People who are party to an evil can be brought to the bar of extralegal justice.

[zackbass]

... lots of people have brought squatters rights cases to courts in the case of abandoned buildings.

And against whom have these cases been brought - the real owners?

Reason I ask is, if they have to go to Court against the real owners, then it was not really Specifically Abandoned, was it?  The Real Owners wouldn't contest ownership if they had Specifically Abandoned the land, would they?

I like the idea of unowned and unownable property as a lubricant, an Anarchy Park where no one may be excluded, where anyone may build whatever he wants and anyone may destroy it.  See Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy"... it is free on his web site http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml

But what you are describing is a system whereby one man may gain Title and subsequently do to others what he did not want done to himself - EXCLUDE them.  It can't work that way, because the guy is almost certain to go away for a minute, to use the bathroom or go to work or something, at which point some other guy (hopefully the Real Owner from whom it was stolen) can move in and claim Title - until he in turn has to leave for a minute.  And so it goes.

There are three (3) questions I have posed above.  You can find them by doing a search for the "?" character.  Please answer them.

[zackbass]

If you look at adverse possession law in this country, and the case law history of it... you will see that it covers two distinct kinds of cases.  The doctrine is not confined to only the second kind described below:

(1) First, it comes into play when people try to take over [bona fide] abandoned buildings,

(2) Second involves cases where people try to take land which is currently owned by using it in a conspicuous manner.    

Nope, sorry, only the SECOND exists.  The first does not come into play.  If someone did take over a [bona fide] abandoned building whose real owner had SPECIFICALLY ABANDONED it, that would not involve an ADVERSE POSSESSION claim, because there would be no one objecting to the takeover and thus it would not be ADVERSE, see?
Give us a counterexample, to prove to us all that I am mistaken.  And a link so we can check.  Surely if you believe that this is the more common scenario, it won't be hard to come up with JUST ONE; and surely a link is not too much to ask; and please don't say "I'm not interested enough to READ about what I am claiming to be true," you sure are WRITING enough posts saying so, so give us a link that you have read enough to assure us that it illustrates what you are claiming.  Oughta be a piece of cake.
Remember, TYPE (1), the one in dispute, not Type (2) that we all already agree on.

This Type (1) sounds like a simple "Quiet Title" action, I've done three of them in the last year, cost about $2000 each.  No reason to get into all that decades-long "adverse possession" folderol.

[zackbass]

Then on this page, as an example, I gave the links to one of the more notable cases of adverse possession, and those links make it crystal clear, who those cases are against.  The cases are against, the property owner.  And again, it has been made crystal clear that I disagree with that.   So again... there is nothing to debate here, when it has already been established that I don't agree with this.  

And I specifically said that I was talking about the other Type, the ABANDONED BUILDINGS that you say are the more common type of takeover.  It is perfectly clear to everyone but you that I was asking, against whom are THOSE cases brought?

At no point in this conversation, so far as I am aware.... has anyone, myself included... ever said that adverse possession procedures.... AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.... is not aimed at the property owner.  If you are implying that that was said... if you think that that was said, you would be wrong.

So, if taking over an abandoned building is done by Adverse Possession, and you agree that Adverse Possession is always aimed at the REAL Property Owner, then it can never ever EVER be brought in a case of INTENTIONAL ABANDONMENT, can it?  Because of course the real owner would not be objecting in such an event, would he?

Adverse Possession is just a kind of "Statute of Limitations", where the real owner is time-barred from pursuing a claim.  Takes a dozen or more years.  If he did not want the Property anymore, there would be no question of his making a claim or being at all interested in making a claim, and the concept of Adverse Possession would be moot.

[zackbass]

If you, as a third party, purchase land that was taken by government for non payment of property taxes (e.g. at auction), do you consider that adverse?

There ya go.
Yes, THAT is Adverse, or was at the time the Government took it.  But it is not Adverse Possession, it is a Tax Sale; the Government took title and possession and sold it to me.  Had nothing to do with Laches (the basis for Adverse Possession, and with which I disagree for the same reason that I disagree with Adverse Possession).

Is THAT what you have in mind when you speak of people taking over abandoned buildings?  But no, you referenced "SQUATTERS' RIGHTS".

[zackbass]

I absolutely support adverse possession of abandoned buildings.  From time to time, in big cities, building owners sometimes choose to abandon buildings because they no longer want them for various economic reasons.

Adverse Possession, of course, always means that it is against the real Owner.  We have established that, correct?  You agreed to it, right?

Thus Adverse Possession does not apply to the case of voluntary relinquishment of Title to a building or a lot that the real Owner no longer wants.
Thus, in ALL cases, you and I agree that Adverse Possession is evil.  There is no "voluntary abandonment adverse possession exception".

[zackbass]

Yes, THAT is Adverse, or was at the time the Government took it.  .....  it is a Tax Sale; the Government took title and possession and sold it to me. 

Is THAT what you have in mind when you speak of people taking over abandoned buildings?  But no, you referenced "SQUATTERS' RIGHTS".

Let me get this straight.... you bought a property which was taken for back taxes... and you think that was ethical?  That is morally reprehensible.

And you are complaining about adverse possession, as if you are on some kind of high horse?

I am complaining about the legal term "Adverse Possession", which has a specific meaning, and yes I am opposed to it in all cases, and it has not one thing to do with Tax Deed Sales.

I agree that there is something wrong with Government acquisition of property for non-payment of Taxes too, but that is an entirely different matter, one which I will be happy to discuss separately.  (I would be most gleeful to return my dozen Tax Sale properties if I could get back the taxes I have had to pay on my two non-tax-sale houses.  I'd be even gladder to see EVERYONE get back all of his tax money.  Until that day, I'm bidding against other bidders for these deeds, at tax auctions; SOMEBODY is going to end up with the property.)

[zackbass]

At no point in this conversation, so far as I am aware.... has anyone, myself included... ever said that adverse possession procedures.... AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.... is not aimed at the property owner.  If you are implying that that was said... if you think that that was said, you would be wrong.

But but... but now you just a minute ago said that sometimes it is against the Owner and sometimes it is not... didn't you?

[zackbass]

Adverse Possession, of course, always means that it is against the real Owner.  We have established that, correct?  You agreed to it, right?

Thus Adverse Possession does not apply to the case of voluntary relinquishment of Title to a building or a lot that the real Owner no longer wants.

Thus, in ALL cases, you and I agree that Adverse Possession is evil.  There is no "voluntary abandonment adverse possession exception".

I concede that it is against the owner, in some cases, but it may not be against the owner in other cases.

So... now Adverse Possession lawsuits are NOT always brought against the real Owner.  Final answer?
So find one that was not brought against the real Owner.  Against whom, if anyone, WAS it brought?  Are you sure you have actually read such a case?

[zackbass]

At no point in this conversation, so far as I am aware.... has anyone, myself included... ever said that adverse possession procedures.... AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.... is not aimed at the property owner.  If you are implying that that was said... if you think that that was said, you would be wrong.

But but... but now you just a minute ago said that sometimes it is against the Owner and sometimes it is not... didn't you?

No, the problemis your reading comprehension skills... and the fact that you like to intentionally misinterpret things to play games with people because you think you  are "winning" an argument.


In no way did I state that adverse possession is aimed at the property owner, in ever single case.  I simply said that it is aimed at the property owner.    I did not claim that fact to be universal, and applying to all cases.

Read the above:  "At no point in this conversation, so far as I am aware.... has anyone, myself included... ever said that adverse possession procedures.... AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.... is not aimed at the property owner."
But obviously there is NOW such a point, where you are indeed denying that Adverse Possession court procedures are always aimed at the Property Owner.  You are mistaken, but you are certainly asserting that some Adverse Possession court procedures are not aimed at the Property Owner, whereas I am asserting that there are no such instances (because of the very meaning of the legal term Adverse Possession and how it is used in Court).

[zackbass]

Adverse Possession, of course, always means that it is against the real Owner.  We have established that, correct?  You agreed to it, right?

Thus Adverse Possession does not apply to the case of voluntary relinquishment of Title to a building or a lot that the real Owner no longer wants.

Thus, in ALL cases, you and I agree that Adverse Possession is evil.  There is no "voluntary abandonment adverse possession exception".

I concede that it is against the owner, in some cases, but it may not be against the owner in other cases.

So... now Adverse Possession lawsuits are NOT always brought against the real Owner.  Final answer?
So find one that was not brought against the real Owner.  Against whom, if anyone, WAS it brought?  Are you sure you have actually read such a case?

Got one?

[zackbass]

But obviously there is NOW such a point, where you are indeed denying that Adverse Possession procedures are always aimed at the Property Owner.

Where do you see a claim of exclusivity in my statement?  I see none.

I said that cases ARE aimed at property owners, and that is an objective fact.  In no way, does that semantically imply that I said that relates to every single case... as the whole point of contention from the very beginning of this diversion, has been the claim that there are two kinds of cases.  This is simply you lying through your teeth again, trying to play stupid, as if you don't know what this conversation was about from the very beginning.

I asserted that Adverse Possession procedures are ALWAYS, without exception, aimed at the Property Owner.  You disputed that.
Do you now agree with me?  If not, then you must assert that there exists at least ONE case where an Adverse Possession case was NOT aimed at the Property Owner.  For if there has never been such a case, then my assertion is correct and to dispute it is wrong.

[zackbass]

But obviously there is NOW such a point, where you are indeed denying that Adverse Possession procedures are always aimed at the Property Owner.

Where do you see a claim of exclusivity in my statement?  I see none.

I said that cases ARE aimed at property owners, and that is an objective fact.  And the reason I said that is because you seem to be implying that I am arguing that's not the case... when my posting the case from Boulder Colorado should make it clear that I very well understand that they are doing that.  I simply question if they do that in every case.

In no way, does that semantically imply that I said that relates to every single case... as the whole point of contention from the very beginning of this diversion, has been the claim that there are two kinds of cases.  This is simply you lying through your teeth again, trying to play stupid, as if you don't know what this conversation was about from the very beginning.

Are you, or are you not, "denying that Adverse Possession procedures are always aimed at the Property Owner," as I said above?
If you ARE denying that, then what I said was TRUE; for all I said, as anyone can clearly see, was that you were denying it..
If you are NOT denying that, then we now agree with what I said in the first place:  That Adverse Possession procedures are always aimed at the Property Owner.

[zackbass]

I asserted that Adverse Possession procedures are ALWAYS, without exception, aimed at the Property Owner.  You disputed that.

Okay, yes I did take exception.  But like I said above, we shall try to find some cases on this, so that we may more fully explore this for our own benefit, but also as it may interest some others in this group...... that way the matter can be more firmly settled... and everyone is happy that the matter is clarified.

I suggest that we try to:

(1) Check out the statutes for various states:

(2) Try to research some cases which might interest us... in helping settle the matter.

Fair enough?   We work on resolving the dispute... one way or another?

Or do we waste more time arguing, which isn't really doing much?

Kewl.  I hope you now see that I was not lying, and that my reading comprehension is not all that terrible, I just have a quirky way of amusing myself and my readers.

[zackbass]

I find that nowadays, I really don't give a fucking rats ass what goes on in this country, as we have long ago sunk down to the level of a fucking sewer.    I am not the least bit interested in explaining or rationalize why bureaucrats do the things that they do.... and to the extent that I may occasionally even entertain that discussion... I do so with very limited patience which roughly corresponds to my constantly fluctuating bipolar-like mood swings in regards to my level of hatred for government on any given day.

Amen.

[zackbass]

In that case, a neighbor was using another neighbors empty plot of land adjacent to the persons house, and they were "borrowing" (trespassing) the neighbors property for quite some time.. basically to dump dirt and debris and such for yard work... and the offending neighbor went to court and gained title to his neighbors property by claiming his use was open and conspicuous for about a period of ten years, or so.

I read the case, and yes the thieves did get TITLE to (some of) the land.
Now, what I would have done, if I were their lawyer, is I would bring a countersuit claiming that the Real Owners, too, had been dumping crap there all that time.  Or a separate Adverse Possession lawsuit as soon as theirs was done, as soon as the thieves acquired Title.  Thus on the very same grounds, my clients would have exactly the same claim against the New Owners.  Ad infinitum... the Real Estate Attorneys' Perpetual Employment Case.

Better yet, claim that the Real Owners had been charging the thieves a dollar a year for the privilege of using the land... thus it was not a Hostile use of the land and does not satisfy the legal requirements of an Adverse Possession case.  For a Tenant cannot bring an Adverse Possession lawsuit to acquire Title to that which he has been renting.