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.
Sounds ridiculous to me. At the very least they should have to pay money for it. And back money for all the years they claimed they used it.
I have to say if something like that happened to me I would probably spend a lot of time figuring out how I could make them wish they didn't do it. In a legal manner of course.
Awhile back there was a story of a California man who found ILLEGALS living on some bare wasteland he owned.
He contacted the county sheriff and was told they would not do anything about it because it was too low of a priority.
He then received a notice from the county health dept stating they were notified that he had people living on his property and they had no bathrooms or proper sanitation.
Health dept didn't care that he didn't give permission and count sheriff didn't care either.
caught between a rock and a hard place right here in the USA
Yes, there are private property rights. But in some cases, people can give up or modify those rights.
What is happening in your case, is that it is possible that the various neighbors have created easements onto the property in question. The owner has permitted people to encroach on her land. In some states, if this is done for for a period of many years, those people create permanent easements to the property. They can even demand possession of those parts of the land in some states.
I believe some of the actual wording is doing it " openly and notoriously". In other words, the owner knows about it but does nothing to stop it or has invited the situation to be created.
Now, if the owner knows about and has continually sought to stop it, then the law would be on the owner's side. In your case, the owner has created the problem, she's been happily giving up her private property rights. The people using the land, in your situation, are not squatting, they are there by invitation.
I would discuss this situation with a good real estate attorney. Mortgage issues aside, you want to make sure whatever agreements or paperwork the people using the property might sign are legal and enforceable in a court of law. Also make sure they are recorded in your local land use records' office.
The correct term is not squatters' rights but adverse possession or easement by prescription. It's recognized in all fifty states, has been approximately forever, although the time needed to establish it can vary.
In order to establish title by adverse possession the possession must be open, notorious, hostile, and under a claim of right.
In your situation each possible instance was with permission, or, in other words, not hostile or under a claim of right. Getting the waivers is protection not only for the bank but also for you and any future purchaser.
You don't have to like the fact that it's the law, but it's rare that a claim of adverse possession is successful. The bank is just being careful before putting its money at risk. You should be glad they caught it.
As long as the lady gave permission, they won't qualify.
However, let's say she didn't give permission. Then, they would have to be using her property for continiously and uninterrupted number of years. The years depends on the state. Some states can be 20 or 15 years, or 10 or 5 years, etc.
If a neighbor said they used the land without her permission, if they didn't do it continuously for the required number of years, then they would be able to take quiet title. Quiet title is a lawsuit where the neighbor would claim they used the land and want to take title for it per the state law. I doubt those neighbors lived there that long if they are like the average American neighbor that moves every 5 years. Besides, she gave them permission which means they don't meet the requirements anyway.
Last edited by sware2cod; 01-04-2014 at 03:05 PM..
Sounds ridiculous to me. At the very least they should have to pay money for it. And back money for all the years they claimed they used it.
According to the OP they did pay for the rights to used the land. They paid by what is known as In Kind. The paid by supplying services the original owner needed, for the use of the land. This is as good and legal as paying money for the rights. She got things she needed without having to put up money, and in return they got to use the land. They were not using it as squatters but were providing services to her to use part of her land. To make it easier to understand, they were renting the right to use the land using services as payment instead of cash.
This is a very common thing in the real estate world. What the bank wants, is proof the use of the land is no longer committed to those people, and the title to the property is clear. In some states, it would not be a cloud on the title and a new owner could stop it at any time. In others those using the land, may or may not have long term or permanent use of the land. What the bank is asking is a normal thing for cleaning up a title. No bank will lend on a property with a cloud like this on the title.
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.
Meanwhile, in the insane asylum known as "England"...
