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.
I can't think of any good argument for allowing squatters to have a claim to someone else's property if they get away with using it for a given amount of time. How could anyone be in favor of this? Genuinely curious.
I can't think of any good argument for allowing squatters to have a claim to someone else's property...
How could anyone be in favor of this? Genuinely curious.
It's about abandonment and waste neither of which benefit the County.
Having well established protocols avoids other fights.
I can't think of any good argument for allowing squatters to have a claim to someone else's property if they get away with using it for a given amount of time. How could anyone be in favor of this? Genuinely curious.
It's something of a dated concept. It comes from a time when the thought was that all land should be used for the purpose that most furthers industrial development - or at least doesn't allow it to "go to seed." It was a value judgment from a time where the world isn't as small as it is now, where if someone owned a piece of land but made absolutely no productive use of it - didn't live on it, didn't farm it, didn't build a factory on it, nothing - then society was better off giving rights to someone who would "make productive use" of that land.
Again, I think it is a dated concept because now we see the value in undeveloped land, but that was the policy principle when the idea of adverse possession was developed. I have no way to know for sure but with as small as the world has become and the changes that have come I expect rights by adverse possession don't occur very often these days.
Yes, abandonment of homes and commercial buildings creates a real problem for cities and its increasing in our times, people loose their home and just pack up and leave, the bank or financial institution that owns it may be 1000s of miles away from the property, so its not likely they are going to keep up with maintenance.
As long as someone is maintaining the property, the city is happy I imagine, the time limit is also an incentive to keep property maintained.
I have no idea how often a squatter legally becomes the owner, probably happens more than we think! There are quite a few hoops they have to jump thru, in order to come out as the legal owner, free and clear, its not an easy thing to do.
I can't think of any good argument for allowing squatters to have a claim to someone else's property if they get away with using it for a given amount of time. How could anyone be in favor of this? Genuinely curious.
I can't think of one either. I can't imagine how anyone who owns anything could be in favor of this.it's ridiculous at best.
If they have an indirect I test or vesting in the tutle
If the squatter has an indirect interest in the property or anyone who had any interest in the property gave them access or permission.
For instance what if the properyy belonged to a family member before the transfer or even a friend?
What if a legitimate person gave them access? What if the previous occupant gave them access but then moved out. They may be a tenant at sufferance.
Now if they simply gained access without any legitimate person granting hem access then they are squatters. This is highly unlikely though. Most squatters occupied the property by some semi legitimate means.
I can't think of any good argument for allowing squatters to have a claim to someone else's property if they get away with using it for a given amount of time. How could anyone be in favor of this? Genuinely curious.
My understanding is that the argument is that lots of land was given away to a small group of people a long time ago.
And now that small group is using that land that was given to them to get rich from other people's necessity to have a place where to live.
I was thinking more of a worldwide thing, not just local
Adverse possession is very much alive and well in the West. It isn't about "squatters." It's about owners who don't care enough about their property even to check up on it.
Adverse possession must be (1) "open and notorious," meaning the owner couldn't miss it if he bothered to look; (2) "hostile," meaning without the permission of the owner; and (3) uninterrupted for a very considerable period of time - generally ten years, which may be shortened if the adverse possessor pays the property taxes.
Adverse possession encourages responsible ownership and the productive use of property. You have to be a really, really negligent owner to lose your property to adverse possession.
The same concept and elements apply to prescriptive easements, which are the right to pass across someone else's land (by foot or vehicle or whatever right has been established by long use).
In all cases, no adverse possession or prescriptive easement exists until a court agrees the elements have been satisfied.
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.
If they have an indirect I test or vesting in the tutle
