Squatters rights

ccopti

Does anyone know if it is expensive to claim land through squatters rights?

Procrastastudy

Well AFAIK you dont tend claim it; you state its yours and then defend that claim when the land owner tries to kick you off.

You should be aware its pretty hard to defend a claim of AP. All the paper owner has to do is look over the hedge a couple of times a year.

As always I don;t really know my arse from my elbow on this so take it at that value.

EDIT: Something pops into my head that if you did try and claim it you'd have an issue with acknowleding it wasn't yours - which I think is an issue with animus possideni or what ever its called... I really need to learn this better :pac:

NoQuarter

ccopti wrote: »

Does anyone know if it is expensive to claim land through squatters rights?

Its free(sih) money-wise but very expensive on time. You need to move onto the land for 12 years and claim it as your own for all that time. If the owner is checking in from time to time you have no chance.

I say its freeish money wise because it is wise to go to some expense making the place your own through decorating or gardening etc etc. Shows you intended to stay there and have it yours.

ccopti

Thanks. the land has been used by ourselves for approx the last 16 years. The owner emigrated and never returned.

chops018

For a successful claim of adverse possession there has to be certain elements present:

- You must be in possession of the land.
- This possession must be adverse (to the owner, you can't recognise the owner).
- Discontinuance or dispossession, this means that the alleged possessor must have discontinued the use and enjoyment of the land from the owner.
- Animus Possidendi, which is somewhat a mental element; an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all others; fencing off the land etc. can sometimes show this element. This element was very controversial and used to be extremely hard to prove and was developed from a body of case law, the latest (I think) was Dunne .v. Irish Rail.

Oh and, be in possession of the land for 12 years or more.

Edit: this isn't legal advice, just my academic understanding of the law relating to adverse possession, seek a solicitor if you are involved in any dispute about any land.

Procrastastudy

Prior to Durack how did anyone ever clain AP of a house if they were using it as a residence? Surely they didn't meet the requirement to be using the land in an inconsistant manner with the paper owner's future use.

So that this isn't a complete hijack - if you're sure you have AP, OP and you are just looking to register the land as opposed to claimit you can do that by virtue of the Act.

ccopti

thanks for the info. do you know if we need to obtain copy original deeds? I presume this is a legal case. There doesn't seem to be anything on the net as to the procedure or process we need to follow.

Procrastastudy

ccopti wrote: »

Thanks. the land has been used by ourselves for approx the last 16 years. The owner emigrated and never returned.

Does than land belong to someone in America?

repsol

ccopti wrote: »

Thanks. the land has been used by ourselves for approx the last 16 years. The owner emigrated and never returned.

So basically,you have had someone else property rent free for 16 years and now you want advice on how to permanently relieve the owner of it? Nice.

srsly78

It IS nice. These laws exist for a reason: not to have potentially good land sitting around idle forever.

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Prior to Durack how did anyone ever clain AP of a house if they were using it as a residence? Surely they didn't meet the requirement to be using the land in an inconsistant manner with the paper owner's future use.

So that this isn't a complete hijack - if you're sure you have AP, OP and you are just looking to register the land as opposed to claimit you can do that by virtue of the Act.

They had to be using the land in a way which was inconsistent to the owner's future use.. it used to come up a lot where the council would acquire land for a future use e.g. making that land into a road etc. and it might not be touched for years, there was a case (can't remember the name) where a mechanic used to park cars on such land, he then got it tarmacadamed and fenced etc. but it was held that it was not inconsistent with the owner's future intended use and so his claim failed. Very harsh, the law in Ireland was in a bit of disarray for a while as I think there was a case decided in 1989 but not reported till 1995 and in the mean time another case done away with the future intended use and so the courts weren't fully sure what to follow.

Can't remember the case names and the above is just off the top of my head. Great topic though.

Procrastastudy

repsol wrote: »

So basically,you have had someone else property rent free for 16 years and now you want advice on how to permanently relieve the owner of it? Nice.

Everyone from John Lock to my cat has a view on AP - good or bad it's here so might I suggest if you want a discusiion on the merits you start a new thread. There's as much for it as a good thing as a bad thing.

ccopti

Person headed to england first and then on to the states. Haven't heard from him in about 10 years. We have fenced land, drained land, maintained land and now we think we are entitled to title so yes, we want to relieve the owner of it. it the country code.

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

They had to be using the land in a way which was inconsistent to the owner's future use.. it used to come up a lot where the council would acquire land for a future use e.g. making that land into a road etc. and it might not be touched for years, there was a case (can't remember the name) where a mechanic used to park cars on such land, he then got it tarmacadamed and fenced etc. but it was held that it was not inconsistent with the owner's future intended use and so his claim failed. Very harsh, the law in Ireland was in a bit of disarray for a while as I think there was a case decided in 1989 but not reported till 1995 and in the mean time another case done away with the future intended use and so the courts weren't fully sure what to follow.

Can't remember the case names and the above is just off the top of my head. Great topic though.

Aye - great that a delay in reporting can cause that much crap lol! It was Durack and the delayed reporting one was Cort Corp v Lynch. I think the thing I misunderstood was future use. You nudged me in the right direction though

Procrastastudy

ccopti wrote: »

Person headed to england first and then on to the states. Haven't heard from him in about 10 years. We have fenced land, drained land, maintained land and now we think we are entitled to title so yes, we want to relieve the owner of it. it the country code.

I've less than a semester of Land Law under my belt and I can tell you this much. You want to go and get legal advice - even some of the things you have said here could potentially be damaging to your case. (again I might be talking out of my arse) but it does seem that the cases show a hard look at intentions and knowledge etc.

See a solicitor.

repsol

srsly78 wrote: »

It IS nice. These laws exist for a reason: not to have potentially good land sitting around idle forever.

I was under the impression that we had a property market for that. You know, PAY for land.Squatters are parasites.

chops018

I'm nearly sure I read a case where the claimant said something like he thought the owner was "somewhere in America", and this damaged his claim. Not 100% sure, does anyone remember it or was it even an AP case?

daveyeh

repsol wrote: »

Squatters are parasites.

What a humanitarian. :pac:

Take a bow o charitable one.

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

I'm nearly sure I read a case where the claimant said something like he thought the owner was "somewhere in America", and this damaged his claim. Not 100% sure, does anyone remember it or was it even an AP case?

I've just finished reading it and couldnt tell you the name

Pretty sure it's Feehan v Leamy ah yes it was - lots of threating

srsly78

repsol wrote: »

I was under the impression that we had a property market for that. You know, PAY for land.Squatters are parasites.

What does the property market have to do with it? The owner disappears => it will never be put on the market. Squatters rights are supposed to fix this problem. It's either that, or the state would have to take over abandoned land (and the state would be the squatter then).

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I've just finished reading it and couldnt tell you the name

Pretty sure it's Feehan v Leamy ah yes it was - lots of threating

:rolleyes:

repsol

srsly78 wrote: »

What does the property market have to do with it? The owner disappears => it will never be put on the market. Squatters rights are supposed to fix this problem. It's either that, or the state would have to take over abandoned land (and the state would be the squatter then).

Since when does the owner of a property have to stand over it to retain title.This owner has not "disappeared".He has emigrated to the states. If you decide to go and work in Australia,do you think it is okay for me to commandeer any houses or land you own?Buying and holding onto land is not abandonment.Its investment.If OP wants to buy land in an area he should check out whats for sale.If he specifically wants that piece of land he should try to contact the owner and make an offer.

fasttalkerchat

Would I be right in saying you can't use legal aid to defend yourself against a court case resulting from a dispute over land? (May only be UK law/May be my misinterpretation)

NoQuarter

repsol wrote: »

Since when does the owner of a property have to stand over it to retain title.This owner has not "disappeared".He has emigrated to the states. If you decide to go and work in Australia,do you think it is okay for me to commandeer any houses or land you own?Buying and holding onto land is not abandonment.Its investment.If OP wants to buy land in an area he should check out whats for sale.If he specifically wants that piece of land he should try to contact the owner and make an offer.

What are you on about? Its up to the owner to sell the land. If an person ups and leaves never to be seen again, there has to be a mechanism to keep value in land! Adverse possession is that mechanism. Its not as if its unfair, the law gives owners 12 YEARS in which to claim their title back. Sure who is going to try track down someone in a foreign country to make an offer for land. Outrageous.

Adverse possession on first look, which I assume you have just looked at it for the first time because thats what it sounds like, may seem harsh but the more you think about it, the better sense it makes.

If the owner wanted to hang onto the land, they could have leased it to the OP for a euro a year and still keep it. They didnt, they just left. The OP is 100% right and if I was a laywer I'd say they have a decent case (if it ever comes to that) but im not, I'm an internet randomer.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Would I be right in saying you can't use legal aid to defend yourself against a court case resulting from a dispute over land? (May only be UK law/May be my misinterpretation)

You're right, only legal aid for criminal law and some very select area of civil law like family law. The Legal Aid Board doesnt do advice in land disputes.

the_syco

ccopti wrote: »

We have fenced land, drained land, maintained land and now we think we are entitled to title so yes, we want to relieve the owner of it.

You have lived off it, but have you lived on it? Does anyone know if you have to be living on the land to claim squatters rights?

Procrastastudy

the_syco wrote: »

You have lived off it, but have you lived on it? Does anyone know if you have to be living on the land to claim squatters rights?

Nope you can just fence it off and put your cows / dumped cars / sheep on it. However it's decided on a case by case basis.

Pat Mustard

Assuming that the relevant period of advserse possession (squatting) has passed, then then a s.49 application can be made in respect of registered land (land registry property).

If a s.49 application is successful, the applicant becomes registered as owner of the relevant property.

There tends to be a lot of work in taking the relevant history of possession, assembling various valuation office records, death certicates, other documents from various sources, and dealing with Land Registry queries, so this type of work tends to cost. Some of these applications can take years from start to finish. Fees will vary from firm to firm.

See a solicitor, OP.

Indricotherium

repsol wrote: »

Since when does the owner of a property have to stand over it to retain title.This owner has not "disappeared".He has emigrated to the states. If you decide to go and work in Australia,do you think it is okay for me to commandeer any houses or land you own?Buying and holding onto land is not abandonment.Its investment.If OP wants to buy land in an area he should check out whats for sale.If he specifically wants that piece of land he should try to contact the owner and make an offer.

You seem to be under the impression that there are people combing the countryside looking for bits of property that look like they might be abandoned for the next 12 year, in order to move into them, occupy them for the 12 years, and then engage in a lengthy legal process to gain title to them.

Adverse possession is just a mechanism to regularise the odd anomaly like the one the OP describes.

loremolis

Interesting views.
Slightly off the question asked by the OP, but seeing how it's related, I'll ask anyway.

Could the ESB claim adverse possession of land where they have placed an electricity pylon?

NoQuarter

loremolis wrote: »

Interesting views.
Slightly off the question asked by the OP, but seeing how it's related, I'll ask anyway.

Could the ESB claim adverse possession of land where they have placed an electricity pylon?

Depends on the exact circumstances but a requirement for AP is that the squatter, for want of a better word, has to take the land with the intention of excluding everyone else and keeping the land for themselves for 12 years. Does merely placing a pylon an the land prove that intent? Not in my opinion.

Procrastastudy

loremolis wrote: »

Interesting views.
Slightly off the question asked by the OP, but seeing how it's related, I'll ask anyway.

Could the ESB claim adverse possession of land where they have placed an electricity pylon?

No AP requires that the person exclude all others. Putting a pylon somewhere isn't excluding people. The process is a complicated one and not its not an easy task. It more where someone has fenced off an adjoining piece of land and turned it into a garden. Actually just using the land usually won't amount to AP see Hickson v Boylan where raising pheasants wasn't sufficient.

archer22

ccopti wrote: »

Thanks. the land has been used by ourselves for approx the last 16 years. The owner emigrated and never returned.

How did you start using it in the first place?...was it a case of saw him heading off with his suitcase and started the JCB up and opened a gap.Or did you have permission from him to go in there originally.Would it not be decent to at least try and find him..maybe there is some reason he has been unable to return so far..illness or maybe even serving a prison sentence.I doubt he has just forgotten about it.

ThreeLineWhip

Alls fair in love and land grabbing.

Procrastastudy

archer22 wrote: »

How did you start using it in the first place?...was it a case of saw him heading off with his suitcase and started the JCB up and opened a gap.Or did you have permission from him to go in there originally.Would it not be decent to at least try and find him..maybe there is some reason he has been unable to return so far..illness or maybe even serving a prison sentence.I doubt he has just forgotten about it.

Seeking permission and trying top find him; all would defeat AP. However if the owner was under some disability I *THINK* that would stop the clock. I;d welcome conformation/correction of that point.

Wile E. Coyote

NoQuarter wrote: »

Sure who is going to try track down someone in a foreign country to make an offer for land. Outrageous.

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?

If the owner wanted to hang onto the land, they could have leased it to the OP for a euro a year and still keep it. They didnt, they just left.

Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

Procrastastudy

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?



Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

Neither of the scenarios you've mentioned above would give rise to AP. AP is nuanced in such a away to do what it's designed to do. Quiet title and make sure that land keeps it value. There was a really good example here a few weeks back were someone has fenced off a bit of land next too their house that was being used for dumping or something of that nature. If no one comes looking for that land for the next 12 years why shouldn't someone be entitled to it? (Although to be fair IIRC it was owned by NAMA so might be 30 years - no one seems to know the answer to that no even people that have wrotten books on NAMA.)

valleyoftheunos

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?

If the OP had/has permission to use the Land they will not be able to claim AP/Squatters Rights

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

Again if he knew and was happy to let them use it that's permission and they won't be able to claim the land.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

There is no onus on a squatter to go looking for an owner (in fact if they wen't looking they would lose their claim), it isn't theft or a land grab, AP/Squatters Rights don't work that way. If someone has been using your land for 12 years (12 YEARS!) you lose the right to reclaim your land and they get the rights to it.

giant_midget

Op - In my eyes you are a pos, the land is not yours. I really hope you don't end up with it. You have to work for things in life, not go looking for information on "squatters rights" ..houses are cheap now, go buy one!

valleyoftheunos

giant_midget wrote: »

Op - In my eyes you are a pos, the land is not yours. I really hope you don't end up with it. You have to work for things in life, not go looking for information on "squatters rights" ..houses are cheap now, go buy one!

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

giant_midget

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

Procrastastudy

giant_midget wrote: »

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

I love this. You want to open a history book and find out what happens when a load of people buy up/have all thr land, bugger off and leave it with no investment.

giant_midget

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I love this. You want to open a history book and find out what happens when a load of people buy up/have all thr land, bugger off and leave it with no investment.

Yes i would be interested in seeing this, could you send me on a link to a history book i can look in?

Honey-ec

giant_midget wrote: »

Yes i would be interested in seeing this, could you send me on a link to a history book i can look in?

Doesn't even need to be a history book - read "The Grapes of Wrath", it describes pretty much exactly the scenario Procrastastudy was describing.

Procrastastudy

I thinking more of tenant farmers (Ironically who would not qualify for AP) in Ireland and massive swaths of the country owned by absentee English Landowners.

Its not hard to see in Modern Ireland why AP is still needed. If you're living next to abandoned land that is being used for dumping/drug addicts/prostitution or even kids just making a nuisance of themselves, and you fence it off and look after it - why should someone be able to come back and take it back off of you after not so much as 'looking over the hedge' for twelve years.

It's not as if AP hasn't been looked at in great detail by the Courts, not just here and in England but also the ECtHR have held that it does not violate Art 1 Protocol 1.

NoQuarter

giant_midget wrote: »

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

That land is presumably worth a lot more because of the OP now than what it would be had the OP not moved in.

archer22

Looks to me like a ridiculous system..loads of houses now left vacant as their owners have gone to Australia to work (including my next door neighbours).So many might yet return to find someone else 'owns' their home if they dont keep track of the calender.Actually I acquired a few acres of rough land next to my own 10 years ago,that a family that had left the area about 20 years earlier owned...I acquired it the old fashioned way by tracking them down and giving them money for it....oddly enough that felt like the right thing to do :cool:.

JonEBGud

Not everyone who claims squatters rights gets what they want.
See what happened to Pat Kenny in Dalkey a few years ago.
He didn't get it and it cost him a fortune for his efforts.

valleyoftheunos

archer22 wrote: »

Looks to me like a ridiculous system..loads of houses now left vacant as their owners have gone to Australia to work (including my next door neighbours).So many might yet return to find someone else 'owns' their home if they dont keep track of the calender.Actually I acquired a few acres of rough land next to my own 10 years ago,that a family that had left the area about 20 years earlier owned...I acquired it the old fashioned way by tracking them down and giving them money for it....oddly enough that felt like the right thing to do :cool:.

Its far from a system, its merely a rule of law.

Its also very easy to prevent happening, if your neighbour got someone to check up on the house just once in those 12 years and protest if they found someone squatting the squatters would be unsuccessful in their claim. Actually claiming a property by adverse possession aka squatters rights is Long, difficult, highly uncertain and very rare, which is of course the way it should be. You are incorrect if you think it is just a matter of moving into a vacant house.

Wile E. Coyote

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

The op didn't do this work out of the goodness of his heart. He did it because it suited him and he benefited from it. The improvements don't necessarily benefit the actual owner as we don't know what his plans for the land are.

chops018

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The op didn't do this work out of the goodness of his heart. He did it because it suited him and he benefited from it. The improvements don't necessarily benefit the actual owner as we don't know what his plans for the land are.

The owner's future plans are irrelevant. The test for animus possidendi used to be that the possessor had to do something inconsistent with the future intentions of the owner, but that was scrapped and now all that has to be proved it that he intends to possess the land to the exclusion of all others.

ezra_pound

chops018 wrote: »

The owner's future plans are irrelevant. The test for animus possidendi used to be that the possessor had to do something inconsistent with the future intentions of the owner, but that was scrapped and now all that has to be proved it that he intends to possess the land to the exclusion of all others.

It hasn't been scrapped. It is sometimes applied and sometimes not deemed relevant depending on the case/ judge.