ProgN said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/us/delaware-man-loses-125000-property-squatter-neighbor-after-trying-remove-goat-pen-she-built-it

Quote:

---

A Delaware man recently discovered while trying to sell part of the property his family has owned for two generations that his neighbor had taken control of the land, and he has lost possession after the neighbor claimed squatter's rights.

In 2021, Burton Banks tried to sell part of a property his father had left him near Ocean View, Delaware, but found that his neighbor, Melissa Schrock, had erected a goat pen on part of the property and had been using roughly two-thirds of an acre of the property for decades, Delaware Online reported.

Banks took Schrock, who claimed squatter's rights, to court and a judge ruled against him.

The judge determined that Banks had not been a primary resident of the property for the last 20 years and only occasionally visited from where he lived in Atlanta which, according to Delaware's adverse possession law, gives Schrock claim to the property after 20 years.

"It can be shocking because most people don't know about it," Widener University law professor Serena Williams told the outlet about squatters rights in the state.

---

Quote:

---

In February, Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that Schrock had met the 20-year occupation requirement and Burton had not, so Burton was forced to hand the property title to Schrock.

The value of the property Burton lost is estimated at $125,000.

"I can't afford the appeal," Burton said. "But (I'm) hoping I can at least warn others."

---

---

Help me understand how this isn't 20 years of theft by Schrock? She literally used something that wasn't hers for so long that our justice system says she get's to keep it now?

Doc Hayworth said:

---

"A relative of mine bought a half section from a family several years ago in which one of the brothers was against selling the land and didn't agree to it. Because of adverse possession, after a period of time (three years in that case), that brother could no longer win a lawsuit demanding that the land be returned to him."

I personally do not see where adverse possession has anything to do with this. The land was family owned, it sold and one brother was against the sale. Happens all the time. The land sold, therefore there is no adverse possession, with the land selling in fee.

---

So if one owner objects to the sale and refuses to sign, he can't come back and gum up the works later (within the proper statute of limitations) because the other co-owners could completely ignore his objections?

I can see that the other property owners could sell their interests in the property to the buyer, but how can they sell the interest of the remaining owner?

Isn't the three year statute of limitations applicable in this case? If the buyer has legal title to the property, what kind of cases are reason for the three year statute of limitations?

Another possibly common AP issue: An accurately surveyed residential Parcel 1; and Parcel 2's incorrectly-placed fence has encroached onto Parcel 1 by 7.5 inches (over X linear feet). Parcel 1 doesn't notice, but Parcel 2 does.

Then it comes down to the intent of the encroacher. That the fence exists is evidence of open/notorious use. After the requisite period of time has run, they could file a survey of the long, narrow parcel in question with a statement claiming the AP period has run--and that it is now part of Parcel 2.

A couple of ways to defeat this, would be to either serve notice to remove the errant fence; or to record a statement that outlines what has happened and that Parcel 1 reserves rights to it's 7.5 inch by X linear foot parcel. Of course, these tactics would have to be employed before the end of the AP running period.

NOTE: I'm not a land attorney, but I do "play one on TV".

DogCo84 said:

---

Another possibly common AP issue: An accurately surveyed residential Parcel 1; and Parcel 2's incorrectly-placed fence has encroached onto Parcel 1 by 7.5 inches (over X linear feet). Parcel 1 doesn't notice, but Parcel 2 does.

Then it comes down to the intent of the encroacher. That the fence exists is evidence of open/notorious use. After the requisite period of time has run, they could file a survey of the long, narrow parcel in question with a statement claiming the AP period has run--and that it is now part of Parcel 2.

A couple of ways to defeat this, would be to either serve notice to remove the errant fence; or to record a statement that outlines what has happened and that Parcel 1 reserves rights to it's 7.5 inch by X linear foot parcel. Of course, these tactics would have to be employed before the end of the AP running period.

NOTE: I'm not a land attorney, but I do "play one on TV".

---

It would seem to depend partially on whether it is a "casual fence" or a "designed enclosure".

From https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2018/06/18/does-grazing-cattle-for-years-allow-claim-of-adverse-possession/

Quote:

---

Adverse possession recognizes two kinds of fences: casual fences and designed enclosures. A person who argues that they grazed their cattle within the fenced property must prove that the fencing was designated enclosure in order to succeed on an adverse possession claim. "When a claimant relied on grazing to acquire limitation title, the land must be enclosed to give evidence that it was designedly enclosed and that the claimant is asserting a claim hostile to the true owner." See Parker v. Gaines, 842 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Ct. App. Houston 1992). If the disputed tract of land has been enclosed with other land, especially when the other land is owned by the claimant, the enclosure is casual. Further, if a fence existed before the party seeking adverse possession took possession of the land, and the party fails to prove the purpose for which the fence was built, it is a casual fence. A casual fence may be converted into a designed enclosure if there is evidence of substantial modification. Merely repairing or maintaining casual fenceseven for the purposes of keeping animals indoes not convert a casual fence to an enclosure. For example, where a party converted a 3-strand barbed wire fence into a net fence and put in all new posts to ensure it would hold sheep, substantial modification occurred and the fence became a designed enclosure. See McDonald v. Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d 136, 144 (Tex. 1971). Conversely, where a party replaced the barbed wire and posts of the original fence, the nature was not completely changed and it remained a casual fence. See Mendoza v. Ramirez, 336 S.W.3d 321, 329 (Tex. Ct. App. El Paso 2010).

---

I wonder how many fences are actually right on the property line.

Just taking a shot in the dark, since I don't know all the particulars, but I would imagine the brother that was not willing to sign, was not named in the Deed conveying the property, as one of the current owners. That could be one possibility.

I personally have never seen a property sell, where it did not have to have the signature of all owners. Unless the property is being partitioned out as part of the sale. But, that would be a whole other mess.

eric76 said:

---

DogCo84 said:

---

Another possibly common AP issue: An accurately surveyed residential Parcel 1; and Parcel 2's incorrectly-placed fence has encroached onto Parcel 1 by 7.5 inches (over X linear feet). Parcel 1 doesn't notice, but Parcel 2 does.

Then it comes down to the intent of the encroacher. That the fence exists is evidence of open/notorious use. After the requisite period of time has run, they could file a survey of the long, narrow parcel in question with a statement claiming the AP period has run--and that it is now part of Parcel 2.

A couple of ways to defeat this, would be to either serve notice to remove the errant fence; or to record a statement that outlines what has happened and that Parcel 1 reserves rights to it's 7.5 inch by X linear foot parcel. Of course, these tactics would have to be employed before the end of the AP running period.

NOTE: I'm not a land attorney, but I do "play one on TV".

---

It would seem to depend partially on whether it is a "casual fence" or a "designed enclosure".

From https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2018/06/18/does-grazing-cattle-for-years-allow-claim-of-adverse-possession/

Quote:

---

Adverse possession recognizes two kinds of fences: casual fences and designed enclosures. A person who argues that they grazed their cattle within the fenced property must prove that the fencing was designated enclosure in order to succeed on an adverse possession claim. "When a claimant relied on grazing to acquire limitation title, the land must be enclosed to give evidence that it was designedly enclosed and that the claimant is asserting a claim hostile to the true owner." See Parker v. Gaines, 842 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Ct. App. Houston 1992). If the disputed tract of land has been enclosed with other land, especially when the other land is owned by the claimant, the enclosure is casual. Further, if a fence existed before the party seeking adverse possession took possession of the land, and the party fails to prove the purpose for which the fence was built, it is a casual fence. A casual fence may be converted into a designed enclosure if there is evidence of substantial modification. Merely repairing or maintaining casual fenceseven for the purposes of keeping animals indoes not convert a casual fence to an enclosure. For example, where a party converted a 3-strand barbed wire fence into a net fence and put in all new posts to ensure it would hold sheep, substantial modification occurred and the fence became a designed enclosure. See McDonald v. Weinacht, 465 S.W.2d 136, 144 (Tex. 1971). Conversely, where a party replaced the barbed wire and posts of the original fence, the nature was not completely changed and it remained a casual fence. See Mendoza v. Ramirez, 336 S.W.3d 321, 329 (Tex. Ct. App. El Paso 2010).

---

I wonder how many fences are actually right on the property line.

---

Easiest way to stay in good with the neighbor having the fence encroachment, would be to talk to them and have an atty draw up a fence line ecroachment agreement, that acknowledges the extent of the misplaced fence and that the fence will be located to the correct place when repairs are needed.

Alabama has a similar rule..... my new neighbor built his wooden fence 1 ft inside my property line. I found out that if I do not serve him notice to move it, after 20 years, the demarcation of the fence becomes the new property line. My neighbor was the one who knocked on my door and let me know -- honesty.

I like my neighbor and a linear foot is not going to make a difference to me. Plus they are supplying us with free farm fresh eggs every other day.

Given the price of eggs, I would expect the new fence to be another foot or two onto your property. Just sayin...

Quote:

---

But also making use of property that has been abandoned.

---

Please define "abandoned".

Just because I am "neglecting" a property by ignoring it, for example, doesn't mean I no longer claim it nor want it. If I'm not required to "maintain" it to some standard (provided I'm not in an HOA for example) then what concern is it to others what condition it's in? I'm speaking in the context of raw, undeveloped and unrestricted land.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Alabama has a similar rule..... my new neighbor built his wooden fence 1 ft inside my property line. I found out that if I do not serve him notice to move it, after 20 years, the demarcation of the fence becomes the new property line. My neighbor was the one who knocked on my door and let me know -- honesty.

I like my neighbor and a linear foot is not going to make a difference to me. Plus they are supplying us with free farm fresh eggs every other day.

---

Take the free eggs for 19 years. Then serve him notice.

Profit!!!

Chicago family fights 'pro squatter' who took over dead mom's home, left bullet hole in window

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-family-fights-pro-squatter-took-over-dead-moms-home-left-bullet-hole-window



Only reason I am posting this is because the squatter's name is Takito.

We have a Boston Terrier named Pakko. I am stealing this name for the next Boston we get.

BTW - Naming your dog Pakko then having to yell / call him whilst having your roof redone cannot result in confusion at the premises.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11902843/Man-turns-tables-squatters-living-inside-mothers-Northern-California-home.html

Quote:

---

A handyman was able to get revenge on squatters who moved into his mother's home by showing up with guns and squatting there himself.

Flash Shelton posted a video about his success in removing squatters from his mom's home in less than a day.

'If they could take a house, then I could take a house,' Shelton, a member of the United Handyman Association, said in the video.

They're the squatter, and they have rights. Well, then, if I become the squatter on the squatter, then I should have rights, right?' he said.

According to Shelton, several months ago a family of squatters broke into his mother's vacant home and began living there.

Shelton said his dad had recently passed away and they put the home up for rent since his mother could not live there alone.

A woman who told Shelton she was a prison guard asked to rent the home, but he refused as she said she had no money or credit.

That did not appear to stop her, however, as he later learned a truckload of belongings had been brought to the home.

'She said that it was delivered by accident and she was getting rid of it,' Shelton said.

That was a lie, however, as Shelton later found out from friends and realtors that the house was full of people and furniture.

Shelton called the police and received an unhelpful answer.

'They basically said, 'You know, I'm sorry, but we can't enter the house, and it looks like they're living there. So you need to go through the courts,'' Shelton said.

In his caption, the handyman said he was familiar with 'squatters rights' stories but he didn't know he would have to deal with a situation personally.

'I had heard horror stories about how the legal system gives the squatter more rights than the homeowner, so I decided to come up with a way on my own to get them out in less than a day,' Shelton wrote.

---

Quote:

---

Even though you're at your house, and you're paying the mortgage … at some point, squatters feel like they have more rights than you, so they don't have incentive to leave until a judge tells them to,' he said.

'And that could take months, six months, it could take years. I don't know. I didn't want to take that chance,' Shelton said in the 20 minute video.

---

Quote:

---

Shelton told the woman that if she didn't have everything out by midnight, he would have it hauled out himself.

The threat appeared to work as the family was moved out hours later.

'I think just the fact that I was there was enough,' he said. 'It was actually fun to do it. I won't lie about that. I'm glad it was successful.'

---

It does not happen much anymore but land can be be forgotten about, lost in a maze of probate matters or family squabbles. Essentially abandoned. Adverse Possession is a means for people who have been using the land and paying taxes for the requisite number of years to quiet title on this forgotten property.