Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A large majority of people know nothing about real estate or property for that matter. Your average home buyer only cares about the house.
Then I don't feel sorry when they get ripped off. There is a plethora of information easily accessible to make educated choices. Before spending money, people should check on all things for their own benefits. That's the way smart buyers do. It doesn't matter if that's a car, house, land or any other monetary investment.
The "majority of people" don't need to know much about Real Estate, and that's OK, as long they hire knowledgeable people who can give them proper advice.
I think adverse possession probably served a legitimate, useful purpose back in the times when it was first devised, but nowadays it serves no valid purpose and should be eliminated.
Adverse possession is harder to make stick than most people think. Legally and officially becoming the "owner" of the land is very difficult. I work in the utility industry. If you build something on utility ROW, it doesn't matter how long it's there; if the utility wants it gone, it's coming down. Same for private land. In most cases, if the true land owner wants the squatter gone, it will eventually happen.
The problem is with tenant/landlord laws. They were originally written with good intentions to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords, but they can be taken advantage of. It takes very little for someone to "prove" they are a tenant, even if no money has ever changed hands, and once they do so the "landlord" must jump through all sorts of legal loops to force an "eviction". Sometimes it's just cheaper to let the squatter stay than pay to force them out and suffer the bad publicity.
As for public right-of-way, the path-to-sidewalk mentioned seems like an extreme case. I'd like to see something official instead of hearsay.
There's actually a public right-of-way case ongoing here locally. A local mountain has long been popular for off-roading. Most of the land was owned by timber companies and government agencies, with a few private land owners. As long as you didn't cut any trees or damage the power lines they didn't care what you did. Off-roading was trespassing and illegal, but no one cared, no one enforced anything, and the level of environmental damage was extreme (search for "Aetna off road" on youtube). There has long been a road going up and over the mountain (marked on old USGS maps), but if you look at property maps there was never an official ROW. The east side of the mountain is in one county and the eastern time zone; the west side of the mountain is in a different county and the central time zone.
Then two things happened; a developer built a high-end golf-course subdivision at the eastern road up the mountain, and the timber company sold the land to an investor on the western end. The new owners of the half-million dollar houses didn't want the smelly rednecks roaring through and muddying up their streets, so they built a gate to block access. The rednecks promptly tore it down. In the ensuing civil court battle (developer suing for property damage, rednecks and property owners suing for blocking a public ROW), the courts made the rednecks pay for the gate and also decided that the road was "public" in that particular county so the developer couldn't block it.
On the other side in the other county, the investment company leased the land to a large hunting club, and rightfully was able to stop offroading on that particular land. But they also decided that, other than the one road used to access the few private property parcels and an old cemetery, the roads through their property were private. More gates were built blocking access to the government-owned and conservation land (including a public Wildlife Management Area... the hunters wanted private access to hunt on this public land). These guys have guns, so no one tore those gates down. There is a current civil court-case pending.
This is why in most of the country today, they have title insurance. The Title Company checks the records, and issues a Title Commitment (meaning they will insure the title is good) and issue the Title Insurance Policy when the property closes. This does not mean that property other than in the legal description is insured. Much better and safer than an Abstract of Title, as it has the insurance that backs up the title.
Plus, survey work is not cheap, who is going to pay for an expensive service for something they do not own yet?
After the contract is signed, a survey that you pay for is needed just like an inspection is. If you are not willing to pay to make sure what you are buying is what you think you are buying is very foolish. It is just protecting yourself. The one exception is, if you buy say a 160 acre parcel, with a public road on all four sides, and your legal description says it is bordered by those 4 roads.
I have seen too many people that bought a lot, or larger parcel, and found they did not own what they thought they did. Sometimes it can get very expensive to fix a problem a survey would reveal. Example, a couple bought a house and wanted to save money and did not have a survey. It was not my client. When the need for a survey came up, they found the western line ran not 15 feet from the house, but right through the middle of the house. My son owns a commercial property on the Oregon Coast with the coastal highway separating him from the bay. He had a woman next door that had bought that house, and she needed a new sewer line. Found out the sewer line ran through his property including under his building. He refused to let her rebuild the line, and run the line down the property line between them and overall it was a longer sewer run. Also found that her car port was 6 feet over the line on his side. She had to redo the carport from a 2 car one, to a 1 car one. She hollered adverse possession, but adverse possession does not come into play, until it is known there is a problem, and then run it's course. She had not owned the property long enough to get adverse possession anyway which both their lawyers explained to them.
It'll vary state by state. Here in California, for instance, you need to pay taxes on the property. Colorado didn't have that requirement, so what would generally amount to an easement by prescription in CA turns into ownership of fee title in CO. Under the current law, the claimant would have to pay the value of the property as well as back taxes for the take as well.
That said, IIRC, that case was appealed and settled due to mounting court costs, and likely would have been overturned and an access easement granted over the portion in question had the parties not adhered to an earlier offer to sell.
Then I don't feel sorry when they get ripped off. There is a plethora of information easily accessible to make educated choices. Before spending money, people should check on all things for their own benefits. That's the way smart buyers do. It doesn't matter if that's a car, house, land or any other monetary investment.
The "majority of people" don't need to know much about Real Estate, and that's OK, as long they hire knowledgeable people who can give them proper advice.
As much as I liked your first post (even rep'd you), I have issues with this one.
While I get it, be a responsible property owner... many people are not legal wizards or know to be aware of people taking their property. They just want to have a house or a few acres for other purposes. You seem pretty callous towards them.
I like the theory of Adverse Possession, but as a practical matter I'd like to see it very narrowly defined and equally difficult to prove to protect the innocent from, essentially, thieves.
Thank you for the rep
If someone buys few acres, they should ask for the property boundaries (if not fenced), but even then make sure the fences are in a proper place. For me that's a common sense. You buy a house AND the land. You pay for the land, so make sure you have all of it. Obtaining a Surveyors Real Property Report may be the most important thing you do before you close the deal on any purchase. Without a survey, you may not know the extent of your property.
When people get a Realtor, he/she should make sure all surveys and paperwork is done. If someone buys privately - they should know what they are doing. Most people know how to use Internet. There is a ton of info about what to do when buying something. So, yes - my comment might be a little harsh, but so is life.
Quote:
I like the theory of Adverse Possession, but as a practical matter I'd like to see it very narrowly defined and equally difficult to prove to protect the innocent from, essentially, thieves.
I think adverse possession is a bad law. I also think eminent domain is a bad law, when used for private developers to do things like build strip malls.
I don't think people should have to worry about losing their property.
And I don't think that people who ride their dirt bikes on land they know isn't theirs, should get to continue to do so after the owners of that land don't want them to do it anymore. That was ridiculous. Let them get together and buy some land and start a club.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
