Log in

View Full Version : Couple loses land to squatter's rights law


RACER X
10-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Couple loses land to squatter's rights law
By JIM DINO (Staff Writer)
Published: October 5, 2009

http://www.standardspeaker.com/news/...r_s_rights_law

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."




That indeed, would piss me off pretty badly. I would have been just as pissed at myself for not being fully educated about the whole thing but I would definitely be very confrontational to the people who filed the claim. They would have to regret every bit of that 55% for many years.

CrazyKell
10-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Weird because from this article it sounds like you have to have permission to use the land. So if they'd gone to trial couldn't they have argued that there was, in fact, no permission. :scratch:

Sucks that people can use antiquated laws for unethical purposes. :(

shmike
10-06-2009, 01:25 PM
Weird because from this article it sounds like you have to have permission to use the land. So if they'd gone to trial couldn't they have argued that there was, in fact, no permission. :scratch:

Sucks that people can use antiquated laws for unethical purposes. :(

That's not how I read it.

You don't have to have permission at all. It is basically implied UNLESS the rightful owner takes proactive legal measures.

Rider
10-06-2009, 01:31 PM
My wife's grandfather just died and he has a plot of land that no one in the family has ever seen. He for sure hadn't been up there in many years because he has spent the last 10 or so years in a convalescent hospital. I hope my in-laws don't have to go through something like that. It would suck to have to give up your land just because you haven't been there in a while.

CrazyKell
10-06-2009, 01:33 PM
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."

...

"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."

.

I read that first part incorrectly. But by not even going to see what was going on with their land (for 21 years) they were essentially permitting someone to use their land.

I don't agree with it. :(

CasterTroy
10-06-2009, 01:34 PM
Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

shmike
10-06-2009, 01:36 PM
Ironically, if someone was looking to sue because their kid got injured on the property, I'm sure all fingers would immediately point to the owners on the deed.

goof2
10-06-2009, 02:04 PM
If the previous owners had given permission for the "squatters" to use the land the "squatters" would have had no claim.

If you do own land, even if it is far away, go check it every once in a while. If someone is on it take legal action to boot them off. It is only as easy to do this as the landowners allow.

unknownroad
10-06-2009, 02:54 PM
Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

Well, short of a massive timber operation or factory farm, no one can really squat hundreds of acres... Altho it'd be funny to find a big subdivision there :doh:

There's lots of nice land just going to waste out here... but i think in SC it's legal to shoot squatters, so i had to buy my own like a sucker.

101lifts2
10-06-2009, 04:06 PM
Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

ontwo
10-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Yeah, that's the law in Alabama. Sucks. As stated before, check your land every now and then. My grandfather died in 02. He has 80 acres in a neighboring county. My dad and uncle went to check it out the other day, and a hunting club had been set up on it.

Fuckin people have no respect

Trip
10-06-2009, 04:14 PM
Thats why you will see a lot of no trespassing signs on large parcels. If you got a large parcel of land that's hard to patrol, put them up on the boundary. This will help you in court to prove that it was hostile use of the land and not visible.

Put them high up in trees that you need a ladder to get to, so it's not so easy for someone to take down either.

ontwo
10-06-2009, 04:25 PM
Good point

Papa_Complex
10-07-2009, 08:09 AM
Rather hard way to learn who your real friends AREN'T, I would say.

Dave
10-07-2009, 08:44 AM
Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

pot farm, bring guns

z06boy
10-07-2009, 09:05 AM
Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

NC mountains ? Humm....exactly where is this land ? :whistle: :dvrofl:


Seriously though...that is one screwed up law. I agree that if the land can be considered property of the squatters then they should have to at least reimburse all of the taxes paid by the owner that got screwed out of the land.

Papa_Complex
10-07-2009, 09:11 AM
I wonder how many places still have homesteaders' laws in place?

goof2
10-07-2009, 09:37 AM
I wonder how many places still have homesteaders' laws in place?

This is adverse possession and is different from homesteaders laws. I'm pretty sure most states still have laws allowing adverse possession.

Adeptus_Minor
10-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Kinda puts the cranky old southern gentleman waving his shotgun and saying "Get off my property!" in perspective, doesn't it?

z06boy
10-07-2009, 10:12 AM
Kinda puts the cranky old southern gentleman waving his shotgun and saying "Get off my property!" in perspective, doesn't it?

Damn right !! Oh wait...you said shotgun. :lol:

http://www.coachwyatt.com/Redneck.jpg

derf
10-08-2009, 02:59 AM
Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

Damn! I got some land in SC from my grandfather when he passed earlier in the year. I may need to take a trip down there soon. Taxes are only a few hundred a year so I figured I could just keep it and not worry about it.

but yeh that couple does deserve to at least be reimbursed for the taxes they paid.

Papa_Complex
10-08-2009, 06:28 AM
This is adverse possession and is different from homesteaders laws. I'm pretty sure most states still have laws allowing adverse possession.

My mistake on terminology. In checking it appears that, where homestead law used to be something that permitted settlement of untenanted land, it now involves putting a stop to forced sale in order to satisfy debts when one spouse dies. Interesting.

I was thinking about all of those open tracts of land in places like Montana and Arizona where old settlement laws may still be in force, that would see people losing land that might have been in their families for generations.

goof2
10-08-2009, 08:50 AM
My mistake on terminology. In checking it appears that, where homestead law used to be something that permitted settlement of untenanted land, it now involves putting a stop to forced sale in order to satisfy debts when one spouse dies. Interesting.

I was thinking about all of those open tracts of land in places like Montana and Arizona where old settlement laws may still be in force, that would see people losing land that might have been in their families for generations.

Homesteaders laws usually don't apply if the land is already privately owned. Adverse possession laws enable privately owned land to transfer, but require a longer "possession" period. The large tracts you speak of could transfer, but it would require someone continuously using a large portion of the land for a long time. Someone couldn't just come in, put a small shed in one corner to live in, and take the whole lot. It isn't particularly easy to take hundreds or thousands of acres.

Papa_Complex
10-08-2009, 09:00 AM
Homesteaders laws usually don't apply if the land is already privately owned. Adverse possession laws enable privately owned land to transfer, but require a longer "possession" period. The large tracts you speak of could transfer, but it would require someone continuously using a large portion of the land for a long time. Someone couldn't just come in, put a small shed in one corner to live in, and take the whole lot. It isn't particularly easy to take hundreds or thousands of acres.

Actually if you do a search, as I stated it appears that the term "homesteader law" has been co-opted to now mean a group of laws that are intended to help a spouse retain ownership of a home, rather than it being foreclosed upon and sold off to satisfy debts, when the spouse who is the owner of record dies.

Certainly not but nice parcels along a river, for example, could start to be taken. It would piss me off no end to find out that the best sections of land that I owned had essentially been stolen by someone.

goof2
10-08-2009, 10:43 AM
Actually if you do a search, as I stated it appears that the term "homesteader law" has been co-opted to now mean a group of laws that are intended to help a spouse retain ownership of a home, rather than it being foreclosed upon and sold off to satisfy debts, when the spouse who is the owner of record dies.

It is innacurate, but people definately use the term that way. The accurate term is (if I remember) a homestead exemption. There are all kinds of exemptions (tools, clothing, vehicle, etc.) and exemption ammounts depending on the state. It is the reason why OJ Simpson still has his house in Florida.

Certainly not but nice parcels along a river, for example, could start to be taken. It would piss me off no end to find out that the best sections of land that I owned had essentially been stolen by someone.

I agree, but the logic is if you can't take the affirmative step of checking that land once every 20 years, while someone else has done something beneficial with it for a long period of time, they deserve it more than you.:idk:

Papa_Complex
10-08-2009, 11:05 AM
I would say that no one deserves the land more than the person who paid for it, and paid taxes on it. More than once I considered buying a parcel of land in New Brunswick, to build a little house and retire on eventually. I wouldn't be pleased if I got there and found out that someone had beat me to it, on my own land.

karl_1052
10-08-2009, 01:09 PM
Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

and the value of the land

Smittie61984
10-08-2009, 11:55 PM
Sounds like a time to bring back some old fashioned deul for the land.