Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DeliciousScratch3899 t1_ite33zk wrote

Surveyor here. You need to talk to the previous owners. Need to understand the history of that row of bushes. Please find them, and ask them about it.

72

dotts6969 t1_ite9g6j wrote

previous ownership passed away. Not suddenly, they were 90+. House was for sale for a long time as well. Seems like a lot of time and opportunity to settle the land dispute before hitting new ownership with a C&D

29

Grand_Profession_207 t1_itedikt wrote

It’s entirely possible the AP of the land wasn’t malicious which could explain why it wasn’t settled with the previous owners and wasn’t until OP had the land surveyed that the boundary discrepancy was realized.

9

SmiteyMcGee t1_itnf3se wrote

Not from RI but in my jurisdiction to qualify for AP (among other things) it has to be malicious. The senator would have had to made some use of the land (eg. Placing permanent structures)m tough to make an AP claim against a grass boulevard

1

Grand_Profession_207 t1_itoa094 wrote

I think the malicious component is satisfied if it’s without the owners permission. E.g AP can’t be claimed on a parcel that one neighbor allows the other to use for grazing cows.

1

talktwomey t1_itf3tvn wrote

Had a similar situation - unfortunately, previous owners' info wasn't reliable and consistent with each other.

OP, one thing you could check if you haven't already is RI GIS satellite imagery. My neighbor's fence was over the boundary line on my side by about 20ft. I was able to prove it was placed there erroneously less than 20 years ago by comparing satellite photos. My neighbor didn't take the dispute any further after that.

You can toggle images from different years. Maybe the trees weren't planted as long ago as claimed?

https://ridemgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a2960d1a022e4dccaab14aa4a58f5d45

23

muddy_moose t1_itggu2b wrote

Tacking onto this; I’m a professional in the GIS industry and would be more than happy to track down the appropriate imagery and look at it if you wanted OP. Just DM me.

12

SmiteyMcGee t1_itnerss wrote

How did we ever know how old trees are before sat imagery...

1

kittiesmom2 t1_itmr5eb wrote

I wish I could see the pics of my property from 1939 or even the 1950's. I tried everything. I only get a current pic. When I changed to the right years & removed check from current, I don't get a real pic, just an outline of the house. Any idea how I can get it??

1

Grand_Profession_207 t1_ite5lht wrote

This, the idea behind the law is the land has to have been adversely possessed in the first place. If the prior owner ALLOWED him use the land to plant the trees, the criteria for AP is not met.

14

DeliciousScratch3899 t1_iteoip1 wrote

He might have not even planted those trees/bushes. People, especially politicians will say anything, if it gets them what they want.

14

Freshman44 t1_itg9zow wrote

Yup, where are those receipts? Otherwise it’s hearsay

2

mountedpandahead t1_itg7u71 wrote

Also. Doesn't the land transferring ownership invalidate adverse possession. You can't be open and notorious and have surveyors retracing the boundary, laying out stakes, going to settlement, then starting the planning phase and .... woops it's mine.

3

Grand_Profession_207 t1_itgknx7 wrote

Not a lawyer but the way the laws surrounding AP sound the sale of property doesn’t reset the clock for either side. Open and Notorious could be as simple as maintaining a garden, it doesn’t necessarily mean building a fence or something. As I said in another comment it’s possible for it to not have been initially malicious it just has to be without permission aka hostile which could be why it wasn’t until the land was surveyed that the discrepancy was noted.

1

mountedpandahead t1_itgn2a9 wrote

I guess there is probably a reasonable time-frame established by statute somewhere

1

NorwegianSteam t1_itfbjcf wrote

> If the prior owner ALLOWED him use the land to plant the trees, the criteria for AP is not met

But an easement may have been established, in which case they still might not be able to do anything to that part of the land.

2

Grand_Profession_207 t1_itfuo5o wrote

It’s unlikely, not impossible but unlikely there’s an easement that didn’t come up during the purchase of the home as it would/should have been incorporated to the zoning maps

2