Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

adverse possession

  • 26-12-2013 2:27pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3


    Hi all,
    One of those Christmas discussions (read 'arguments') that I hope you can help solve.
    If someone wants to claim adverse possession, do they personally have to be the one who's been squatting somewhere for a minimum of 12 years? Or is it enough that someone (not the true owner) was? For example, let's say someone occupies both his own property and a neighbour's land for 12 years, then dies and leaves "everything" to his son (no specification as to what "everything" is). No boundaries have been redrawn. Could the son then redraw the boundary to include the neighbour's land and be considered to own it?
    Thanks!


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    The rights that a squatter accumulates can be transferred or conveyed, so they can be inherited. In this scenario the son could assert adverse possession.

    There is no "re-drawing of boundaries". It's an application to the PRA.

    If there is no connection between the two parties then the accumulated time period doesn't just automatically carry over. It needs to be some kind of transfer, like an inheritance situation as described.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 3sheets


    Thanks. So adverse possession has to be a conscious thing where you specifically declare that you know you don't own the land but you're claiming it under the adverse possession rules? If there's no specific adverse possession claim, then no matter how long the occupation, the rights remain with the true owner?

    You say the rights can be conveyed also. So say the son never did anything about actually claiming adverse possession but sold the property on, and everyone assumed that the extra bit (really belonging to the neighbour) was part of what was being sold. (Let's say there had been occupation for so long that the actual boundary had genuinely been forgotten.) If the new purchaser continued to occupy the neighbour's land (believing it was his) would he be entitled to claim adverse possession even though he'd just been there a wet weekend?

    Or would the rights only be transferred if the seller (son) was conscious that he had built up adverse possession rights and mentioned them in the conveyancing documentation, without having actually claimed them himself?


  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Search function on top right hand side, covered quite a few times.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 3sheets


    Thanks Tom Young. Certainly lots of posts! Just browsed the first ten pages of search results which answer most of my questions. However, I'm still confused about some things, and don't see answers:
    • If the neighbour wakes up to the loss of his land before anyone formally makes a claim for adverse possession can he recover his ownership, or is it a case of when it's gone it's gone?
    • The adverse possession claim seems to hinge on possession not being contested. What if, after 12 years of the land being occupied by the father and subsequent occupation by the son but before the son sold the land to his purchaser, the neighbour sold his land to a different purchaser with deeds that showed the original boundaries including the occupied area. Would the new owner of the neighbour's property have a right to the occupied land since the occupying neighbour hadn't asserted ownership through adverse possession and disputed the neighbour's right to sell at the time of the sale (though the son continued occupation without interference from the new neighbour and subsequently put the same land up for sale himself, without waiting for another 12 years)?


  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Question 1: it depends on who the land has been used, or disused;

    Question 2: shouldn't be valid based on the assumed facts and transactions. Title is either good or bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭vinnie13


    really that all depends how good your solicitor is..stuff like this is hard to prove,,iv lived in the same place over 20 yrs and could prob stake a claim to about 5acres beside my house but why ffall out with the farmer.
    it could cost big bucks and be a bigger gamble


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Valentine1


    historically speaking Adverse Possession does not grant rights to the squatter but rather extinguish the rights of the paper owner. Thus it is not that a squatter waits 12 years and then seeks to make a claim on the land but rather when the Title holder seeks to remove the squatter after 12 years the Squatter can avail of adverse possession to prevent himself being removed.

    It is now possible to register a possessory title in the land registry but that might be for a separate thread.


Advertisement