Adverse possession

NoQuarter

Just looking at this topic now and i have to say, it strikes me as quite strange or harsh to be more precise! I understand that the justification seems to be that there is no point in land jst sitting there, it may aswell be acquiring some value but it still seems quite harsh!

On a practical level, would it be possible that there there are people out there taking deliberate advantage of this doctrine as in scouring their area for possible sites to claim as their own (assuming all goes well on their part as in the paper owner doesnt show up etc...).

As it happens i can think of a number of small plots of land being used for nothing around my immediate area (unfortunatly not directly beside my own house though!) but is it possible for someone living beside one of them to simply extend their garden into the unused space???

Anybody any other points to raise??

Victor

king-stew wrote: »

but is it possible for someone living beside one of them to simply extend their garden into the unused space???

Such actions usually bring a reaction from the true owner.

Carawaystick

think about the case of non real property - if someone drove your car and prevented you from using it for 12 years and you took no steps to reclaim your property, wouldn't you feel a tit.

obviously if the car was something that held some value after 12 years - like a buggatti, rr phantom or such - a de Lorean may age differently depending on the speed at which it is driven......

NoQuarter

Of course i agree that it would be hard to get away with but its possible in some cases! As i mentioned already there are some houses where i live which have wasteland at the back of them thats hidden away for the most part so it could be possible there!

The ironic thing is that the courts actually require you to have the intention to oust the true owner for your own gain, it all just seems....well....wrong!

silverside

of course its possible - think of the Pat Kenny case - which was settled out of court if i remember correctly - but if you have a hard neck and dont mind bad relations with your neighbour(s) it might be worthwhile.

maidhc

king-stew wrote: »

The ironic thing is that the courts actually require you to have the intention to oust the true owner for your own gain, it all just seems....well....wrong!

Why?

If there is wasteland that is unused, then there is nothing wrong with a legal doctrine which promotes efficient use of a scarce resource. If the true owner sits on his hands for 12 years then he gets what he deserves.

However some people have felt so stong about this that they have challenged the doctrine of adverse posession in the European Court of Human Rights.

In reality the main use for AP has been to perfect title to farmland where probate was never taken out and one child de facto took over the property and farmed it for many years.

cotwold

king-stew wrote: »

The ironic thing is that the courts actually require you to have the intention to oust the true owner for your own gain, it all just seems....well....wrong!

Well you have to look at the basis Adverse possesion, its essentially there to prevent land from becoming unmarketable and ensure certainty of title. The statute of limitation's 12 years is plenty of time for any right minded person to know whats going on on their property and take actions to prevent it.

maidhc wrote: »

If the true owner sits on his hands for 12 years then he gets what he deserves.

I agree.

maidhc wrote: »

However some people have felt so stong about this that they have challenged the doctrine of adverse posession in the European Court of Human Rights.

And lost 10 to 7 if my memory serves me right.

NUTLEY BOY

In rough terms, adverse possession turns on the principle of using it losing it !!

keithogixer

It's not as simple as walking in and 12 years later sticking a flag into the ground and claiming it's yours. The land must adversely dispossesd from the owner. In other words, the owner knows someone is on his land, secondly he tried to remove him/her at some stage to no avail. No land can be claimed Promiscously for obvious reasons.

No person can just walk on to a plot and claim adverse possession. See Murphy v Murphy.

Keitho...