Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Grand_Profession_207 t1_ite9x8v wrote

Reply to comment by mdurg68 in State Senator stealing my land by Silly_Yak_3741

It doesn’t matter if a new owner comes in, in fact “tacking” is allowed where adverse possession is transferable between owners

5

mdurg68 t1_itep2a5 wrote

Yeah I’d did some googling after I sent the reply. I guess if in fact the row of bushes was planted there 30 years ago by them then it’s their property. That’s totally messed up.

What part of the home buying process would cover that? Getting a survey? I guess people skip that if they think the area has been “stable” for a number of years.

7

upriver_swim t1_itezgk1 wrote

Seems like a fraud on someone’s part. Either the previous homeowner, the senator, the town, a surveyor.

A property was bought sold with X size. Not. Minus whatever a neighbor, regardless or job, has to say.

Slightly scum bag of them to say nothing at all and just go to court. And now, considering their job, completely scum bag.

Fuck that senator. They can eat a heap of shit. It’s low brow.

8

NorwegianSteam t1_itfbq55 wrote

> What part of the home buying process would cover that? Getting a survey? I guess people skip that if they think the area has been “stable” for a number of years.

Title insurance exists for exactly this reason. You may not get the land, but will be compensated by the insurance and they'll be the one fighting in court if it goes to that.

6

Grand_Profession_207 t1_iter1uq wrote

Getting a survey might not even help unless the purchase was contingent on survey findings being accepted with an affidavit signed by bordering property owners? Not a lawyer btw.

2

mcChicken424 t1_itewp3d wrote

Yes you could get a survey and you'd know about this problem before you closed on the house. Money well spent.

As far as fixing the problem idk. But you'd know before you bought the house

1

brojjenheimer t1_itf3g4e wrote

You wouldn't necessarily know about the problem from a survey. Unless there was already an indication of the possession (a fence with occupation up to it) apparent to the surveyor, the survey would only show the record line and you would have to wonder for yourself why the line on the ground (if it was marked out) didn't match with the row of bushes. A row of bushes doesn't make it onto a survey unless it's already being looked at with interest, and is being noted intentionally. Not to say that getting a survey when buying property isn't money well spent, it is, but it wouldn't necessarily alert you to this issue.

3

SmiteyMcGee t1_itfq7i0 wrote

I'm coming from where this was crossposted in r/surveying

I think what you said is generally true however I wanted to tack something on. In most cases of adverse possession the disputed land should be very clearly occupied by the encroaching party and this is something that would most likely be shown on a survey. Whether it's gardening/landscaping, sheds, other permanent structures or a fence as you noted. If it's just empty unused space after what grounds do you have to possess it?

Also in their duties of survey a surveyor really should talk with all parties involved which would also alert them of this but I think this often doesn't happen unless as you said, there was a known boundary dispute.

Again as you said a surveyor would most likely not discover this "issue" depending how obvious this so called shrub boundary is supposed to be, but for that reason it seems like a weak AP claim

1

brojjenheimer t1_ithc1yo wrote

Sounds exactly like what I said, but with twice the words and therefore probably twice as clear :)

1

mcChicken424 t1_ithau2z wrote

Yeah you're completely right. But there's a chance the surveyor could have asked about the row of bushes and that POS senator would have said he didn't know and the surveyor might could be called as a witness. But yeah you're completely right

1

TDGroupie t1_itgfssl wrote

In this housing market Boone has time to wait a month for a survey.

1