LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Well, it's called adverse possession for a reason. If the use is "open and hostile" by another person, not hostile as in violence. Open and hostile that it should be obvious to any land owner that someone is trespassing upon their property. If a land owner does not intervene and tell that person to leave, or maybe instead, grant the person licence to be there, (this gives notice to all that an agreement has been reach and that the owner recognizes and permits the use by another, which can be cancelled at any time), then there is no recourse. The point of adverse possession, is that empty land should be in use at all times for the highest and best use. Land is not meant to just sit idle.
She was/is not a "squatter" in the sense that most people understand it to be. Whereas with house squatter, it can be a time consuming task to remove the squatters. With someone occupying some land, for whatever reason, can be immediately removed upon being noticed by the land owner. The fact that the old owner either didn't notice after 20 years, or did and didn't care, is moot. He allowed, by his own ignorance or hubris, this woman to use that land in a productive capacity for 20 years. She just decided to go through the proper legal procedure to make a claim on the property she was using, being that the owner never told her to leave, or otherwise. The saying being: Silence is acquiescence.
This is why many that have large landholdings have ranch hands to periodically survey the property for trespassers so that there will be no adverse possession events. In addition to potential liability.
Those that live on large acreage lots would be smart to survey their property on a regular basis. To prevent episodes such as this.
Yes. But you have to prove that your neighbor *did not* interfere with that use. In addition to getting a survey of the area that you have been maintaining.
*Added
Well, it's called adverse possession for a reason. If the use is "open and hostile" by another person, not hostile as in violence. Open and hostile that it should be obvious to any land owner that someone is trespassing upon their property. If a land owner does not intervene and tell that person to leave, or maybe instead, grant the person licence to be there, (this gives notice to all that an agreement has been reach and that the owner recognizes and permits the use by another, which can be cancelled at any time), then there is no recourse. The point of adverse possession, is that empty land should be in use at all times for the highest and best use. Land is not meant to just sit idle.
She was/is not a "squatter" in the sense that most people understand it to be. Whereas with house squatter, it can be a time consuming task to remove the squatters. With someone occupying some land, for whatever reason, can be immediately removed upon being noticed by the land owner. The fact that the old owner either didn't notice after 20 years, or did and didn't care, is moot. He allowed, by his own ignorance or hubris, this woman to use that land in a productive capacity for 20 years. She just decided to go through the proper legal procedure to make a claim on the property she was using, being that the owner never told her to leave, or otherwise. The saying being: Silence is acquiescence.
This is why many that have large landholdings have ranch hands to periodically survey the property for trespassers so that there will be no adverse possession events. In addition to potential liability.
Those that live on large acreage lots would be smart to survey their property on a regular basis. To prevent episodes such as this.
Yes. But you have to prove that your neighbor *did not* interfere with that use. In addition to getting a survey of the area that you have been maintaining.
*Added
Last edited:
