Few legal concepts seem as unjust as adverse possession. This legal form of stealing involves one person becoming the owner of another’s property, usually that of a neighbor, simply by using it continuously and openly for a period of time set by statute (10 years in Missouri; seven years in Arkansas; as many as 21 years in some other states).
To obtain title to real estate by adverse possession, the party claiming the property must prove various elements to the judge or jury, though the four elements involve vague, inconsistent and overlapping terms. The claimant’s possession of the neighbor’s land must be shown to be:
- actual
- continuous for the required time period
- open and hostile and notorious
- exclusive
None of these words, in the context of the law of adverse possession, is used with its ordinary meaning. Each state has a body of case law in which these elements are interpreted in light of the facts before the court. The courts, in thousands of cases, have wrestled with the meanings of these words to reach inconsistent results. No lawyer taking either side of an adverse possession case can be very confident in describing the probable outcome, except for one result: the parties will spend a pile of money and become permanent enemies and lousy neighbors, even if the disputed area of real estate is only fifty square feet.
In Murphy v. Holman, an opinion issued June 9, 2009 by the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District, the appellate court went to great lengths to reverse the trial court’s decision to allow Murphy to keep a strip of land that had been on Holman’s side of an old fence. From a claimant’s point of view, every fence is a boundary fence. In reality, fences are placed somewhat close to boundaries, but often stray, due to difficult terrain, lack of a well-marked boundary, and other factors. Often nobody knows when the fence was built or why it was built where it was built. Holman and Murphy both assumed that the old fence was on the boundary line when they acquired neighboring farms.
Decades after Murphy and Holman had become neighbors, they agreed to have their common boundary line surveyed. The surveyor indicated that the three-eighths’ mile boundary line was parallel to the old fence, but that the fence was on Murphy’s property. Murphy started clearing a fence row and building a new fence on the actual property line. Holman objected and Murphy’s new posts were pulled up and thrown over the old fence.
Murphy sued Holman for trespass. Holman countersued Murphy, asking the court to determine that the title to the disputed strip of land (amounting to about an acre and a half) was hers under the doctrine of adverse possession. Holman also asked for damages resulting from Murphy’s clearing of “her” land. Please keep in mind that Murphy’s deed included the disputed strip. The trial court ruled for Holman, awarding damages to her for Murphy’s trespass on land described in his own deed, and determining that Holman now owned this disputed strip.
Did Holman have actual possession of the strip? The appellate court reviewed case law that indicated whether possession is “actual” depends on the situation. If the land is “wild land,” then actual possession doesn’t require much of a physical presence by the claimant. For agricultural land, the courts look for more indications of actual physical possession. Allowing cattle to graze on a strip of another’s land and occasionally mowing it, hunting on it or cutting wood on it, according to cases cited, were not enough to show actual possession. Holman’s cattle may have grazed on the narrow strip between the property line and the fence, and Holman may have repaired the fence: the appellate court said that these actions were not “actual possession” but “occasional trespasses.”
Because Holman did not have “color of title,” which means that she didn’t have any kind of deed to the disputed property, even one with an erroneous legal description, the court noted that she had a high threshold to justify why she should get Murphy’s property. Murphy had a deed, after all, and paid the taxes.
The appellate court’s reversal indicates that the trial judge misapplied the law to the facts. In reality, there are so many appellate opinions on adverse possession cases, that a lawyer, trial judge, or appellate judge can find precedents for a ruling on any set of facts, pro or con. Murphy and Holman each spent thousands for a trial and appeal. Holman won at the trial level, and Murphy won on appeal. What a waste of money and judicial resources!
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the legislature to eliminate adverse possession, so that people could be confident that the land described in their deeds was theirs, without requiring them to defend their titles in courts?
Title insurance often doesn’t help in adverse possession cases, because claims of parties in possession are excluded from the policy coverage. Determining whether a party was in possession requires a lawsuit, which the title insurer may or may not defend. If the title insurer defends, it does so with a “reservation of rights,” which can mean that it will not cover the loss of value even though it covers the cost of defense.
Sometimes, legal descriptions of real estate overlap or leave gaps. Suits to resolve these problems do not require the noxious doctrine of adverse possession.
In states with lots of absentee landowners, adverse possession is economically attractive to resident owners, since it tips the legal balance their way. A legislature doesn’t have much to gain by trying to protect absentee owners, unless those absentee owners are politically powerful. This set of tensions may explain why the time period for adverse possession is only seven years in Arkansas, but 15 years in Oklahoma, where oil, gas and mining interests have traditionally had great political power.
tks for the effort you put in here I appreciate it!
This is an excellent blog posting one of the most reprehensible laws ever created. Kudos to you for clearly pointing out why adverse possession is so unjust and unnecessary in today’s society. There is a growing movement to have legalized land theft abolished… See http://www.EndAdversePossession.org for more details.
Chris,
Thanks for commenting.
I’ve been trying to think of any justification at all for the doctrine of adverse possession. All I can come up with is that it is a solution for parcels of land owned by persons who died long ago, and whose heirs never made a claim to it through the probate process. But these situations are relatively rare and could be dealt with by another method.
This is not a means to steal someone elses land (though like all laws in this country, it is occationally misused for this purpose) adverse possession rewards the person who has maintained the land, Many absentee owners will let the property go to sead and become overgrown etc. If a person maintains that bordering property so that thier own property values dont decline, then they should be rewarded for that effort. That is the reason for the ‘exclusive possession’ clause in the AP law. If the actual owner were there to maintain thier own land, then there would be no adverse claim as the ‘exclusive possession’ criterian would not have been met. It is a very simple law which requires some common sense interpretation. More important than removing the law is that it should be applied with the original intent. Should a city confiiscate an abandoned lot that has a delapidated home, noone cries. Likewise, should a city confiscate property using emminant domain, is that progress or theft.
Does this law affect a home owner’s use of a path leading to said owner’s dock area when the path has been in use for at least 12 years and another owner of the property of about 30 ft., who does not use the land now, says it may not be used by said home owner? Only USE of the path is requested, not posession. There is no other way to access the dock area without driving to it. Is there such a thing as domain for this use.
Thank you for any help you can give me
The purpose of this blog is to discuss legal and economic issues in general terms.
I do not give legal advice on this blog.
You need to contact a real estate lawyer in the locale of your property to obtain usable legal advice.
Look into Corps regs. When you own land adjacent to Corps property you CANNOT restrict access to Corps property. So, if the trail goes through Corps land down to the dock area, you should be able to use it. Call the Corps!
cassy below said this correctly. Your dock no doubt sits on corps property. Another property owner cannot restrict access to any corp property, your dock included. Thats why you pay for a permit. call the corps.
I can’t support your position on adverse possession.
I bought my home with the understanding that a certain fenced path was the property line. The seller, and generations of previous owners on each side of the path believed this to be the case. Recently, after negotiating with my current neighbor to regrade the path, I looked up the deed online. I’m not sure, but I now suspect that 30+ years of property owners have been seriously mistaken about where the property line lies. If the property line is actually where I think may be, my improvements will be on my neighbor’s land, and my property will be so degraded as to be virtually unsaleable.
By adverse possession, the decades-long accepted property line becomes the actual property line. My current neighbor and I both keep the land we thought we were buying when we purchased our homes.
If you require me to transfer “my” land to my neighbor, the 5th owner of the land in 30 years, then they would get valuable land and improvements for no effort. And they would bankrupt me as my land would become virtually unsaleable. (the correct property line might be just a few feet from my back door.)
Without adverse possession, who would I go to for redress? I could sue my seller for fraud, but they meant no harm and they had no reason to believe the property line was in dispute. I have 30 years of past owners of both properties to sue. How can I find which previous owner made the error and put up the path in the wrong place? Many of these past owners cannot be located, and may have died.
The principle of adverse possession is intended to protect these past owners from being sued in their retirement for a measurement error. And it exists to protect me from buying a nice piece of land only to discover that it is actually 20% smaller than 30 years of previous owners believed it was.
If you want to reform adverse possession, then revise it allow the adverse possessor to force the original owner to sell the disputed land to the possessor at some arbitrated purchase price.
Example: I would gladly pay my neighbor for the disputed land, should a survey show the fenced path to be located in error, but I am facing huge risk (unsaleable land) and they are facing none, as they are happy with the current property boundary. They can demand an onerous purchase price at no risk to themselves.
Perhaps you could eliminate adverse possession by mandating that all property be surveyed upon sale, each and every time the property is sold. This would have protected me as a buyer (because upon seeing the true property line I would have refused to buy my the land my home is on). But my seller would have been harmed and would have no clear person to turn to for redress, returning to the original reason adverse possession was created.
Your proposal to simply eliminate adverse possession without any new tool to take its place is simplistic and unworkable.
Ted,
I appreciate your writing to disagree with my position. The title and tone of my post on adverse possession were intended to provoke discussion.
You describe how the doctrine of adverse possession may work for you to keep your neighbor from demanding a high price for the path on your neighbor’s land that serves your property.
From your neighbor’s point of view, the doctrine of adverse possession gives you the opportunity to take land that your neighbor purchased, without compensating your neighbor. You don’t address this result, but discuss only the benefit to you and past owners of both properties, not your current neighbor.
You’re correct that I think that people should obtain surveys before purchasing real estate. I don’t think “it should be mandated” that people obtain surveys, because I think people should be free to take risks that they can evaluate. But I don’t think they should have the doctrine of adverse possession to rescue them at the expense of their neighbors if their judgment was faulty.
Economists (and others) refer to a concept called “moral hazard” in discussing the effect of legal rights or entitlements. If the doctrine of adverse possession insulates people from the risks of failing to ascertain boundaries before buying property, the doctrine of adverse possession provides an incentive for this careless behavior and shifts the risk of error to unsuspecting neighboring property owners.
I have seen many instances of neighbors cooperatively granting easements or making adjustments in boundary lines because of survey errors or other boundary line irregularities, without the necessity for an adverse possession suit or the demand for a high price. Sometimes they actually adjust their property lines so that they both give some land and get some land. The high cost of adverse possession litigation and the reluctance of good neighbors to fight encourages such settlements.
Thanks for writing.
#1: “From your neighbor’s point of view, the doctrine of adverse possession gives you the opportunity to take land that your neighbor purchased, without compensating your neighbor.”
#2: “You don’t address this result, but discuss only the benefit to you and past owners of both properties, not your current neighbor.”
Point #1: This is untrue. From my neighbor’s point of view, he is being told he owns land he never thought he owned.
He paid “X” dollars for the land he currently lives on, and believed this to be a fair trade. If the property line was moved, he would have the value of my improvements, and would have had to pay MORE than “X” to buy the house and land AND my improvements. In fact, both our appraisers valued the land based on the apparent property line. Thus, in many ways he didn’t really pay for the land in dispute.
Point #2: This is also untrue. The fenced path in question continues beyond my property to form a boundary with another neighbor. If the angle is indeed incorrect, my neighbor is encroaching upon the third neighbor’s land in the same way I appear to encroach on his land. Thus the adverse possession law protects my neighbor as well as me.
Point #2 is also irrelevant. There is no requirement that both parties benefit from any given law at the same time.
For example: If you leave property in the bus station for over 30 days, the bus station owns it per law. This does not benefit you in away way, but it is a reasonable law. Similarly, I have seen tenants abandon property (usually cars) worth thousands of dollars – without some law related to the disposition of abandoned property, the landlord would have to store abandoned property for decades in fear that the departed tenant would someday return.
No, from my neighbor’s point of view, it’s as if a man came to your door and said, “Harry Styron? I’m here to tell you that 30 years ago you inherited a small piece of land with a shed in Nebraska. Unfortunately, since you never paid the liens or taxes on the land, if was sold 20 years ago, and is now part of a gas station parking lot. Thank you for your time. Goodbye!”
Ted,
I don’t expect to change your mind!
And you haven’t changed mine.
Here’s why:
According to the rules of evidence which courts in the United States apply, the evidence of what a person thought he bought is presumed to be the legal description in the deed. To overcome this rule of evidence, there would have to be a showing of fraud or mistake. If legal descriptions in recorded documents are subject to the memory of what somebody remembers that they bought, we’ve sacrificed a great deal of certainty. The doctrine of adverse possession erodes this certainty.
Memories change over time. My father-in-law swore that his neighbor encroached with a house over his boundary; when I researched the land records, I found that my father-in-law had conveyed the parcel in question by deed twenty years earlier.
An adverse possession trial is an awful thing. A judge or jury is faced with determining which witnesses are most credible. Witnesses who appear to be self-serving and smug in their testimony are sometimes telling the truth. An honest but timid person may sweat and stammer and appear to be lying. Witnesses appearing under subpoena testify against whichever side forced them to testify. I could go on and on.
Your example of the presumption of abandonment of movable property in a bus station locker doesn’t persuade me. I own rural real estate that at times I may rarely visit. Should I lose it to a squatter? To me, and to the legislatures and courts, personal property is a different thing than real estate for which the courts have created a recording system to give notice of ownership.
The loss of land for failure to pay taxes is also different that adverse possession. The Constitution protects our property from confiscation without due process. The processes established by legislation relating to sale of property for taxes, and for failure to discharge other liens, requires specific kinds of notice at several steps. This is far different than losing property to a squatter without notice through adverse possession.
Mr Styron,
I would like to give a similar example like Ted Larson’s. Bear with me–I am not the orator that he is.
I purchased a property and was told that the fence lines were the boundaries or property lines. The neighbors thought that to be true, also.
I built a garage on said property with normal off sets and got my permits, etc. All is well.
Neighbor decides she wants to use more of my lane so I decide to get a survey to keep the peace. Survey says: Part of my garage is on her property.
She bought her property thinking the fence line was the property line. Three people before her bought and sold that property thinking the same thing.
My property was bought and sold 4 times since 1972 when this fence was put up.
Who’s right?
In Mr Larson’s case it sounds like a lot of money or value maybe lost. In mine she wants $5,000.00 for 500 sq ft of land she did not know she “owned”. What is fair? Who do you go back to to recoup expenses? Can you get anything from attorneys that said they knew the law?
I have been fair my whole life but to have to spend money so I can keep my garage on “my” property is wrong.
Thanks for your input. Neil McGuire
Neil,
The problem here is that you did not get a survey when you bought the property. Had you obtained a survey, you could have required the seller to deal with the neighbor as a condition of your purchase. If the seller would not or could not resolve the dispute, you could negotiate to pay less or simply choose not to buy that property.
The right to sue on the basis of adverse possession may be less valuable than many people realize. Adverse possession suits are bitter, expensive ($5,000 would cover just getting started), and unpredictable in result.
As for whether you can make a claim against a lawyer involved in the sale, it depends what the lawyer represented about the property lines. Lawyers are well aware of the risks that people take when they purchase real estate without surveys, so they generally make sure that they don’t make any warranty about boundaries. Lawyers don’t know where property lines are, so they rely on surveyors.
What people “think” or “remember” about property lines is not reliable. That’s why each state has a recording system for deeds and a system of land survey monuments.
Harry,
I agree the survey would be the right way to go. I have been lucky on 8 other properties. I look for survey stakes to help but these can be moved.
Thanks for your input. Neil McGuire
Do they go by a survey made in 1850 or a new survey made by GPS?
A surveyor can tell you how survey controls work in the area where your property is. The high precision GPS equipment used by surveyors uses control points established by governmental surveys. Sometimes old surveys match; sometimes not.
My family has owned this farm for 168 years. It was surveyed
in the 1850′s. The boundary fence was built in 1907.
New people bought the land on my west side, put there
electric line and driveway accepting the fence as the boundary
line. Then they had a survey done and of course a survey
done in 2010 is different than a survey done in 1850. Now I
have to pay a lawyer $5000.00 to keep a driveway that I and
my family has picked rocks, trimmed limbs, and mowed for at
least 103 years.
To say I disagree this you would be putting it mildly.
Jerry,
Your facts make a strong argument for applying the doctrine of adverse possession, because it seems extraordinarily unfair for you to lose land that your family has possessed for so long and to force you to pay $5,000 or more to defend your title, with no assurance of the outcome.
But how would you feel if you paid good money for land that you didn’t get?
I also agree with you that surveying today, using more refined technology, means that survey results will rarely match old surveys. The new survey may be incorrect, at least partially.
Your situation is unusual, because of the long period that your property has been owned by one family.
My quibble with adverse possession is that it allows people to claim ownership to land belonging to someone else simply by such actions as picking up rocks, mowing and trimming limbs, rather than paying for it, often while somebody else pays the taxes. It’s not always clear who has paid the taxes, though, because the assessor’s parcel maps don’t precisely define boundaries. The expense and unpredictability of the litigation is another big negative.
When the situation has gone on for a century without objection, then the intensity of my objection fades. In Arkansas, it take only seven years to obtain title by adverse possession, and in Missouri the time required is ten years. Some of the unfairness associated with adverse possession would be relieved with a longer time period, such as 20 or 30 years, and a requirement of proof of payment of taxes.
Thanks for writing and good luck.
This topic is of recent interest to me, thanks for posting it.
I agreed with Ted Larson’s post. I am not a lawyer but doesn’t intent matter? Both parties’ actions were a mutual agreement and acceptance of what they thought was the property line. That should count for something.
We have owned bluff view property for 23 years and thought the country club owned the beach below us (very narrow strip)we are required to pay dues for the country club to maintain this beach. Recently, a new owner two lots away from us has stepped forward and they are claiming their lot is “T” shaped and goes along the beach in either direction and then back into our lot by about 25 feet. (25×20 area). Stunning news to us.
The area in question is not very deep and not usable. It is on a cliff that has slid in the past. We have always thought it was ours, maintained it, planted along the cliff to help with erosion and etc. There were markers on it but they were set back from the edge of the cliff and everyone maintained that was because it was too dangerous to go out to the edge of an under-cut cliff. We do not walk out there either. The issue now is that the new owners have informed other neighbors they want to put up a fence to keep people from falling off the cliff. This would be blocking our view and impairing the value of the property severely. The only thing they could do with this property is put up a fence.
I would like to protect the view. This “T” shaped lot has been exempted from the covenants. The assessor has certainly taxed us on the view as comparable houses behind us are a third of the value. Why is that not taken into consideration when considering who has paid the tax? The exact same size parcel without a view is assessed at a lower amount so it seems like that should be a factor when determining if someone was taxed for the land. I don’t totally agree with adverse possession but I can see where it would protect property owners from something like this. Anyone have an opinion or advice?
Chris,
The common law of England included something called the Statute of Frauds, which stated (among other things) that courts will not enforce unwritten agreements relating to real estate. All the states in the US have adopted this rule by statute.
Another rule of law is the “parol evidence rule,” which prevents a court from looking for a document’s meaning outside of the text of the document, unless the document is ambiguous or was obtained by fraud or forgery.
The statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule prevent courts from having to decide cases concerning real estate on the basis of allegations (always contradictory and mostly self-serving) about intent. The best evidence of intent is what was written and signed.
There are narrow exceptions to the statute of frauds and the parol evidence rule, but the existence of these rules and the public land survey and recording systems provide a great deal of certainty with respect to real estate.
Each state has a system of surveys and provides places for recording real estate documents, so buyers and sellers of real estate can determine with considerable certainty who owns what. When buying property, it’s a good idea to look at the public records of ownership of adjacent land to avoid surprises later.
i guess I just watched Congress ignore the Commerce Clause and thought maybe this was a good time to prevent someone from putting a fence in the middle of our view on a million dollar property.
If I understand you, you believe that ownership of your property entitles you to keep somebody from building a fence on their property, just because you have been looking at their property for a long time.
When I’ve been asked to protect the scenic view of one of my clients, I prepare a document (called a scenic easement or view easement). If the parties reach agreement, the document is recorded and prevents construction that would block the view.
One thing i have not seen mentioned through my reading of about half the posts, is that you are required to protect your land. You must protect your land from trespass, and from theft. It has been common amongst laws of the land that if you allow free access to your property for a certain length of time that you can not then deny access to the land in the future. This is the easement ideology. If a property line has been accepted by 30 years of owners, then it has been abandoned by its true owner.
Joel,
Your term “easement ideology” isn’t one that I’m familiar with. But your point about the importance of taking steps to protect your title to your land is a very good one.
In my case my family has owned the land since 1842 by the method of surveying they used at that time. They changed their method of surveying to GPS and all of a sudden I don’t own the land that we have used as a driveway since 1907. I don’t believe this should be legal.
If you and your predecessors have been in continuous possession of the land for a long time, you need to be willing to take steps to protect it. If you haven’t done so already, you should consult with a real estate lawyer in your community to assist you.
The situation that you describe is one of the few that I’m aware of where the doctrine of adverse possession can work toward a just result.
Thanks for this blog. I agree that “adverse possession” is an absurd concept, because it truly is a way for someone to legally steal. That said, the world doesn’t exist in black and white; there are always shades of gray. And, today’s survey’s are much more accurate. I know a case where the woman had a satellite survey and discovered that her neighbors had a building on a bit of her property. She tried to make a big stink about that, but the same survey showed that her driveway and carport were, correspondingly, on land owned by the *next* neighbor over! In other words, it was a domino effect, and a lose-lose for everyone. It made more sense to leave things as they were, for all parties. What in the world can you do about a case like that, to clean up the property lines and legal descriptions for every current owner and every future owner?
It is *so true* that the ultimate responsibility lies with each new possessor of a piece of property–even if it has been understood by a family to be in the family for over a century. We were wrongly advised by our realtors about surveys; they said it wasn’t necessary, but after we purchased, we discovered some covenents that we were unaware of, that were not disclosed at the point of sale. This occured in 1992. As a result, the living room of the house was technically too close to the property lines, and we built a shop that was in violation of the covenent–that’s how we found out about it. After watching us build the shop, our neighbors who were aware of the covenant said *nothing* until we’d completed the building! I asked them, “Why are you just now bringing this up if you have a concern about it?” We sought legal advice. We were concerned about the future re-sale of the property and if this situation would cause any problems in selling. The attorne was pushing us toward suing the real estate agent for telling us that a survey wasn’t necessary (we were first time buyers and very naive.) But we decided to drop that when the attorney pointed out that this was not a maintained sub-division, there was no neighbor complaning OR damaged, and no property rights association to enforce the covenent, so it was basically unenforcable. Our attorney said “there probably isn’t a judge in Arkansas” who would make us remove our living room or shop to be in compliance with the covenant. So with no one damaged, we let it drop.
We should have gotten a survey. If I buy property in the future, I will do that! But in getting a survey, that knowledge and clarity may come with a price; just look at Neil McGuire’s case. Might be better to let his neighbor just use the lane in exchange for him keeping his building where it is. That would be a win-win in a bad situation.
In my situation, in NW Arkansas, we have another issue with a neighbor using a private road that borders their 3 acre lot, a road to which they have no legal deeded access. That lot was sub-divided off from a 7 acre parcel adjacent to ours about 6 months after we bought our place, and that 7 acres did not have deeded access to the private road that we and others use to access our parcels. These new neighbors started using the private road almost immediately for their own convenience, though they have deeded access to the main road and they have no real need for the use of the private road. I told them they did not have access, and that we wanted them to stop using it because the way they were using it would erode the private road, but they continued to use it. My husband at the time and the other neighbors with deeded access to the private road were too wimpy to stand up against this thieving use and so, the situation has gone on for about 18 years. I was right: their use of the road has eroded it starting at the point of their access on it, and there are now ruts in what was formerly a fine access road. Yet…they will do nothing to maintain it. If we want this fixed, we’re faced with the full cost of repair.
These people have reportedly said that they have adverse possession, but they have not gone to court to claim such, so it’s my understanding that they technically do NOT have adverse possession; they just think they have a good case. But according to legal advice I sought a few months ago, in a court, it could go either way, because they abandoned their property and use of the road for over 6 months at one point about 7 years ago. Also, it’s my understanding that whether or not they attain adverse possession, any of us who have deeded access to the road can sue them under tort law for damaging the road and require them to repair and/or pay damages.
But, what a mess! Expensive legal fees, harder feelings than we already have, with *neighbors.* I think these people are selfish, self-centered, and very very poor neighbors. It will cost us much less money to simply suck it up and repair the road on our own and we might get a better outcome, in terms of the condition of the road. But for us to be put into this position due to the greediness and selfishness of “neighbors” is absolutely wrong, in my opinion. I wish there were a better way to resolve this, because any way we look at it, we’re going to lose money and time and yes, even pride, by letting these people continue to use a road that only *we* keep up. I wonder if any of the defenders of adverse possession who have already posted here would think that this was right if it were to happen to them?
Harry Styron
I agree with you. I have the same problem with my neighbor. He is claiming that 20′ x 108′ section of my property is his its CRP land. I got a survey done a year after I purchased the land and it agrees with my deed. The fence was built years before both parties bought the land. In the time I was getting the survey, he bulldozed the trees on my property. There is no such deed that says he owns or aquired the property.
I gathered all the materials I needed to prove that that land is mine and he got a lawyer, and I got one along with another neighbor because he added on to the old fence a new fence that went right up against both of our garage that is well within our boundaries. I mean like 16 inches from our buildings. Then there was cease and desist orders from both parties. Now he is still going on my side of the survey line with equipment. With the desist order still active. Any advise if any.
Perry,
I don’t give legal advice except to my clients.
For you and other readers, please do not put facts about your situations on this blog. Most people with legal issues need to have confidential communications with lawyers in their communities. Things that you post in comments can be searched through Google or another search engine and used against you.
Hi,
I own a couple pieces of vacant land in Mo. and Ar. If I regularly visit the land to check on it (lets say once a year) to make sure no squatters are occupying or using it and to make sure no one is using it in any way, and as long as the property boundaries on the deed (plat or survey) are correct, do you think that is sufficient to prevent adverse possesion and/orsquatting on it?
I don’t think visiting once or twice a year is sufficient to be sure that others aren’t using your land in ways that could be a basis for adverse possession. Somebody could be putting cattle on the property, cutting hay, hunting, or other activities that you might miss.
Whether your property boundaries are “correct” at any particular time is somewhat irrelevant to adverse possession. Your neighbor may obtain a new survey that disagrees with yours. I’ve never seen an adverse possession case in which each party wasn’t absolutely certain of the the correct location of his boundary lines.
I have a handicapped older brother that since my parents died I have assumed responsibility for. He lives in a small home in Oklahoma and been there almost 34 years, living peacefully without intervention except handling SS, property taxes, ect. . Before mothers passing, she had deeded it to both my brother and I, and survey was indeed done when my parents purchased this property 39 sum years ago. This property has accepted property lines that have passed through the hands of many since 1914 and the day’s of “Stone Easements” which most attorneys today have never even heard of. The same can be said about the properties surrounding ours. They too have accepted property lines that were understood when all parties purchased their perspective properties. A neighbor who has occupied an adjacent property for 7 years, and for 7 of those years has accepted what everyone else had is now verbally contesting this property line and has threatened to remove a fence that was in place long before he was a stain in his mothers nickers. This fence goes back to the turn of the century. I am simply wanting to 5 strand barb wire the back of our property on “accepted” property lines to prevent these adult misfits of society from persecuting this 54 year old handicapped man who has lived a peaceful life in that small town longer than most of it’s current residents but that’s another story. Bottom line, to protect him, I have had to install a fairly elaborate video surveillance to catch the thieves and the ones who like to do things like throw dead animals in his yard amongst other things we have found not suitable for this forum. I NEED a visual boundary and have it posted , I want the property fenced with posted no trespassing signs on all corners, and fully intend to do so. I plan on connecting the area sides to the long accepted already in place fence that’s been there forever. (At least since 1914) Any reason why I cant simply “connect the accepted dots”?