Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have yet to hear of a state where simply walking across someone's property would be sufficient for a claim for adverse possession. If you happen to know of such a state, please feel free to let us know.
If that was the case, all the mail carriers, kids, people walking dogs, etc. would own my house.
I have yet to hear of a state where simply walking across someone's property would be sufficient for a claim for adverse possession. If you happen to know of such a state, please feel free to let us know.
In the very first post in this thread, the OP mentions his neighbor "using his driveway." He went on to say in that first post "I understand he got comfortable using it while house was vacant as there was nobody to object but I don't want any vehicles on my driveway other than mine."
What part of that statement leads you to believe that the neighbor was just "walking across" his property?
In the very first post in this thread, the OP mentions his neighbor "using his driveway." He went on to say in that first post "I understand he got comfortable using it while house was vacant as there was nobody to object but I don't want any vehicles on my driveway other than mine."
What part of that statement leads you to believe that the neighbor was just "walking across" his property?
You seem really hung up on this. Why don’t you simply provide the information on the state(s) where what the OP described would give rise to an adverse possession situation. Links to the relevant law(s) would go a long ways toward shutting up those that don’t see it the same way that you do. . .
You seem really hung up on this. Why don’t you simply provide the information on the state(s) where what the OP described would give rise to an adverse possession situation. Links to the relevant law(s) would go a long ways toward shutting up those that don’t see it the same way that you do. . .
I already advised the OP to do that several days ago in post #11 in this thread. Here is my exact quote: "The neighbor may, in fact, have a right to continue using your driveway. It depends on the details. Look up the term "adverse possession" and study it carefully. See if the description fits your situation."
Why should I look it up for him? Also, there may be other people reading this who may have or know someone who has a similar situation. Each of them should look up the laws for their own state to see if it applies. Are you happy now?
I already advised the OP to do that several days ago in post #11 in this thread. Here is my exact quote: "The neighbor may, in fact, have a right to continue using your driveway. It depends on the details. Look up the term "adverse possession" and study it carefully. See if the description fits your situation."
Why should I look it up for him? Also, there may be other people reading this who may have or know someone who has a similar situation. Each of them should look up the laws for their own state to see if it applies. Are you happy now?
You’re the one pushing the adverse possession bit, so you should be supporting your position. Show us a single state where what was described constitutes adverse possession. Just need one.
You’re the one pushing the adverse possession bit, so you should be supporting your position. Show us a single state where what was described constitutes adverse possession. Just need one.
Should be easy for you to do. . .
Here's the top search result for adverse possession in Arizona:
In Arizona, adverse possession occurs when a person occupies a property as a trespasser for two years or pays taxes on the property for five years1. The Arizona statute (ARS 12-523) requires an individual to occupy an otherwise neglected property publicly for at least 2 years2. To claim adverse possession, the possession must be actual, open and notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, and exclusive and continuous for at least ten consecutive years345.
And ditto for Adverse Right of Way, which would apply to the OP's situation:
Possessing a right of way adversely means claiming a property right to land owned by another person by using it continuously for a certain period of time1234. This is also known as adverse possession or squatter’s rights53. However, adverse possession cannot be acquired to land over which a public right of way exists5. To prove adverse possession, one may need to show uninterrupted factual possession of the land or payment of taxes on the property34.
I realize it's scary to think your property rights could be stolen by strangers, but insisting somebody else prove it to you doesn't make you safe. Research your own state laws to know your rights.
In the very first post in this thread, the OP mentions his neighbor "using his driveway." He went on to say in that first post "I understand he got comfortable using it while house was vacant as there was nobody to object but I don't want any vehicles on my driveway other than mine."
What part of that statement leads you to believe that the neighbor was just "walking across" his property?
I wasn't responding to the OP's situation because, by that point, you had diverted the discussion to adverse possession. However, there would be little difference between someone walking on a property or driving over it since neither use demonstrates possession. I am open to the possibility that some states may not properly distinguish between adverse possession and prescriptive easements in their statutory language. In those instances, if any, it would be the case law interpreting those statutes which would be controlling. But, there is no need to belabor this topic further since the OP has already determined that his neighbor has an easement over his property.
Guys, let's not sidetrack with adverse possession and focus on if I have a claim for title insurance company as this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the title report and this easement is not a part of the exception list. I reached out to attorney who worked with me during closing (they also worked with title company) and am now waiting for their feedback.
Guys, let's not sidetrack with adverse possession and focus on if I have a claim for title insurance company as this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the title report and this easement is not a part of the exception list. I reached out to attorney who worked with me during closing (they also worked with title company) and am now waiting for their feedback.
You are doing the right thing, talking to the attorney.
Of course, you may need another attorney to set this one straight if you are dissatisfied with the feedback you receive.
Yeah. Adverse possession is a tangent, a red herring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
