Adverse Possession in Oregon

[Marineau]

What is the naWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

Adjacent to my office building is a large tract of land that I purchase in 1988. A condition of purchase was the vacation of a street, which went all to me due to the location of a Plat line. Unfortunately, many years ago, the former owner built his home over into this street right of way, encroaching 1 foot or so onto this tract that eventually was mine due to the vacation of the street. Shortly after purchasing the property, I had the line flagged, not surveyed, to identify where that property line actually was. In March of 1998, the adjoining home was purchased by my now neighbor. He was obvious in his excavation of land with a backhoe, some forty feet onto my property. To clarify my position, I had the property mapped by a surveyor and proceeded to hand over this map to he and his wife in 2003. I offered to buy some of his land below his house that is adjacent to my office and give up land that he was encroaching on. They said no for fear of loosing controll of their privacy, brush and trees that separate our two properties.

Just this summer, I offered to exchange property with the neighbor, square foot for square foot and he again refused. He wanted to buy my land and I said no, I would accept only an exchange of land. He proceeded to clear all of the trees and brush from his property, a plan that does not fit with his privacy comments early on.

Knowing the issue needed to be resolved, I hired another surveyor to finally formalize the survey of the ground adjacent to his home finding and pinning all imprortant corners.
He is continuing to use the ground running equipment over the property to do landscaping.

I have to put up a fence to stop the intrusion, but I am worried that he may claim adverse possesion on the disputed area next to his home. What are his chances of winning a case
;ike this?
Any advice is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey L. Marineaume of your state (only U.S. law)?

[justalayman]

chapter 950 oregon laws 1999

session law

an act

hb 2383

relating to adverse possession; creating new provisions; and amending ors 105.620.

Be it enacted by the people of the state of oregon:

Section 1. Ors 105.620 is amended to read:

105.620. (1) a person may acquire fee simple title to real property by adverse possession only if:
(a) the person and the predecessors in interest of the person have maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile and continuous possession of the property for a period of 10 years;
(b) at the time the person claiming by adverse possession or the person's predecessors in interest, first entered into possession of the property, the person entering into possession had the honest belief that the person was the actual owner of the property and that belief:

(a) by the person and the person's predecessor in interest, continued throughout the vesting period;

(b) had an objective basis; and

(c) was reasonable under the particular circumstances; and

(c) the person proves each of the elements set out in this section by clear and convincing evidence.

(2)(a) a person maintains "hostile possession" of property if the possession is under claim of right or with color of title. "color of title" means the adverse possessor claims under a written conveyance of the property or by operation of law from one claiming under a written conveyance.

(b) absent additional supporting facts, the grazing of livestock is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection (1)(a) of this section.

(3) as used in this section and ors 105.005 and 105.615, "person" includes, but is not limited to, the state and its political subdivisions as created by statute.

Section 2. The amendments to ors 105.620 by section 1 of this 1999 act apply to claims filed on or after the effective date of this 1999 act.



Approved by the governor august 16, 1999



filed in the office of secretary of state august 16, 1999



effective date october 23, 1999

I suspect he may be able to claim the actual foot or so but the additional 40 feet looks like it is totally out of the question.

the foot may not even be possible though if it was government property when he built as you cannot adversely posses property owned by the state (at least as far as I know)

tell him to stay off your land