Couple loses land to squatter's rights law

RACER X · 10-06-2009, 02:11 PM

Couple loses land to squatter's rights law
By JIM DINO (Staff Writer)
Published: October 5, 2009

http://www.standardspeaker.com/news/...r_s_rights_law

If you own a piece of property, it's a good idea to know what is going on there.

If you don't, you could end up losing it.

A Valley woman can attest.

The woman and her husband purchased a large parcel of land a few miles away from their home as an investment, and sort of forgot about it.

Meanwhile, a neighbor to the land used it for 21 years and then claimed ownership, using the old "squatter's rights" law in Pennsylvania.

"We purchased it in the 1970s, as an investment," the woman said. "We paid the taxes on it every year, but never looked at it. We thought, who is going to steal it? It's land. You can't put it on a flatbed and haul it away."

Also, the neighbors of the land were friends of the couple.

"These were people we knew all of our lives," she said. "We were not aware what was going on with the land."

When the couple decided to sell the parcel to raise money for their four children, they discovered the plight of the land.

"We had a buyer, so we hired a surveyor," she said. "That's how we found out about it. When we hired the surveyor, we got served with papers that (the neighbors) had put in a claim."

Then, lawyers for both sides began to negotiate and the result was that the neighbors ended up with 55 percent, the lawyer for the couple 25 percent and 20 percent for the couple.

"Hopefully, we can still sell it," she said. "One of the reasons we didn't keep up with what was going on there was that the land was off then beaten path. The land was a few miles away from our house. And the land was landlocked. We went out to see it, and it was a very bumpy ride "

The woman said she and her husband could have opted for a jury trial to get the land back, but then they took the risk of losing all of it.

"We didn't want to go to trial," she said. "This could have dragged out for years. We didn't want to do that."

So they took the deal.

But the woman wanted to use her unpleasant experience to educate others.

"It's just not ethical," she said. "I wouldn't do that to somebody. It's so much like stealing. (The neighbors) didn't pay the taxes on it, nor did they have the deed. We paid the taxes on it, all those years.

"I think people should be made aware that this law exists," she continued. "I don't want to see this happen to someone else. We should teach children in school skills they will need to live, like how to balance a checkbook and how the stock market works. We should also teach them about the law."

The law is called adverse possession, and what happened to the woman is relatively common across the United States, according to attorney William Hoffmeyer, of the Hoffmeyer & Semmelman law firm of York, experts in land law.

Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it.

Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn.

"It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it."

Hoffmeyer said there are four key concepts for someone to claim, or lose, adverse possession.

"Those words are open, notorious, hostile and visible," he said. "Open means if someone is doing something with the land right out in the open and not hiding it," Hoffmeyer said.

"Notorious is if anybody knows what is happening on the land. Visible means one can see what is being done with the land, and hostile means what is being done with the land is against the rights of the true owner."

There are some ways to fight the law. Hoffmeyer said.

"If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land."

Hoffmeyer said he encounters many cases of adverse possession in his daily practice.

"We see it quite a bit," he said. "It happens many times with people who inherit land from their parents. They don't live anywhere close to the property, so have no idea what is going on there. Out of loyalty to their parents, they pay the taxes on it every year, but never look at the property until they discover a neighbor is trying to take it from them.

"It also happens when neighbors around a property inch over a boundary line," Hoffmeyer continued. "A less-than-desirable neighbor may mow the lawn over the line; or plant trees, flowers or shrubbery over the line, or install a fence over the line."

It is up to the property owner to monitor such activity, and stop it as soon as he or she learns it is happening, Hoffmeyer said.

"You can write a letter to the neighbors, telling them they are trespassing," he said. "In the letter, you tell them if they don't cease and desist, you will initiate a trespassing action against them."

Hoffmeyer said in one case, a landowner who had sold land around him noticed his new neighbors were moving in - literally - toward him.

"The landowner sent the neighbors a letter which stated they all acknowledged and understood they were not acquiring ownership of the land, but were being permitted to use it," Hoffmeyer said. "They were also told they had to assume the liability for the property they are using."

That indeed, would piss me off pretty badly. I would have been just as pissed at myself for not being fully educated about the whole thing but I would definitely be very confrontational to the people who filed the claim. They would have to regret every bit of that 55% for many years.

CrazyKell · 10-06-2009, 02:18 PM

Weird because from this article it sounds like you have to have permission to use the land. So if they'd gone to trial couldn't they have argued that there was, in fact, no permission.

Sucks that people can use antiquated laws for unethical purposes.

shmike · 10-06-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyKell

Weird because from this article it sounds like you have to have permission to use the land. So if they'd gone to trial couldn't they have argued that there was, in fact, no permission.

Sucks that people can use antiquated laws for unethical purposes.

That's not how I read it.

You don't have to have permission at all. It is basically implied UNLESS the rightful owner takes proactive legal measures.

Rider · 10-06-2009, 02:31 PM

My wife's grandfather just died and he has a plot of land that no one in the family has ever seen. He for sure hadn't been up there in many years because he has spent the last 10 or so years in a convalescent hospital. I hope my in-laws don't have to go through something like that. It would suck to have to give up your land just because you haven't been there in a while.

CrazyKell · 10-06-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RACER X

Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it.

Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn.

"It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it."

...

"If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land."

.

I read that first part incorrectly. But by not even going to see what was going on with their land (for 21 years) they were essentially permitting someone to use their land.

I don't agree with it.

CasterTroy · 10-06-2009, 02:34 PM

Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

shmike · 10-06-2009, 02:36 PM

Ironically, if someone was looking to sue because their kid got injured on the property, I'm sure all fingers would immediately point to the owners on the deed.

goof2 · 10-06-2009, 03:04 PM

If the previous owners had given permission for the "squatters" to use the land the "squatters" would have had no claim.

If you do own land, even if it is far away, go check it every once in a while. If someone is on it take legal action to boot them off. It is only as easy to do this as the landowners allow.

unknownroad · 10-06-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasterTroy

Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it

Well, short of a massive timber operation or factory farm, no one can really squat hundreds of acres... Altho it'd be funny to find a big subdivision there

There's lots of nice land just going to waste out here... but i think in SC it's legal to shoot squatters, so i had to buy my own like a sucker.

101lifts2 · 10-06-2009, 05:06 PM

Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

10-06-2009, 02:11 PM	#1
RACER X AMA Supersport Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Richmond, Tx Moto: '10 Tuono Factory Posts: 4,569	Couple loses land to squatter's rights law Couple loses land to squatter's rights law By JIM DINO (Staff Writer) Published: October 5, 2009 http://www.standardspeaker.com/news/...r_s_rights_law If you own a piece of property, it's a good idea to know what is going on there. If you don't, you could end up losing it. A Valley woman can attest. The woman and her husband purchased a large parcel of land a few miles away from their home as an investment, and sort of forgot about it. Meanwhile, a neighbor to the land used it for 21 years and then claimed ownership, using the old "squatter's rights" law in Pennsylvania. "We purchased it in the 1970s, as an investment," the woman said. "We paid the taxes on it every year, but never looked at it. We thought, who is going to steal it? It's land. You can't put it on a flatbed and haul it away." Also, the neighbors of the land were friends of the couple. "These were people we knew all of our lives," she said. "We were not aware what was going on with the land." When the couple decided to sell the parcel to raise money for their four children, they discovered the plight of the land. "We had a buyer, so we hired a surveyor," she said. "That's how we found out about it. When we hired the surveyor, we got served with papers that (the neighbors) had put in a claim." Then, lawyers for both sides began to negotiate and the result was that the neighbors ended up with 55 percent, the lawyer for the couple 25 percent and 20 percent for the couple. "Hopefully, we can still sell it," she said. "One of the reasons we didn't keep up with what was going on there was that the land was off then beaten path. The land was a few miles away from our house. And the land was landlocked. We went out to see it, and it was a very bumpy ride " The woman said she and her husband could have opted for a jury trial to get the land back, but then they took the risk of losing all of it. "We didn't want to go to trial," she said. "This could have dragged out for years. We didn't want to do that." So they took the deal. But the woman wanted to use her unpleasant experience to educate others. "It's just not ethical," she said. "I wouldn't do that to somebody. It's so much like stealing. (The neighbors) didn't pay the taxes on it, nor did they have the deed. We paid the taxes on it, all those years. "I think people should be made aware that this law exists," she continued. "I don't want to see this happen to someone else. We should teach children in school skills they will need to live, like how to balance a checkbook and how the stock market works. We should also teach them about the law." The law is called adverse possession, and what happened to the woman is relatively common across the United States, according to attorney William Hoffmeyer, of the Hoffmeyer & Semmelman law firm of York, experts in land law. Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it. Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn. "It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it." Hoffmeyer said there are four key concepts for someone to claim, or lose, adverse possession. "Those words are open, notorious, hostile and visible," he said. "Open means if someone is doing something with the land right out in the open and not hiding it," Hoffmeyer said. "Notorious is if anybody knows what is happening on the land. Visible means one can see what is being done with the land, and hostile means what is being done with the land is against the rights of the true owner." There are some ways to fight the law. Hoffmeyer said. "If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land." Hoffmeyer said he encounters many cases of adverse possession in his daily practice. "We see it quite a bit," he said. "It happens many times with people who inherit land from their parents. They don't live anywhere close to the property, so have no idea what is going on there. Out of loyalty to their parents, they pay the taxes on it every year, but never look at the property until they discover a neighbor is trying to take it from them. "It also happens when neighbors around a property inch over a boundary line," Hoffmeyer continued. "A less-than-desirable neighbor may mow the lawn over the line; or plant trees, flowers or shrubbery over the line, or install a fence over the line." It is up to the property owner to monitor such activity, and stop it as soon as he or she learns it is happening, Hoffmeyer said. "You can write a letter to the neighbors, telling them they are trespassing," he said. "In the letter, you tell them if they don't cease and desist, you will initiate a trespassing action against them." Hoffmeyer said in one case, a landowner who had sold land around him noticed his new neighbors were moving in - literally - toward him. "The landowner sent the neighbors a letter which stated they all acknowledged and understood they were not acquiring ownership of the land, but were being permitted to use it," Hoffmeyer said. "They were also told they had to assume the liability for the property they are using." That indeed, would piss me off pretty badly. I would have been just as pissed at myself for not being fully educated about the whole thing but I would definitely be very confrontational to the people who filed the claim. They would have to regret every bit of that 55% for many years. __________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ 2014 GROM! 181cc of FURY 2010 Aprilia Tuono Factory - SOLD 2009 SFV Gladius - SOLD 2008 Hayabusa - SOLD.

10-06-2009, 02:34 PM	#6
CasterTroy ................ Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: NC Posts: 3,028	Just sent the in-laws this...they've got hundreds of acres in the rural part of the western NC mountains that they're INTENDING to leave to us....that is, if no one is ON it __________________ “Being tolerant does not mean that I share another one’s belief. But it does mean that I acknowledge another one’s right to believe, and obey, his own conscience.” Viktor Frankl

10-06-2009, 02:36 PM	#7
shmike Follower Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 5,549	Ironically, if someone was looking to sue because their kid got injured on the property, I'm sure all fingers would immediately point to the owners on the deed. __________________ Racing For Smiles

10-06-2009, 05:06 PM	#10
101lifts2 WSB Champion Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Anaheim, CA Moto: 2009 Kawi ZX6R Posts: 5,570	Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes. __________________ Train Hard Ron Paul - 2012 Mark of Excellence GM

10-06-2009, 02:18 PM	#2
CrazyKell Vrooom Join Date: Nov 2008 Moto: 06 ZX6R Posts: 4,427	Weird because from this article it sounds like you have to have permission to use the land. So if they'd gone to trial couldn't they have argued that there was, in fact, no permission. Sucks that people can use antiquated laws for unethical purposes.

10-06-2009, 02:31 PM	#4
Rider Moto GP Star Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 12,156	My wife's grandfather just died and he has a plot of land that no one in the family has ever seen. He for sure hadn't been up there in many years because he has spent the last 10 or so years in a convalescent hospital. I hope my in-laws don't have to go through something like that. It would suck to have to give up your land just because you haven't been there in a while.

10-06-2009, 03:04 PM	#8
goof2 AMA Supersport Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,756	If the previous owners had given permission for the "squatters" to use the land the "squatters" would have had no claim. If you do own land, even if it is far away, go check it every once in a while. If someone is on it take legal action to boot them off. It is only as easy to do this as the landowners allow.