Do squatters rights form part of an inheritance?

Westeros

Ok first off let me explain the situation as it used to be.

A number of houses (roughly 15) are located on a main road. Opposite these houses, on the other side of the main road is a field. I do not know who the owner of the field is, nor have I ever heard anyone talk about the owner of the field. A grandparent of mine moved in to one of these houses in 1958 and in all their years in that house no owner of the field has ever come forward.

Most of these houses use this field and have done so since at least 1958 for clothes lines and the like. I remember a conversation taking place where each of these houses were considered to have squatters rights over the field. There was an expression of interest in the field and each house was offered a sum of money for their share of the field, which ultimately not all houses agreed to and nothing has happened with it since. It is still used by the houses there today.

So that's the situation as it was. Now, the grandparents house has been left to one of their immediate family, and the question I have is in relation to if the squatters rights stand after a person has passed on?

nuac

Mod
Adverse possession can be a fascinating topic. Just establishing the facts may be a herculean task. Think of John B. Keane's "The Field". Practically every solicitor's office around the country has had mega files on this topic
There is a good memo on the topic on the PRA website referring to case-law and outlining directions to their Examiners of Title
I propose leaving this open for general discussion while complying with the rule against legal advice

Victor

Westeros wrote: »

Most of these houses use this field

To me, this would suggest there is no adverse possession as it doesn't exclude others.

C3PO

Pretty sure that a number of people can obtain adverse possession over one piece of land?

Mr. Incognito

No. You need exclusive possession for squatters rights

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Westeros

I should probably include that this information isn't been sought for material/financial gain. I'm just wondering what the case is in general and if the use of this field can now be passed down to the new owner of the house or is it a case that the use of the field is now gone?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

C3PO

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No. You need exclusive possession for squatters rights

Ruth Cannon in the chapter on Adverse Possession in her book "Land Law" would appear to disagree:
"In addition, it would be possible, if two persons had deliberately decided to share possession of land, then they could claim joint possession and in this way acquire a possessory title as co-owners"

.... of course they would have to satisfy the other requirements also ... and prove it!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

They would need to have claimed their "squatters rights" and have proof of said rights before it could be passed on to kin.

Without this it passes with them

Westeros

lifeandtimes wrote: »

They would need to have claimed their "squatters rights" and have proof of said rights before it could be passed on to kin.

Without this it passes with them

Cheers, thanks lifeandtimes

Pat Mustard

See PRA Practice Note on adverse possession as mentioned by nuac, previously. http://www.prai.ie/adverse-possession-title-by-adverse-possession-to-registered-land/

Successive squatters can make up the time necessary for adverse possession. Asher v. Whitlock 1865 L.R. 1 Q.B.1)

It is not clear whether there has been exclusive possession and we are not going to get into that in order to avoid breaching the rule against legal advice.

Samuel T. Cogley

C3PO wrote: »

Ruth Cannon in the chapter on Adverse Possession in her book "Land Law" would appear to disagree:
"In addition, it would be possible, if two persons had deliberately decided to share possession of land, then they could claim joint possession and in this way acquire a possessory title as co-owners"

.... of course they would have to satisfy the other requirements also ... and prove it!

That's two people with exclusive possession - sorry to state the blindingly obvious an probably incorrectly.

What she's saying IMHO, is a whole family can move in but the whole village can't claim ah sure we all used it to keep the chickens in. As Pat has also pointed out it's possible to 'pass on' a period of time, but good luck proving any of this in the OP's situation.

Can we also disabuse ourselves of the term squatters rights? It's actually the land owner's rights being estopped (IIRC - welcome correction there) due to lack of use and I find these conversations tend to be much clearer when people realise that's actually the first step. Not that some magical set of rights start accruing because one has set foot on someone's land. It also seems to help keep the high horses away...