid covered the
land in question. He'd likely have to get someone from the tax
office to testify that they considered the original owner to own the
land in question when they, the tax office, calculated his taxes.

This is also not an issue with a separate parcel of land, where each
party claims all of it.

But a separate parcel of land no one resides on or

farms or has a business on, its boundaries are not likely to be an

issue, but who the person is paying the taxes on it is important.

IF it's important there, which I agree, then I think it's also
likely to be important here.

I dont' think so. On the separate parcel paying taxes means one
thinks one owns the land. Here, it only means he doesn't know how
much land he owns, how much the taxes are meant for, or he wouldn't
pay taxes for land beyond the fence.

The true owner has been paying the taxes for 10 years. Can someone claim they have been "openly" treating a piece of
land as their own when they have not been paying the taxes on it, but
the neighbor has and the neighbor also has the title and survey that
shows they bought and paid for it? I don't think so.

I do. FWLIW I asked on the legal group about my own property,
where the issue is the boundary, and though silence doess't mean much,
no one who replied brought up taxes. If I post there again, I will
ask about taxes.

And, if I end up in court, I will definitely mention that I've been
paying the taxes. Thank you for pointing it out...... Thinking about
this for the first time: He of course will say, How do you know
you've been paying the taxes? We haven't estabilished where the
boundary is.

I will say, Yes we have. Look at the plat. That's what matters. The
plat is hard to read because of all the things marked on it, but with
help he should be able to read it. . Amazingly in a way, it's a
little easier to read on the computer, where I can enlarge it a lot
more than I think I could with a magnifying glass.

My property is 6-sided, which is where some of the confusion comes in.
The neighbor's is 4-sided, and he may think mine is too. Also I
have a fence and the land in question is outside the fence. He
probably thinks any land outside the fence is his. Although for the
first several years he lived here, I and only I mowed the lawn and
trimmed the bushes there. So he might just be pulling my chain,
though he sure seems sincere.

(I also have a survey, which I have to look at again but I think it's
easier to read.)

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.

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 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.

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

Open and notorious are also covered by the fence.

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...



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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

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.

But like you said, and as with any of these kinds of situations, you
can never be sure what a judge might decide. For all we know there is
a ton of case law that covers this that would easily settle this if we
had a law library.

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

Open and notorious are also covered by the fence.

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...



On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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

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 8/31/2013 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...

It will depend upon the laws of the state where the property is located.

Further, don't get too carried away with the term "adverse possession."
Your use of anothers' property doesn't need to cause him a problem
(which is what you seem to be saying)or harm. Your mere use, ANY use,
without permission constitutes that adverse possession since it's HIS
property and you are using it for some purpose without permission. All
that would need to be done to break your claim under adverse possession
would be for him, at some point, to agree to allow you to use the
property as you are or for you to ask and be granted that permission.

FWIW, the period of time involved ALSO changes from state to state. 20
yrs is likely a safe bet but in some states it's considerably shorter.

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:54:15 AM UTC-7, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 8/31/2013 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...



It will depend upon the laws of the state where the property is located.



Further, don't get too carried away with the term "adverse possession."

Your use of anothers' property doesn't need to cause him a problem

(which is what you seem to be saying)or harm. Your mere use, ANY use,

without permission constitutes that adverse possession since it's HIS

property and you are using it for some purpose without permission. All

that would need to be done to break your claim under adverse possession

would be for him, at some point, to agree to allow you to use the

property as you are or for you to ask and be granted that permission.



FWIW, the period of time involved ALSO changes from state to state. 20

yrs is likely a safe bet but in some states it's considerably shorter.

And in the case of 'giving permission' it should be done in writing. Avoids andy "he said, she said' in court. It should also be renewed in writing periodically.

Some states it only takes 7 years, IANM Washington is one.

Harry K

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:54:15 AM UTC-7, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

On 8/31/2013 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...







It will depend upon the laws of the state where the property is located..







Further, don't get too carried away with the term "adverse possession."



Your use of anothers' property doesn't need to cause him a problem



(which is what you seem to be saying)or harm. Your mere use, ANY use,



without permission constitutes that adverse possession since it's HIS



property and you are using it for some purpose without permission. All



that would need to be done to break your claim under adverse possession



would be for him, at some point, to agree to allow you to use the



property as you are or for you to ask and be granted that permission.







FWIW, the period of time involved ALSO changes from state to state. 20



yrs is likely a safe bet but in some states it's considerably shorter.



And in the case of 'giving permission' it should be done in writing. Avoids andy "he said, she said' in court. It should also be renewed in writing periodically.



Some states it only takes 7 years, IANM Washington is one.



Harry K

Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings up pages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.

In the case of the OP where the fence is in the wrong place. Anyone buying the place after the fence was erected would be in the "should have known" position if they did not get a survey when the bought it. Owner when the fence was erected and did not object would be in the same position. One is required to know what they own if they want to protect against AP.

"But your honor, I did not know it was on my land" won't fly in court.

Harry K

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:


Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings up pages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.

I stand corrected.








In the case of the OP where the fence is in the wrong place. Anyone buying the place after the fence was erected would be in the "should have known" position if they did not get a survey when the bought it. Owner when the fence was erected and did not object would be in the same position. One is required to know what they own if they want to protect against AP.

"But your honor, I did not know it was on my land" won't fly in court.

Harry K

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:


Google is your friend. I did a bit of it for Washington:

Period of 10 years adverse possession is required EXCEPT if you somehow manage to pay the taxes on it for 7 years it is enough.

"knew or should have known": couldn't find any phrase like itin the Washington law but I also could not find the "legal definition" of AP either.

However a google for: adverse postion "know or should have known" brings up pages of cites where it appears in legal cases of AP.


I stand corrected. But these cites were not Oregon, I think, so they
don't directly affect the OP.

Jon Danniken:

If I were you, I would go down to your Property Registry or Land Titles Office and ask to speak to one of their lawyers. They'll have many.

Explain your situation without giving any details, and ask whether you now have acquired your neighbor's lands by adverse possession or not.

If so, then I'd go ahead and build the new fence where the old fence was, and just be glad that things have come to rest in your favour.

Land is valuable, and if your neighbors have not missed that part of their land that you've been maintaining up till now, they won't miss it in the future.

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:49:11 PM UTC-4, 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.

I'd have to disagree on that point. Putting up a fence that cuts it off
from the neighbor's access and use is indeed adverse.




And if the real owner wasn't even aware

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

I don't believe that is correct either. Hostile I believe is
taken to mean that you don't have permission, ie you can't have
a verbal agreement with the neighbor to park you car on his
property, then later to try to claim adverse 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...




You may be right about that part. There should be case law that's
easy to find that clarifies it.

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.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, Jon Danniken
wrote in
Re Adverse Possession:

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?

Option B
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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:

This has been a big issue for me in the last few years, as I have
probably posted, I have a neighbor who seems to sincerely believe that
he owns about 200 or 300 square feet of my land. (The piece is
triangular and I haven't measured it. Not too important, because I'm
not sure what he thinks he owns anyhow.)


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?

With option A, you would just never tell them about the issue, right?
Is that what you mean?

I don't think you solidify your ownership until after a court hearing
where they have the opportunity to be present. Now if nothing
changes, your case just gets stronger I guess, because even more time
has passed, But... How did you find out about this? Might each of
them not find out the same way? Or when the property is sold, or an
addition built on a house and side setback rules come into play, maybe
a survey will be done by one of them.

It's not enough to have the statute in front of you. You need to read
all the case law related to your situation. I don't know how to do
that on-line, though googling for "case law Oregon" might help, or
just googling your statute number.

But the quickest simplest way might be to go to a law library. Any
law schools nearby? Any public law schools nearby? (When I lived in
NY, all the law schools were privately owned, Columbia, NYU, and a
couple others. They didn't even readily grant students from other law
schools permission to use their library, let alone derelicts who post
on alt.home.repair. But maybe they're nicer in Oregon. It's the
opposite in Baltimore, where I think there are two law schools and
both are public.)

But your best resource might be the county courthouse, which probably
has a law library. The one here, in Towson, was intimidating to me.
When I first got to Balt, I thought it was just for lawyers, but it
would be really hard to rationalize that, since it's taxpayer funded.
And indeed, it's for anyone. (I never thought to look in the Brooklyn
or NYC courthouse for a law library, but now I'm sure there is one,
and it's probably public.)

And there you will find a set of Oregon statute books, maybe 10 or 20
volumes, and following each statute will be a list of cases, at least
cases heard by Oregon appellate courts, that relate to the statute.
They will further explain how the words of the statute have been
interpreted by the courts. (No matter how carefully one writes a
statute, there is always a line of ambiguity, a border line.)

And DON'T FORGET to look in the pocket part. Because the set is too
expensive to buy a new one every year, instead every year they print a
supplement, whose cover slides into a slot in the book's back cover.
It has the most recent decisions, which may even contradict what you
just read. In a little state like Maryland, the pocket part can be
really small and most statutes are unaffected. In a big state like NY
or California, it's the opposite.

Make copies of anything relevant.

Especially if the Oregon statute book does't have everything I just
said it would have (I think all states have the case law, but what do
I know), but even if it does, you might also look in the Northwest
Reporter, I think it's called for Oregon and nearby states.
Published by West Publishing Company.

The librarian will help you but maybe there's a map of the library,
which is not as big as a branch public library, with "Reporters"
marked on the map. Or you can just walk around until you find the
big sets of books. (probably statutes for all 50 states.)

Even though most lawyers have Lexis now, I'm pretty sure all these
books are still published for the whole country. I like books better
than computer monitors.

Anyhow, you can't understand the statute if there is case law about it
that you don't yet know about. If they don't have the books or only
a pocket part that is 3 years old, they'll probably have Lexis that
you can use.

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?

I think someone in your family is pushing for A. I hate to say it,
but probably a woman. They are not as tender as I was led to believe
when I was a child, and I rarely hear them talk about honor.
(although truth be told, even though I believe strongly in honor** the
men who talk about honor the most are more likely to be those I
disagree with politically. **For me the most important part of
honor is that it is what keeps people acting legally even when they
don't believe the laws against stealing etc. come from God, as many
people don't.

Ed's advice sounds good.

Jon

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, 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

After all my stuff about law libraries, I see that the right column
partially, and the second footnote more fully lists cases related to
the statute.

As is the case with most webpages, there is no last update date, and a
lawyer who assumed that all the relevant cases were listed would be
guilty of malpractice if he turned out to be wrong. But in your
situation maybe you only need to have seen this list.

This is interesting, " Requirement that person claiming adverse
possession had objectively reasonable belief concerning ownership does
not alter doctrine established under common law allowing proof of
hostile possession based on pure mistake. Clark v. Ranchero Acres
Water Co., 198 Or App 73, 108 P3d 31 (2005)"

Isnt' it charming how the court doesn't void sections (b)(B) and (C)
but afaict, it might as well have by bringing back the common law rule
that includes pure mistake, and does't require an objective basis, or
reasonableness. IIUC. This helps you, OP, in this case, but more
importantly it's a lesson on why case law matters just as much as the
words of the statute. .


Did you see this:

SUITS TO QUIET TITLE AND REMOVE CLOUD
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/105.605
105.605 Suits to determine adverse claims

It just says "may maintain a suit". Whether a suit or something is
required may be a question.



This one is good for me, but not relevant to you, I think
"Where testimony of possessor of land, who had lived on land more than
10 years, did not clearly es*tab*lish when he began to assert an
adverse claim, no title by adverse pos*ses*sion was es*tab*lished.
McCall v. Hyde, 39 Or App 531, 592 P2d 1064 (1979)"
It would be a lot better if this were a Maryland case. :-)

On 8/31/13 9:05 PM, 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.

Cut rest.

I'd probably talk to the neighbor, a lawyer, and maybe a surveyor.
Maybe the neighbor would sell that chunk of ground for a minimal sum.
Failing a formal sale, I'd probably put the fence on the official
property line. The next neighbor might be a total jerk about it. Who
knows when things will change due to illness, death, or whatever life
brings?

In article ,
Jon Danniken wrote:

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?
B for obvious reasons. The other (not so obvious reason) would be
upon selling, you might run into trouble with the survey unless/until
you went to court to and got the adverse possession sorted out.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:05:09 -0700, Jon Danniken
wrote:

What are your thoughts?

Despite all my discussion and assesrtion and speculaton about adverse
posession, that's just thread drift. I'm not pushing you to claim
AP.

I have no objection to your choice of B, or to talking to the neighbor
etc.

Jon

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

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