Seems To Have Survived 30 Yrs Without Gov Approval

[Gilligan]

Been eyeing a cool property near Forks WA that abuts the Olympic National forests. The large cabin on the property is listed as "unpermitted" and is entirely off the grid. I'm wondering what the ramifications of buying it are.....is the gummint going to come in and make use tear it down, or what? I'm afraid to ask...

 

[vraiblonde]

Been eyeing a cool property near Forks WA that abuts the Olympic National forests. The large cabin on the property is listed as "unpermitted" and is entirely off the grid. I'm wondering what the ramifications of buying it are.....is the gummint going to come in and make use tear it down, or what? I'm afraid to ask...

So you would be BUYING it, and not just setting up house on someone else's property?

 

[Gilligan]

So you would be BUYING it, and not just setting up house on someone else's property?

Not sure yet. There's a LOT of wild and woolly property out that way that is pretty inaccessible. Might just go the squatters route. Lot cheaper. We saw squatter camps all over the place during our 8-hour drive looping through that rain forest.

 

[vraiblonde]

Not sure yet. There's a LOT of wild and woolly property out that way that is pretty inaccessible. Might just go the squatters route. Lot cheaper. We saw squatter camps all over the place during our 8-hour drive looping through that rain forest.

There are a ton of people in AZ and NM that live off the grid. You could get lost easily out there. They come into whatever town is nearby and fill up enormous water jug things. I didn't even know such a thing existed until we were in Seligman and saw the tanks, and were informed that it's quite common. AFAIK Lexington Park doesn't have a water station capable of filling 100-gal jugs, but you see them all over out west once you become aware they're a thing.

I have no idea what the property situation is. I know a lot of people buy an acre cheap and construct a rustic home structure or live in an RV, and I know there are people squatting on BLM land (which is Bureau of Land Management, not Black Lives Matter) because there was a thing in the news about it. As far as setting up residence on someone else's property, I know that's frowned upon because they're having a fit about illegal immigrants doing it.

Which begs the question:

If this were some illegal Central American squatting on someone else's property, would you still be on his side?

 

[phreddyp]

There are a ton of people in AZ and NM that live off the grid. You could get lost easily out there. They come into whatever town is nearby and fill up enormous water jug things. I didn't even know such a thing existed until we were in Seligman and saw the tanks, and were informed that it's quite common. AFAIK Lexington Park doesn't have a water station capable of filling 100-gal jugs, but you see them all over out west once you become aware they're a thing.

I have no idea what the property situation is. I know a lot of people buy an acre cheap and construct a rustic home structure or live in an RV, and I know there are people squatting on BLM land (which is Bureau of Land Management, not Black Lives Matter) because there was a thing in the news about it. As far as setting up residence on someone else's property, I know that's frowned upon because they're having a fit about illegal immigrants doing it.

Which begs the question:

If this were some illegal Central American squatting on someone else's property, would you still be on his side?

After 30 years I can't say that I wouldn't really , unless I was trying to sell the place. But there are definitely some legal issues here . It's may be interesting if he appeals . I grew up with a bunch of homeless drunks living in the woods near my home just a long stones throw from the D.C. line , they never bothered anyone that I know of, all the neighborhood kids played in those woods from daylight until the street light came on.

Like I said before there is MORE to this story than what has been published.

It also sounds to me that if someone burned his cabin down then they are hoping that this all goes away once his abode was destroyed .

 

[Kinnakeet]

If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say that the guy or his heirs would like to sell the property and can't have this guy squatting there.

Which is their right because it's THEIR property.

You all are fascinating, you really are. Now you're arguing AGAINST private property rights.

I agree its THEIR property and if they want him gone he has to leave if he doesnt maybe hes shack will catch on fire somehow...lol

 

[Gilligan]

If this were some illegal Central American squatting on someone else's property, would you still be on his side?

Nah. I'd prolly just chootem.

 

[black dog]

Don't you also have to pay the property tax during that time frame?

I will ask the barrister when I return home, I'mm in Annapolis, had dinner at Mikes at the bar...

 

[Tech]

I don't think so. I did little research on this a while ago, and I seem to remember that if you simply maintain the property for x years, it becomes yours. Like if there is a property border, and someone maintains some number of feet over the border and you don't dispute it, it eventually can be claimed as theirs.

And if you try to protect your property, you're the d*ck. This also includes property setbacks if somebody builds too close to the property line.

 

[UglyBear]

I don't think so. I did little research on this a while ago, and I seem to remember that if you simply maintain the property for x years, it becomes yours. Like if there is a property border, and someone maintains some number of feet over the border and you don't dispute it, it eventually can be claimed as theirs.

On another forum, a lawyer (at least claimed to be) chimed in on this topic:
Adverse possession requires several significant hurdles to pass. There are many adverse possession suits filed, but a great majority of them are just tossed out of court.
It seems that the law is mostly used for inheritance disputes, like one sibling got a property, lived there for 30 years, then the other sibling got angry and tries to dispute it — court says “no, too late, leave it be”.

 

[UglyBear]

And if you try to protect your property, you're the d*ck.

That, a hundred times.
In these times of lawsuits, even a simple trespasser can do a “slip and fall” in your driveway, with a lawyer waiting in the car outside.
And trying to defend in court against baseless adverse possession will cost a ton of money.
Keep the property surveyed, fenced, and chase off anyone you didn’t invite, it’s being “nice” or not. Cheaper than a lawsuit.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

On another forum, a lawyer (at least claimed to be) chimed in on this topic:
Adverse possession requires several significant hurdles to pass. There are many adverse possession suits filed, but a great majority of them are just tossed out of court.
It seems that the law is mostly used for inheritance disputes, like one sibling got a property, lived there for 30 years, then the other sibling got angry and tries to dispute it — court says “no, too late, leave it be”.

What are the 5 requirements for adverse possession?

A typical adverse possession statute requires that the following elements be met:

• Open and Notorious. (The person seeking adverse possession must occupy a parcel of land in a manner that is open and obvious.) ... (Many people knew of him living there, as well as many people visiting and straying at the place)
• Exclusive. ...
• Hostile. ... (Possession that is without the consent of the owner and the assertion of which is in conflict with the property ownership interests of the owner.)
• Statutory Period. ... (Possession that is without the consent of the owner and the assertion of which is in conflict with the property ownership interests of the owner.)
• Continuous and Uninterrupted. (In Maryland it's 20 years.)

This fella met all of the requirements, with extra years thrown in to boot. Adverse position has noting to do with inheritance disputes. Look at it this way: Your neighbor puts in a new Amish shed that encroaches on your small lot, or an acre or two property, etc.,, by 15 feet. It doesn't really bother you for whatever reason. After 20 years, or more, he pisses you off and tell him to get it off your land, he can claim adverse possession, take you to court, and be awarded that slice of land. All because you did not say anything when he installed it. Your silence was acquiescence, you gave him licence, aka consent. Same goes for say an empty lot, let's use a two and a half acre parcel. Where someone places a camping trailer and lives on it, part time for full time. Emptying the waste tank into one of those portable septic tanks and disposing of it properly. Or not, by dumping it into a dug hole, whatever, doesn't really matter. And makes other improvements to the property, (A small garden. Adds a tool shed, etc..) For twenty years. That person could claim adverse possession as well, and receive title to that land. Then after that, make any necessary improvements to become up to date with any code requirements. The owner of that 70 acres failed to inspect his property on a regular basis.

New York has a statute of limitations period of 10 years for real property ownership disputes. Donald owns an apartment in a Park Avenue condominium in New York City. In 1990, Madonna moves into the apartment without permission and she lives there continuously until 2003. Donald, who owns many other residences, does not find out about Madonna’s moving into his apartment until 2003. When he finally does find out about this, he immediately brings an ejectment action against Madonna. The court will dismiss Donald’s action. Madonna is now the owner of the apartment. Donald lost all his rights to the apartment by allowing the Statute of Limitations to run out before he filed the ejectment action against Madonna.

Moral of the story? If anyone encroaches upon your land, developed or vacant. You must make your voice heard and take actions to remove the encroachment, or encroacher, or suffer the possible loss of the property. Why do you think there are so many "disputes" over fencing being installed? Because of encroachments.