Posted on 10/05/2009 4:34:30 PM PDT by Daffynition
If you own a piece of property, it's a good idea to know what is going on there.
If you don't, you could end up losing it.
A Valley woman can attest.
The woman and her husband purchased a large parcel of land a few miles away from their home as an investment, and sort of forgot about it.
Meanwhile, a neighbor to the land used it for 21 years and then claimed ownership, using the old "squatter's rights" law in Pennsylvania.
"We purchased it in the 1970s, as an investment," the woman said. "We paid the taxes on it every year, but never looked at it. We thought, who is going to steal it? It's land. You can't put it on a flatbed and haul it away."
Also, the neighbors of the land were friends of the couple.
"These were people we knew all of our lives," she said. "We were not aware what was going on with the land."
When the couple decided to sell the parcel to raise money for their four children, they discovered the plight of the land.
"We had a buyer, so we hired a surveyor," she said. "That's how we found out about it. When we hired the surveyor, we got served with papers that (the neighbors) had put in a claim."
Then, lawyers for both sides began to negotiate and the result was that the neighbors ended up with 55 percent, the lawyer for the couple 25 percent and 20 percent for the couple.
"Hopefully, we can still sell it," she said. "One of the reasons we didn't keep up with what was going on there was that the land was off then beaten path. The land was a few miles away from our house. And the land was landlocked. We went out to see it, and it was a very bumpy ride "
The woman said she and her husband could have opted for a jury trial to get the land back, but then they took the risk of losing all of it.
"We didn't want to go to trial," she said. "This could have dragged out for years. We didn't want to do that."
So they took the deal.
But the woman wanted to use her unpleasant experience to educate others.
"It's just not ethical," she said. "I wouldn't do that to somebody. It's so much like stealing. (The neighbors) didn't pay the taxes on it, nor did they have the deed. We paid the taxes on it, all those years.
"I think people should be made aware that this law exists," she continued. "I don't want to see this happen to someone else. We should teach children in school skills they will need to live, like how to balance a checkbook and how the stock market works. We should also teach them about the law."
The law is called adverse possession, and what happened to the woman is relatively common across the United States, according to attorney William Hoffmeyer, of the Hoffmeyer & Semmelman law firm of York, experts in land law.
Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it.
Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn.
"It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it."
Hoffmeyer said there are four key concepts for someone to claim, or lose, adverse possession.
"Those words are open, notorious, hostile and visible," he said. "Open means if someone is doing something with the land right out in the open and not hiding it," Hoffmeyer said.
"Notorious is if anybody knows what is happening on the land. Visible means one can see what is being done with the land, and hostile means what is being done with the land is against the rights of the true owner."
There are some ways to fight the law. Hoffmeyer said.
"If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land."
Hoffmeyer said he encounters many cases of adverse possession in his daily practice.
"We see it quite a bit," he said. "It happens many times with people who inherit land from their parents. They don't live anywhere close to the property, so have no idea what is going on there. Out of loyalty to their parents, they pay the taxes on it every year, but never look at the property until they discover a neighbor is trying to take it from them.
"It also happens when neighbors around a property inch over a boundary line," Hoffmeyer continued. "A less-than-desirable neighbor may mow the lawn over the line; or plant trees, flowers or shrubbery over the line, or install a fence over the line."
It is up to the property owner to monitor such activity, and stop it as soon as he or she learns it is happening, Hoffmeyer said.
"You can write a letter to the neighbors, telling them they are trespassing," he said. "In the letter, you tell them if they don't cease and desist, you will initiate a trespassing action against them."
Hoffmeyer said in one case, a landowner who had sold land around him noticed his new neighbors were moving in - literally - toward him.
"The landowner sent the neighbors a letter which stated they all acknowledged and understood they were not acquiring ownership of the land, but were being permitted to use it," Hoffmeyer said. "They were also told they had to assume the liability for the property they are using."
it took the neighbor 21 years to steal 55% of it. It took the lawyer months to steal 25% of it. Who’s the bigger thief?
And when they came to the fire, they would get shot.
Given the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case, the Supreme Court ruled that "public use" could also mean "public good" arising from economic growth or the associated tax base from improved property.
Couldn't these people argue that their tax payments constituted continuous "public use" of the property?
-PJ
I would be willing to bet if this was US gov land then it would not apply.
They should sue the people for back taxes and for lost use.
The "maintain it" part is strange to me. What if I own the land and want to keep it pristine? Keep it overgrown for a possible "wilderness trek" someday? Maybe I want it for hunting or bird watching? Maybe I'm just strange and want my land for a UFO landing spot I dreamed about or maybe just for abso-freakin-lutely nothing . . . but I PAY MY TAXES on it.
As a current land owner (very little), I know that the taxes are partially based on the previous plat/survey or an estimation. Would another survey help keep squatters from stealing it if I wasn't using it?
I've looked at aerial shots of the King Ranch near Corpus Christi. I highly doubt every acre on that property was used or even stepped on in the last 2 decades.
>> Too bad that the couple can’t argue that simply paying the taxes is “using” the land.
Exactly. It would appear the government was in contract with the real landowners for the duration according to the tax bills.
Found a story back in November on the Boulder case that they settled - and gave the thief neighbors 12% of their lot in a settlement - they have the lot up for sale - it’s buildable up to 1,500 sqft
I found it on zillow - still for sale:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2069-Hardscrabble-Dr-Boulder-CO-80305/2140917498_zpid/
My father finally had to make the developer agree to let the house stand and the “owner” to stay on the condition that they hook up to the local sewer, water and electrical utilities. They also had to have their property claim limited to the area they had cleared in the woods which was only 1/8th of an acre. Lots in the development were 2/3rd to 1 acre. The houses were very nice size 4 to 6 bedroom houses with 2 car garages. In the end the development came to much for the squatters and they left. As they only had squatter claims they could not sell the house. That came to my father who sold the lot to the adjacent 2 neighbors fro top dollar.
Sounds like the squatters need a good ass kicking.
Who would want to build in New London, knowing that the town government has demonstrated a willingness to steal property?
My parents owned 110 acres in OK. (they lived in CA) Though the property was not far from where family lived, it was off the beaten track. One of the guys on neighboring property started driving across it, diagonally, as a short cut to the main road. When my parents tried to sell it, the man took them to court to insist that it was now an established easement. The court agreed. In essence, my parents were forced to sell parcels with a road cutting through multiple properties. ... which pretty much cut the value of the properties way down. So much be being “neighborly”.
When it comes time to remove BO from our house, can he claim squatters’ rights?
Sometimes the little guy wins ...
My words would be, “Real nice (structure) you have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”
I'm talking about a case where the fence was there when both parties moved in.
It did happen to me. Neighbor got a survey due to a dispute with his neighbor on the other side. The survey moved all of the property lines for six lots down, five feet towards me. (A thoughtful person would've wondered if there was a fault with the survey) Idiot neighbor takes this survey to the county and has it recorded. Neighbor he's having the dispute with sees that he now has five more feet of property and he takes it. Like, with a backhoe, clears it and builds a fence. Stupid neighbor spends the next ten years arguing with my grandfather about the "new" location of the property line. Never gets anywhere.
When I'm in the process to buy the property from grandparent's estate, stupid neighbor files a lien against the property to foul the title. My attorney successfully convinces their attorney that we can show adverse possession, regardless of any survey, but at any rate the survey had since been shown to be in error. Followed up with a threat to proceed on a charge of slander of title if we couldn't agree both on the "old" property line PLUS a three foot easement for maintenance. So he lost. Then he went back and tried to get the other neighbor to give back what he'd basically been given, and he was told to pound sand... after that ten years, is was his through adverse possession.
So now his property is five feet narrower, and as far as I'm concerned he deserves it.
Nam Vet
In this case the lawyer figured out a way to get more land than the owner. Meh.
If you followed the Kelo v New London case, then you already know about the hollow victory in spite of the SC decision:
Eminent domain land sits undeveloped
Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project.There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne’s lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot’s towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.
But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.
Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a “poetic justice.”
“They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing,” said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. “I don’t think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.