Squatters

All done at no expense to him. To take it to the next level he will have to find a Solictor to champion his cause and if he is tight enough to try to steal land any Solicitor he approaches will know exactly what sort person they are dealing with and will demand money up front if willing to handle a difficult client at all.
Also this person has the wherewithal to defend their claims having inherited land and can afford thousands of euro in solicitor fees for the peace of mind which comes from not having to slink away from a dispute rather than regret at their leisure cowardice in not facing him down.
ask the legal professionals on the forum if they think any solicitor would work for the squatter without a healthy retainer in advance and even then would they want to work for him not on moral grounds but just with regard to likelihood of him being a difficult client.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

even then would they want to work for him not on moral grounds but just with regard to likelihood of him being a difficult client.

Solicitor not work on moral grounds? This is not After Hours!

It is up to the client to fight the good fight. The solicitor participates based on their training and ability to defend the rights of the client.
Solicitors are not superheroes. They have to pay a mortgage and put kids through school like anyone else. You find one who is willing to represent you and take direction then you pay them. simple.
Squatter's battle will fail at this first hurdle.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

It is up to the client to fight the good fight. The solicitor participates based on their training and ability to defend the rights of the client.
Solicitors are not superheroes. They have to pay a mortgage and put kids through school like anyone else. You find one who is willing to represent you and take direction then you pay them. simple.
Squatter's battle will fail at this first hurdle.

It depends on what the first hurdle is. If there is an application for an interlocutory injunction, the balance of convenience may favour the squatter!

Who is paying for that and the ongoing commitments it entails.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is paying for that and the ongoing commitments it entails.

Money up front on each side.

Ya see. The objective of squatting is to get something for nothin'

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya see. The objective of squatting is to get something for nothin'

It can't be got for nothing. CAT has to be paid by the squatter before theycan register ownership.

Are you trying to win my argument for me.
Seems to be a disproportionate amount of risk and expense. Highly unlikely they will win and be at a large financial loss and then if they do win the bills come their way for it anyhow.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you trying to win my argument for me.
Seems to be a disproportionate amount of risk and expense. Highly unlikely they will win and be at a large financial loss and then if they do win the bills come their way for it anyhow.

Some people are thick! That is what you have to allow for.

I'm out of this discussion now.
Often Solicitors will give their musings over a scenario rather than a strategy to win.
If my father had acted on the statements of a solicitor he would never have agreed a long term lease on land which turned rental income legally tax free.

It is up to the person to make the decision, not the Solicitor. A Solicitor will tell you every possible bad consequence of pursuing something legally to indemnify themselves of blame and I don't fault them for it but it is up to the person to push forward and assess risk.
If I were in that position the gap in the ditch would be closed, the ground already yellowing from roundup and quotes received from a contractor to till and reseed the land.
anyhow February isn't the time to be marketing a farm for sale. The ditches should be cut back and fields given a little bit of fertiliser and topped so that it looks its best for marketing in summer so that when farmers walk the land they see it at its best.

ittakestwo

No legal expert but what would happen if the OP were to take possession back of the land. The squatter might injuct the OP but if the OP were to disagree at the injunction with every claim the squatter was making and argue that the lands were in possession of his uncle over the period would a judge not be forced to bar the squatter till a full hearing? Surly even at injunction stage if the squatter and OP were arguing over the facts the judge would have to bar the squatter till a full hearing as he has no title?

In that case the squatter would have to decide whether they will spend thousands perusing a case of adverse possession which in this country rarely win. As mentioned already the type of person who claims adverse possession probably does not like to spend money.

spaceHopper

You can check imaged from 2011 to 13 on http://map.geohive.ie/ click on base information and then select digital globe. You should be able to see some detail there. If you can show that he wasn't using the land I'd go to him and explain that you want to sell the land but can't until this is resolved so either he buys the filed from you for x or you fight him in courts. Tell him you've no interest in fighting with him but it's blocking you from moving forward. He will say no initially but give him a reasonable time to think it through like I'll be telling the solicitor on May first what to do. Also tell him once it goes to the solicitor you start incurring costs and a deal can't be done.

spaceHopper

spaceHopper wrote: »

You can check imaged from 2011 to 13 on http://map.geohive.ie/ click on base information and then select digital globe. You should be able to see some detail there. If you can show that he wasn't using the land I'd go to him and explain that you want to sell the land but can't until this is resolved so either he buys the filed from you for x or you fight him in courts. Tell him you've no interest in fighting with him but it's blocking you from moving forward. He will say no initially but give him a reasonable time to think it through like I'll be telling the solicitor on May first what to do. Also tell him once it goes to the solicitor you start incurring costs and a deal can't be done.

To acknowledge a grievance is bad advice.

Claw Hammer

ittakestwo wrote: »

No legal expert but what would happen if the OP were to take possession back of the land. The squatter might injuct the OP but if the OP were to disagree at the injunction with every claim the squatter was making and argue that the lands were in possession of his uncle over the period would a judge not be forced to bar the squatter till a full hearing? Surly even at injunction stage if the squatter and OP were arguing over the facts the judge would have to bar the squatter till a full hearing as he has no title?

In that case the squatter would have to decide whether they will spend thousands perusing a case of adverse possession which in this country rarely win. As mentioned already the type of person who claims adverse possession probably does not like to spend money.

The judge will carry out a balance of convenience test. Judges don't like people taking the law into their own hands. They can't decide who is right or wrong at the interlocutory stage.

jetfiremuck

So if a car comes around a corner and slaps into the "gap"..............where do we go from here. Who is on the hook ? Makes no sense to allow a squatter or otherwise take ownership period end of. Why? You havent said how much hes taken and what size is the holding?

Get a contractor to go in and do what some posters suggested. Cant say its not yours as you have the boundaries.

I would also mention that this issue will pop up for the next purchaser resulting in a walk away or discounted sale.

El Tarangu

Mimon wrote: »

You sound like you have been the beneficiary of stolen land and probably explains the attempted justification

Stihl waters wrote: »

I know a lad like you, thinks any blade of grass not ate in last 12 months is his, strange mentality the way some people view other peoples land

Just to play devil's advocate: if the person who owned the land bordering yours disappeared one day and the land went to rack and ruin - covered in ragwort, hedges not tended to, maybe even people dumping rubbish there and never removed - wouldn't you be glad a of a legal mechanism for ensuring that this would not happen?

Before anyone accuses me of being the beneficiary of stolen land, I live in a city and wouldn't be interested in agricultural land if they were handing it out for free, but as someone who owns my own house, I would be ticked off if anyone owning a neighbouring property allowed it to go derelict, and am glad that there is a legal device in place that discourages this from happening.

Nekarsulm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate: if the person who owned the land bordering yours disappeared one day and the land went to rack and ruin - covered in ragwort, hedges not tended to, maybe even people dumping rubbish there and never removed - wouldn't you be glad a of a legal mechanism for ensuring that this would not happen?

Before anyone accuses me of being the beneficiary of stolen land, I live in a city and wouldn't be interested in agricultural land if they were handing it out for free, but as someone who owns my own house, I would be ticked off if anyone owning a neighbouring property allowed it to go derelict, and am glad that there is a legal device in place that discourages this from happening.

I would be glad if the dumpers were prosecuted, but I wouldn't get a digger in and open a gateway through a mearn hedge and try and claim it as my own!
I might even try and get in touch with any relatives and see if I could take a cut of hay or silage off it, but again that's different to brazenly insisting it is mine.
People who try that can often meet with an accident...

On a less contentious note, do you remember the golf course in Kildare (I think) in NAMA ownership and growing wild for a number of years, where some chancer arrived in with tractors and mowers, mowed over 100 acres of grass, baled it for silage and moved the whole lot away over 48 hours?
That was cheeky, and most farmers would have shaken their heads in admiration at the ballseyness of the operation, but taking a field from the estate of an elderly neighbour? "Bad hoor" would be the best that would be said about him....

beertons

Ha, I was a member there.

imanewuser

We own an unfenced field behind our house that was not used for more than 12 years. Neighbor was using it as part of their land to grow hay however they have never made an adverse possession claim.

If we as owners now want to make use of the field (e.g., plant trees, put up a fence), can the neighbor sue us for trespassing?

TIA

phildub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116228246#Comment_116228246

So I believe, and am definitely open to correction, but squatters rights used to be 12 years adverse possession and then the new 2009 act changed it to 20 years. Then they allowed 12 years for people to register the burden, so basically if they are saying they have been adversely possessing the land for 16 years they would have had until Dec 2021 to register it. A simple land registry check should show if their burden appears, or maybe the registry of deeds if the land is unregistered. Do you have the title?

If they didn't register it by Dec 2021 then they have another 4 years to run for adverse possession so might be worth looking into

Yes you could be liable for damages, but is he going to pay the money to take you to court when he could loose and owe costs.

He would have to prove he had exclusive use of the site without permission of the owner, to the exclusion of all others. Has any neighbour's said that your relative knew about him being on the land and didn't mind to leave him there?

It may not be worth the hassle but a search of the title deeds might be your first step

None of this is to be taken as legal advise, if you want to pursue it it's probably best to consult a conveyancer who will know your rights and will probably be able to get answers to your questions fast enough

Donald Trump

https://osi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html

Historical map viewer. There are aerial shots for different years.

Other option would be google earth.

I'd advise at least having your solicitor send him a letter telling him that he doesn't have permission to use it

The person cannot claim AP if he had permission to use it. He also has to have taken possession of it with the intention of excluding of the legal title holder.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119951372#Comment_119951372

20 years was for the legal fallacy of "the lost modern grant" which was abolished under the LCLRA 2009 Act. That was in relation to easements. The sections that abolished it were deleted in the LCLRA 2021 last year (albeit that particular time period was extended to 30 years). So the old common law rules are back since last year. But the OP is talkign about adverse possession, not easements.

The time limit is generally 12 years for AP. However as others mentioned above, things are different for persons suffering from a "legal disability". That is due to Statute of Limitations Act of 1957. In such a scenario, the limit is 6 years after the person ceases to be subject to the disability, or after their death (subject to a maximum of 30 years)

It would be your responsibility to have a record of asserting your rights before that 6 year period ends.

Someone else mentioned balance of convenience for an interlocutory injunction. Regardless of that, damages would be considered an adequate remedy based on the circumstances as described. So you probably wouldn't need to bother with an interlocutory injunction, but you would still seek the damages for the period he refused to vacate.

Don't let the prick away with it.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119948776#Comment_119948776

They cannot claim AP if they used it with your permission. Your potential issue might be "proving" that though later on.

Graces7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116228858#Comment_116228858

Perfect description of the creep... LOVE it!

imanewuser

Thanks. Also, is adverse possession "automatic" (as in, after 12 years the neighbor using land becomes the owner?) or does it require the neighbor to apply (after said 12 years)?

My understanding is the latter, but would like to be sure.

chunkylover4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119971918#Comment_119971918

It is automatic in the sense that once the time has passed you are entitled to either rely upon it in Proceedings or bring an application for registration of title but both will require evidence to support the claim.

imanewuser

Thanks! But, what happens if the neighbor who used the land for 12 years never did anything about (no application for registration). Is the owner still entitled to use the land? (For example, put a fence around it).

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119975142#Comment_119975142

At this stage there is a paper owner and a possessory owner. Who is going to put up the fence.

imanewuser

The paper owner