Scary “adverse possession” law in Florida

[Sooner5030]

Can this shiat happen in okieville?

uninvited guest (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/16/PMENEWSO1-uninvited-guests/)


She wanted the uninvited strangers out but says the deputy took no action and wouldn't write up a report.
"They said it was a civil matter," Wondrow said. "I insisted that this was a criminal matter." The deputy told her to get a lawyer, she said.



"I called the sheriff and went over, and come to find out some people had rented the house from Chateau Lan," Connolly said.

Connolly arrived at the house without any papers. He said the deputy told him the occupant produced a lease.

"He said, 'You have no paperwork, and they have paperwork,' " Connolly recalled. "And I said, 'Well, give me a few minutes,' and he said, 'I don't have time to wait.' "

Nearly two months later, there are still strangers in his daughter's house.

[Leroy Lizard]

He argues Homes for Americans is not renting or leasing the homes in question, though the occupants do pay an annual $495 membership fee to join the program. They also pay a monthly fee to occupy a house, part of which goes for his company's administrative costs.

Don't they call that rent?

[sperry]

Most adverse possession laws require something like 5 to 10 years of possession, and there can't be any dispute to possession of the property. The fact that the actual owner of the home is saying get out, means that the house is not being adversely possessed, it's just trespassing. Adverse possession laws exist simply to make sure that property doesn't go to waste. I.e., if you own 20 acres out in the country and can't figure out someone is living on it for a period of 10 years, than you really don't need it.


In this case, it is a criminal matter, and it sounds like the sheriff has been bought out by these people who are stealing homes.

[AlbqSooner]

Don't they call that rent?

No. Rent is a fee paid to the lawful owner or his/her agent.

[yermom]

the dude got arrested at the end of the story, i don't think it's an issue of laws...

[rekamrettuB]

That's crazy. I would think a house listed for sale wouldn't be considered "abandoned" at any stage.

[Sooner5030]

the dude got arrested at the end of the story, i don't think it's an issue of laws...

Some of us have always believed that a deed with current taxes was enough to claim your land/property........not that you had to physically be in the area to ensure no one squats on it.

[yermom]

but someone had to physically be there to physically stop them from squatting

[OUMallen]

Some of us have always believed that a deed with current taxes was enough to claim your land/property........not that you had to physically be in the area to ensure no one squats on it.

You've always been wrong, then. Adverse possession is a weird legal issue. But it's pretty standard in most places. The time limit is set forth by state statute.


This was a criminal matter. This was a scam that got busted. Not a real adverse possession.

[OUMallen]

In this case, it is a criminal matter, and it sounds like the sheriff has been bought out by these people who are stealing homes.


Seriously? You REALLY believe the sheriff is complicit? :confused:

[OUMallen]

Most adverse possession laws require something like 5 to 10 years of possession, and there can't be any dispute to possession of the property. The fact that the actual owner of the home is saying get out, means that the house is not being adversely possessed, it's just trespassing. Adverse possession laws exist simply to make sure that property doesn't go to waste. I.e., if you own 20 acres out in the country and can't figure out someone is living on it for a period of 10 years, than you really don't need it.


In this case, it is a criminal matter, and it sounds like the sheriff has been bought out by these people who are stealing homes.

Just with a quick glance and without double checking, looks like Oklahoma is 15 years.

[Sooner5030]

For those of us that were previously unaware of this law it comes as a bit of a shock. if I have a title or deed to any asset and have registered it and paid my taxes to date it seems a little scammy that the law can determine I don't "need" my assets and someone can take possession of them.

Is adverse possession very common? Do i need to just keep in contact with neighbors and local government if I own vacant land? What's the best-low cost prevention for adverse possession.......understanding not all of us can live on vacant land we own.

thanks

[47straight]

Seriously? You REALLY believe the sheriff is complicit? :confused:

I'd think it's a question of work ethic and competency.

[OUMallen]

He said he thought ths heriff had been bribed. But I agree with you.

[OUMallen]

For those of us that were previously unaware of this law it comes as a bit of a shock. if I have a title or deed to any asset and have registered it and paid my taxes to date it seems a little scammy that the law can determine I don't "need" my assets and someone can take possession of them.

Is adverse possession very common? Do i need to just keep in contact with neighbors and local government if I own vacant land? What's the best-low cost prevention for adverse possession.......understanding not all of us can live on vacant land we own.

thanks

Just go check your land once a year or two. If someone ever builds a shed or fence on it, have them move it, or have them sign paperwork and record it stating that they are on YOUR land by your own license and their possession of your land is not hostile/adverse.

If they won't, call the sheriff to have them removed. Hopefully forcefully.

[Leroy Lizard]

For those of us that were previously unaware of this law it comes as a bit of a shock. if I have a title or deed to any asset and have registered it and paid my taxes to date it seems a little scammy that the law can determine I don't "need" my assets and someone can take possession of them.

Odd that the government doesn't give you back your property tax money.

[MsProudSooner]

"The intent of my program is to provide affordable housing to people of need," he said.

BS! The intent of your program is to line your pockets.

[rekamrettuB]

BS! The intent of your program is to line your pockets.

Ya I wish the rental real estate business I was in could operate that way...meaning no debt service.

[KantoSooner]

As I recall, most times in Oklahoma case law you're looking at people say, paving a driveway across a neighbor's lot by mistake and the neighbors being absentee landlords never saying anything for the 15 years and then getting ticked off.
It's not terribly dangerous in practice.

[OUMallen]

Yep. Or fences and running cattle. It's not usually an intentional thing. The possession has to be "open and hostile" so you can't just secretly do it.

[LePetomaine]

Just go check your land once a year or two. If someone ever builds a shed or fence on it, have them move it, or have them sign paperwork and record it stating that they are on YOUR land by your own license and their possession of your land is not hostile/adverse.

If they won't, call the sheriff to have them removed. Hopefully forcefully.

What he said, just look at once in a while. Take some pictures (or have someone do it for you, it it's a ways off); date them and store them away. This way, nobody can claim that you have abandoned the property (see: Dances with Wolves' hat). Dealt with a similar problem years ago in Missouri (we live in Houston). Adjacent landowner claimed to adversely possess about one hundred yards on one corner -- mainly to prevent a road going thru. Paying a guy to mow the property once in a while was enough to snuff that one.

[Sooner5030]

Dealt with a similar problem years ago in Missouri (we live in Houston).

dude...I was looking for land around roby or FLW but everyone wants too much. small world.

[Spray]

Just a little light reading to get you started. Thousands more pages where this came from...

12 Okl.St.Ann. § 93
§ 93. Limitations of real actions


Actions for the recovery of real property, or for the determination of any adverse right or interest therein, can only be brought within the periods hereinafter prescribed, after the cause of action shall have accrued, and at no other time thereafter:

(1) An action for the recovery of real property sold on execution, or for the recovery of real estate partitioned by judgment in kind, or sold, or conveyed pursuant to partition proceedings, or other judicial sale, or an action for the recovery of real estate distributed under decree of district court in administration or probate proceedings, when brought by or on behalf of the execution debtor or former owner, or his or their heirs, or any person claiming under him or them by title acquired after the date of the judgment or by any person claiming to be an heir or devisee of the decedent in whose estate such decree was rendered, or claiming under, as successor in interest, any such heir or devisee, within five (5) years after the date of the recording of the deed made in pursuance of the sale or proceeding, or within five (5) years after the date of the entry of the final judgment of partition in kind where no sale is had in the partition proceedings; or within five (5) years after the recording of the decree of distribution rendered by the district court in an administration or probate proceeding; provided, however, that where any such action pertains to real estate distributed under decree of district court in administration or probate proceedings and would at the passage of this act1 (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000165&cite=OKSTT12S93&originatingDoc=N1A0F6B30C81811DB8F04FB3E68C8F4C5&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_footnote_I8AAE0AE0FF971 1DE8BF3B1AAC68F1F9D) be barred by the terms hereof, such action may be brought within one (1) year after the passage of this act; this proviso shall not be construed to revive any action barred by paragraph 4 of this section.


(2) An action for the recovery of real property sold by executors, administrators, or guardians, upon an order or judgment of a court directing such sale, brought by the heirs or devisees of the deceased person, or the ward of his guardian, or any person claiming under any or either of them, by the title acquired after the date of judgment or order, within five (5) years after the date of recording of the deed made in pursuance of the sale.


(3) An action for the recovery of real property sold for taxes, within five (5) years after the date of the recording of the tax deed, except where lands exempt from taxation by reason of any Act of the Congress of the United States of America have been sold for taxes, in which case there shall be no limitation; provided, nothing herein shall be construed as reviving any cause of action for recovery of real property heretofore barred nor as divesting any interest acquired by adverse possession prior to the effective date hereof.


(4) An action for the recovery of real property not hereinbefore provided for, within fifteen (15) years.


(5) An action for the forcible entry and detention or forcible detention only of real property, within two (2) years.


(6) Numbered paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 shall be fully operative regardless of whether the deed or judgment or the precedent action or proceeding upon which such deed or judgment is based is void or voidable in whole or in part, for any reason, jurisdictional or otherwise; provided that this paragraph shall not be applied so as to bar causes of action which have heretofore accrued, until the expiration of one (1) year from and after its effective date.

Adverse possession--In general
In order to establish adverse possession, claimant must show that possession was hostile, under claim of right or color of title, actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and for 15 years. Cloer Land Co. v. Wright, Okl.App., 858 P.2d 110 (1993); Fadem v. Kimball, Okl.App., 612 P.2d 287 (1980)

Title to land cannot be acquired by adverse possession unless possession is open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive, and it is essential that such possession, in order that it may ripen into title, should be shown to be continuous and uninterrupted for full statutory period. Loris v. Patrick, Okl., 414 P.2d 249 (1966); Mason v. Evans, Okl., 410 P.2d 534 (1965).

Generally title by adverse possession may be acquired against all persons, except those excepted from operation of statute of limitations. Sears v. Fair, Okl., 397 P.2d 134 (1965); Merritt Independent School Dist. No. 2 of Beckham County v. Jones, 207 Okla. 376, 249 P.2d 1007 (1952).

Adverse possession must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive with claim of title, so that third parties seeking information might find that the property was held, not under the permission of any one, but adversely to every one. Rodgers v. International Land Co., 111 Okla. 98, 238 P. 407 (1925); Taylor v. Monday, 104 Okla. 241, 231 P. 75 (1925); Pauls Valley Nat. Bank v. Foss, 99 Okla. 178, 226 P. 567 (1924); Westbrook v. Rhodes, 92 Okla. 149, 218 P. 873 (1923).

To acquire possession by prescription, possession must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with claim of ownership, such as will notify parties seeking information upon the subject that premises are not held in subordination to any title or claims of others, but against all titles and claimants; possession must also be actual, notorious, and hostile. Willis v. Holley, Okla., 925 P.2d 539 (1996).

Where first adjoining landowner purchased his lot in 1952, gardened the unimproved fenced lot until 1956, later built house on lot, made driveway next to the fence, and a well house a few feet from the fence line, and a couple of years after that he erected a new chain link fence replacing existing one, first adjoining landowner demonstrated that he had sufficient title by prescription to disputed property between two landowners, before second landowner challenged location of fence in 1976. Threet v. Polk, Okla.App., 620 P.2d 467 (1980).

Adverse possession must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive with claim of ownership which notifies parties seeking information on subject that premises are not held in subordination to, but against all titles and claimants. Sudheimer v. Cheatham, Okla., 443 P.2d 951 (1968).

Title by prescription ripens by occupancy of land under such circumstances and for such length of time as would bar action against occupier for recovery thereof. Gassin v. McJunkin, Okla., 173 Okla. 210, 48 P.2d 320 (1935).

To establish title by adverse possession, adverse claimant must prove actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession for full statutory period. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City v. Gillis, Okla., 155 Okla. 290, 9 P.2d 47 (1932).

One occupying a disputed strip of land after boundary has been established, who cultivates the same and refuses possession to owner, holds it adversely. Martin v. Cox, Okla., 31 Okla. 543, 122 P. 511 (1912).

---- Determination, adverse possession
Determination of what constitutes adverse possession under law of Oklahoma depends upon circumstances of each particular case and should take into consideration situation of parties, size and extent of land, and purpose for which it is adapted. Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Jordan, E.D.Okla.1978, 452 F.Supp. 558.

Determination as to what constitutes adverse possession in given case must largely depend on situation of parties, size and extent of land, and purpose for which it is adapted. Sears v. State Dept. of Wildlife Conservation, Okla., 549 P.2d 1211 (1976)

[47straight]

Ok, now apply it to the facts of just moving in to a house that's empty.

[sperry]

Ok, now apply it to the facts of just moving in to a house that's empty.



If you somehow manage to move into an empty house and live there for 15 years without the actual owner of the property doing anything about it, then you would have legal title to the property. That being said, if you own a house and can't be bothered to check on it for 15 years, I don't think anyone is going to feel too bad for you when you lose control of it.


At any time during that 15 years, you can kick that person out, which breaks the continuity of their adverse possession, and the 15 year period restarts.

As has been noted elsewhere, adverse possesion in practice is generally only going to occur when mistakes are made about the boundaries of your property.


Let's get some rule against perpetuities questions now!

[47straight]

If you somehow manage to move into an empty house and live there for 15 years without the actual owner of the property doing anything about it, then you would have legal title to the property. That being said, if you own a house and can't be bothered to check on it for 15 years, I don't think anyone is going to feel too bad for you when you lose control of it.


At any time during that 15 years, you can kick that person out, which breaks the continuity of their adverse possession, and the 15 year period restarts.

As has been noted elsewhere, adverse possesion in practice is generally only going to occur when mistakes are made about the boundaries of your property.


Let's get some rule against perpetuities questions now!

In the example they haven't been there 15 years. What do you have to do to kick them out.

[jkjsooner]

In the example they haven't been there 15 years. What do you have to do to kick them out.

I would guess take them to court and have a judge order that they leave.

In this case the Sheriff didn't do it because both parties have some sort of paperwork. I'd also guess the judge would allow the occupants a little time to leave since they were under the impression that they were legally "renting" the place.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'll leave the actual law discussion to the people who know what they're talking about...

[OUMallen]

In the example they haven't been there 15 years. What do you have to do to kick them out.

Call the sheriff.

[rekamrettuB]

I would guess take them to court and have a judge order that they leave.

In this case the Sheriff didn't do it because both parties have some sort of paperwork. I'd also guess the judge would allow the occupants a little time to leave since they were under the impression that they were legally "renting" the place.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'll leave the actual law discussion to the people who know what they're talking about...

Right. If the "tenants" produced a lease to the Sherriff and someone wasn't there w/ an eviction/writ then the Sherriff’s hands were tied...at least by Oklahoma law. As you mentioned, the owner would need to run it through the courts and get a ruling to vacate the premises.

[OUMallen]

I would guess take them to court and have a judge order that they leave.

In this case the Sheriff didn't do it because both parties have some sort of paperwork. I'd also guess the judge would allow the occupants a little time to leave since they were under the impression that they were legally "renting" the place.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'll leave the actual law discussion to the people who know what they're talking about...

+69

[Turd_Ferguson]

That being said, if you own a house and can't be bothered to check on it for 15 years, I don't think anyone is going to feel too bad for you when you lose control of it.Most asinine thing I've read in the last 10 minutes.

[47straight]

I would guess take them to court and have a judge order that they leave.

In this case the Sheriff didn't do it because both parties have some sort of paperwork. I'd also guess the judge would allow the occupants a little time to leave since they were under the impression that they were legally "renting" the place.

I'm just throwing this out there. I'll leave the actual law discussion to the people who know what they're talking about...

So what remedy does the homeowner have against the actual adverse possessor?

[OUMallen]

So what remedy does the homeowner have against the actual adverse possessor?

In the original case? You could try to get a tortious trespass. Any damages they caused the home. "Ouster" is the old school legal term for having them ejected by a court. That's a good law school final exam question, though.


A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the possessor's consent or otherwise.

The tort of trespassing protects the interest in the exclusive possession of the land. Anyone who has an actual and exclusive possession of land can bring action for trespass as a plaintiff: therefore, you do not necessarily have to own land to bring a trespassing claim - you just need to have the legal right to exclude others. Trespassing has two elements: An actual interference with the right of exclusive possession (called the "entry element"), and intent or negligence. Notably, there is no damage requirement, though pollution and neighbor trespass cases are an exception to this rule (they require a showing of damages).

As for the intent element, technically the person must intend to be on the land that they are on. But, in keeping with the hair-splitting often found in the nooks and crannies of the law, this does not mean the person must know that they are trespassing. To illustrate this point, imagine walking along a road, out in the country, that is bordered by a large field, which you are unsure whether it is private property or public land. In a simple example, the law draws a distinction between deciding to cut across the property (trespassing), and say accidentally meandering off the road in darkness (no trespassing). But, lack of intent is not a complete bar to prosecution - negligent acts that lead to entry can be prosecuted as well. So, if instead of walking along the road at night, you were driving along at an excessive speed and accidentally left the road and entered the property, trespassing would likely be found.

Trespassing should be contrasted with nuisance, which protects the quiet enjoyment of land. The major differences between the two torts are that nuisance claims need to show both damages and that the invasion was unreasonable - elements noticeably lacking in trespassing.

[OUDoc]

How is this not breaking and entering? They changed the locks.

[jkjsooner]

How is this not breaking and entering? They changed the locks.

The "renters" did not change the locks.

[Midtowner]

If someone brought this problem to me, thinking of an immediate solution, I'd suggest they file a Forcible Entry and Detainer. Next, in the longer term, I'd be looking at a class action lawsuit on behalf of property owners against this company.

[47straight]

How is this not breaking and entering? They changed the locks.

I wondered the same thing, against the adverse possessors, but not the "renters."

[47straight]

In the original case? You could try to get a tortious trespass. Any damages they caused the home. "Ouster" is the old school legal term for having them ejected by a court. That's a good law school final exam question, though.


A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the possessor's consent or otherwise.



I'mma stop you there. The adverse possessors are going to argue that they started an adverse claim for the property because it seemed to them that the property was abandoned.

[OUMallen]

I'mma stop you there. The adverse possessors are going to argue that they started an adverse claim for the property because it seemed to them that the property was abandoned.

You shouldn't have stopped. If you had kept reading, you would see that it doesn't always matter what the trespasser thought. "Intent" can mean simply intending to be where they are, not intending to be trespassing. It is a good and interesting debate, that's for sure. Like I said earlier, great law school tort final exam question. Or property.