A squatter is a person who settles in or occupies a piece of property with no legal claim to the property. In the Homestead Act of 1862, these laws were used for pioneers that intended to utilize a vacant home to start raising livestock and growing crops as they expanded westward.
These laws are currently outdated, and they are abused in some residencies where trespassers come onto someone’s property and try to essentially steal their land.
I’m sure this can expanded upon by someone more knowledgeable than me, but I think it is time to start putting property and home owners first by removing these loopholes for thieves to takeover assets that are not theirs to begin with.
Totally agree. How would someone feel to come home from vacation and someone has moved into their house illegally and there’s nothing you can do? It’s the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Police should be able to remove them immediately.
I became, unfortunately, very knowledgeable about adverse possession and border by acquiescence about 8 years ago when my neighbor decided that he wanted me to build a fence between our properties and said if I would not, he would take my land because there was a partial old fence on my land. I hired a lawyer, took him to court, studied the law intensely, and “won”. He was kicked off my land but he already bulldozed my trees and didn’t have to pay my attorney’s fees or any restitution. Anyway, these laws go back to common law and and are distantly related to the old perspective that if you conquered land and could defend it, it’s yours. It’s completely contrary to the rights of property designed into our system. More recently, like a hundred years ago, I found a judge that said they ruled in the thief’s favor because developed land was more valuable than undeveloped land. That any of these laws still exist is insane. Please vote on this one. Why would someone, say from NY, buy land in another state to retire on one day when all someone has to do is start using your land and it’s theirs? Even if you live near a piece of property you buy, you have to walk the borders to make sure someone isn’t stealing it. The law was clearly on my side and I won but I felt, having read so many cases, that judges could decide on one side or the other on it depending on their whim.
I agree. It would be an awful feeling to find out that someone took over your house while you were away. No one should be allowed to take over someone else’s house.
Personally experienced how ridiculous it is to have to spend thousands on attorneys and 3 to 6 months to remove someone that is trespassing. (Colorado --a red county)
I cannot stress how important this is! I live in a place where this is prevalent and I’ve seen good hard working people lose possession of their home with fake documents
I don’t think banning adverse possession altogether is the solution. I do believe there should be some MAJOR hurdles one must jump over to claim it. Proof you used and maintained the one as your own for a min of 10 years, land must be fully fenced and apparent it is being occupied by the public. Etc.
I think adverse possession something that needs removed entirely as to remove a fatal loophole in the system. People have lost thousands of dollars in courtroom bills and property they legally possess and own because of this.
I believe that if someone owns the land/property, then they are entitled to keep possession of that property no matter how long it seems to not have been used. They paid for it, and they own it. It isn’t someone else’s to decide that they are going to take it one day. It’s trespassing in its entirety in this day and age, which is why I think it needs completely dismantled and removed.
It isn’t up to someone one day to decide that my property is something they can use without my explicit permission. Ending this would ensure all homeowners and their properties are secure.
There already is. In most states there are two limits, one is on the order of 20 years, the other involves “color of title” and is normally much shorter. Color of title should be abolished because it involves, normally, an invalid document that gives the impression the claimant has title. It should not matter. If the document is invalid, adverse possession should not operate.
Long acquiescence operates if a long period has expired with a condition existing and both property owners do nothing about it.
Both Adverse Possession and Long Acquiescence require court action to quiet title.
A neighbor of mine when I lived in the Philly suburbs bought a house in the neighborhood which had been foreclosed. Except the former owners (Nigerians) refused to leave and claimed squatters rights. She had to battle with the courts, police, housing authorities and zoning officers for over 18 months before the people finally vacated. The house was in ruins. All of the appliances, plumbing, electrical ripped out, hardwood floors torn up, fire damage, water damage, sewage contamination etc. etc.
It even affected me because one of those squatters caused a car accident in front of my house resulting in an out of control car crashing into and totalling my car parked on the side of the street. Insurance company closed my claim since I wasn’t operating the car at the time and told me to go after the insurance of the person who caused the accident. Naturally they had none so I had to write of my car which at that time I had only owner for a month.
These types of people are a nuisance and criminals. Eliminate the laws that enable these kinds of parasitic criminals.
This is an absolutely absurd law! Has never made sense!