This land is my land...errr....no it isn't!

You old cynic you! OK - so the thought crossed my mind too, but I am hoping that isn't the case! the general rule however is something that consumers need to know.

You wanna buy my sign? This is the home of capitalism you know. make me an offer!

I'm very familiar with Adverse Possession as my latest sale of land and home was caught up in this law. Doesn't seem fare if someone purchases land to build on years down the road and just because someone else used it with out permission they can keep it! Great advice on the no Trespassing signs.

It does seem like a crazy law. What's amazing about these old laws is that they are still on the books.

ouch!  There are just some bad people out there, aren't there?

This is the kind of story that really gets under your skin. A retired judge and attorney. Go figure. Do you by chance have a link to this story in some newspaper or publication?

Sorry Simon. Didn't mean to offend by adding links related to this story. They have been removed.

Courtney -  go figure!

Karl - you can find it on FARs website in the news section.

Nope - I'm not selling it to anyone who isn't a conservative! lol

Simon - The laws regarding adverse possession are taught to new agents prior to licensing in the State of Maryland. You are correct in your statement that the laws harken back to old English Law. All of our real estate law was borne out of old English Law. That does not change the fact that property is lost through adverse possession, which is recognized under our current real estate laws.

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain property and do whatever is necessary to preclude adverse possession from occuring.

15 years in Oklahoma. Sometimes the law serves good purpose. I had a client that their family had bought the home 20 years ago from family members on l acre.

They listed it. We wrote a contract. It was accepted. Survey showed boundary cut the corner off the house. Family would not sell them any more laud, even the corner of the house. Enter Adverse Possession. They actually wound up with more than the necessary laud under the house.

They had been willing to buy but owners (are descendants of original owners) would not sell.

Also might ck the laws. The years can be tags teamed in some states at least.

Andrew  -  I had no idea it was seven until this evening. I will be researching this shortly and checking on my clients with land to make sure they have protected themselves.

J-mac - thanks!

Judi -  interesting contribution. Florida does seem ridiculously short to me.

In Texas it's 20 years and that sign is REALLY used around my area A LOT! Of course I live in North Texas where they paint the post purple and you are SUPPOSE to know that it means VERY Posted! If the owner has his post painted purple and you trespass they have the right to shoot you, no questions asked! I moved up here seven years ago and that was part of my "training" of getting to now the area.

Not a good law at all. I've seen a few older people really taken advantage of because of it. You should see some of the crazy laws that are still on the books in Texas.

Thanks for the heads up on the whole purple thing Kathy. I'll keep that in mind if I ever go back to Texas!

Good sign. Good post. Thanks for sharing.

I had a 44 acre property (Maryland) that my neighbors would try to use as an add-on to their lots by riding motorcycles, cutting their lawn an extra swath or two each week or dumping their yard refuse on it.
I knew their activity was a direct assault on my rights as the owner and my legal property line. They didn't get it when I confronted each and every one of them. They thought I was nuts. I took my 4x4 Chevy and did donuts on the back yard of the motorcyle riders.
That stopped them. I promised the refuse dumpers that every piece of concrete and grass clippings that I found on my property would end up at the bottom of their pool. That stopped them. I spread 1400 bushels of horse manure along the property
line of the guy who kept cutting the grass further and further into my property. Aside from his dog getting a free manure lunch and bath, not much changed there. Fact is, property is
like a trademark- It's up to the owner to protect it. Some of my tactics may seem out of line, but I've found it best to relate to trespassers on their own level, communicate in a way they can understand.

Simon - my memory is a little off, but doesn't the party claiming adverse possession have to pay taxes on the land for it to be enforcable? That's at least how I remember Florida law, but it has been a few years since I thought about it.

Now that was an interesting case.  Thanks for bring a seldom used law to our attention.

Adverse possession does have it's place.  I've seem people try to tear out other's driveways where no easement existed, and adverse possession was the only solution.  Perhaps the requirements need to be adjusted a bit, but legally they are completely within their bounds, and the law is there for a very good reason, it just seems that it was a poor instance of application here.

California -- five years.  But you have to have paid the taxes on the property.  I've never understood how you would do that if the owners are getting and paying the bill.  Perhaps someone else could explain that.  We do have prescriptive easement, which is open and unpermitted use, also five years.  That sign of yours prevents that, too. 

I hope I never get lost in North Texas.

Simon-Great points and very important for land owners to understand. We have been involved in such cases. With our next door neighbors it was the opposite. They wanted us to pay to move our fence over to our side of the yard. Since my past broker sold me the house I knew she had built the house and that fence was in that same place since 1984. Well, their attorney told them they would lose the case. So my fence is still there. My argument was that I had a survey to show that was in fact my property not theirs. Katerina

I've heard of this before. We talked about it in the classes to get my license in Pennsylvania. I couldn't believe that a law like that existed. It's horrible. Your post will helpfully get others aware of this law. 

Simon, This judge should be disbarred. I'm sure he used his knowledge of the law to take advantage of this couple.  That's sad.

I recall learning about this in my early real estate training.  I believe this judge and attorney plotted this for a long time and just because it is the law does not always make it moral or ethical.  It just adds to the public distrust of attorneys in general, which may or may not be misplaced.  This is valuable land that the rightful owners (in my mind) will now have to pay dearly to retrieve, if it is possible.  I hope the public outcry against the thieves is loud and unbearable.  This isn't right.

Simon Just another case of a law that started with good intentions being used to shaft someone. You know the judges are going to stick together. Congrats of the feature I hope your not becoming an _ _ _ kisser.

Bob and Carolyn -  thanks for stopping by.

Robert - interesting way of dealing with the problem!

Jennifer - apparently not, because the couple had paid the taxes.

Jimmy - you're welcome

Jonathan  - This is in my opinion, very poor use of the law.

Elaine - me neither!

Katerina - my understanding is that is the most common use of this law - boundary disputes.

Christy  -  I hope so!

Dan - it does seem that way

Joe - I agree entirely

Hugh - of course not!!

I'll have to see what the limits are here in Mich. I haven't heard of anything like this here but it could be happening as i type. The nerve of people to stael something they know is not theirs.

I believe Florida law requires the squatter to pay the taxes for all 7 years and show "color of title" (meaning some sort of proof of ownership).  The Colorado case apparently would not have qualified under Florida law because he did not pay taxes or have color of title.

Simon - You always hear stories like this during real estate licensing classes, but I haven't heard of it happening in such an extreme way to actual people before.  I was familiar enough with the term "adverse possession", but to hear this story is terribly sad to me.

Just another example of an old law that should go away.  I guess it would be like the property version of Common Law Marriage. 

Could they go after them for trespassing for holding events on the property without permission? 

At first blush, the laws of adverse possession may seem antiquated and unfair, but they do have a certain social utility.  The doctrine of adverse possession serves to protect ownership rights by barring stale claims and to correct errors in conveyancing.  It's part of a system of checks and balances, so to speak.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that one could argue unjust enrichment as a bar to any claim in the instant case.

Since the property is only 200 yards from their home, wouldn't they have known the judge and his wife were using the property, thus giving them permission by not stopping their use? And wouldn't that negate the "hostile use" part required for adverse possession?

Maryland is 20 years and Virginia is 15. 

This law stacks up with the Immanent Domain laws used in some states. 

It stinks.

Robert - I agree

Bill - thanks for the feature

Rob - I intend to bring a real estate attorney onto my radio show next week to discuss this. If it is English Common Law that is being used, paying of taxes would not - at least on the surface - have anything it do with it as indeed it didn't in this Colorado case.

Jason - truly it makes me sick that people would do this to their neighbors

Lane - it would appear not without the sign or the fence, but I am not a lawyer.

Scott - interesting perspective

Jackie - I am not familiar with the specific details to be able to answer that

Lenn- Eminent Domain is about government taking land. In Florida that is now not possible for economic gain.

There is a specific Florida Statute that addresses adverse possession.  I believe under Chapter 95.