How do I claim Adverse Possession?

[Sebastopol]

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

I inherited a piece of property about 50 years ago. My name is on the deed, along with about 10 others, who shared the inheritance. I am the only person on the original deed that is still alive. Some of the heirs passed their share to their children. I have been using the property and have been paying the taxes. The other names on the deed (some dead) aren't aware of this and have never paid any tax. I have been using the property and paying taxes more than five years. How do I go about removing all the other names and claiming the property as mine? I do not know where any of the other heirs of the next generation even live. Frankly, it is not worth much, but I'd like to clear it up.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Sebastopol

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

I inherited a piece of property about 50 years ago. My name is on the deed, along with about 10 others, who shared the inheritance. I am the only person on the original deed that is still alive. Some of the heirs passed their share to their children. I have been using the property and have been paying the taxes. The other names on the deed (some dead) aren't aware of this and have never paid any tax. I have been using the property and paying taxes more than five years. How do I go about removing all the other names and claiming the property as mine? I do not know where any of the other heirs of the next generation even live. Frankly, it is not worth much, but I'd like to clear it up.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: you need to file an action to quiet title but expect some heirs to fight.
This is not an adverse possession action.
What have you not billed each heir/owner for their share of the real property taxes for the past five years?

[Sebastopol]

The taxes are so little, about $25 per year. I can probably locate one of the heirs, but the others, I wouldn't know how to locate. The one I can maybe find, doesn't know the property exisits.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by Sebastopol

The taxes are so little, about $25 per year. I can probably locate one of the heirs, but the others, I wouldn't know how to locate. The one I can maybe find, doesn't know the property exisits.

How was it deeded to you and the other heirs? And you would still have to serve all the heirs.

[Sebastopol]

I don't have the deed in my possession right now; however, I know that the deed was not joint tenancy. There are a lot of "heirs," as the deed was done in the 1940's. Some of the named title holder's children are dead, so it is multiple grandchildren involved now. If I had to guess, it would be about 40 people to "serve" and I know the whereabouts of only 2. I would really like to get a clean title. Can you suggest a "first step." Thanks so much for your help.

[latigo]

I don’t know what prompted the misleading response that this is not a case involving the adverse possession of real property, because it definitely is!

The individual that gave the misinformation would do well to read any state laws on the subject and in particular these sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure: (emphasis added)

“Section 324. Where it appears that there has been an actual continued occupation of land, under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument, judgment, or decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other, IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN HELD ADVERSELY.”

Section 323. “FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTING AN ADVERSE POSSESSION by any person claiming a title founded upon a written instrument, or a judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases: etc., “

________________________

However, if you expect to acquire marketable title, you must hire an attorney skilled in real property laws and institute a quiet title action against all known and unknown heirs, claimants and their heirs and assigns.

An action to quiet title to real property action is a paper eating, time consuming, complicated and expensive process.

It is NOT something that you could do without the attorney and an attorney that is experienced in the procedure. And few of them are.

Also, it is not necessary that the descendants and heirs of deceased owners be located and personally served with summons and complaint, nor even be identified.

Your attorney will order a title report (called a foreclosure report here) to be issued by a licensed title insurance company that will name the individuals to be named as defendants. It will not be cheap, either.

Unknown owners and claimants and their heirs and assigns are designated in the case caption as John Does 1 through __ and if their names and whereabouts cannot be reasonably ascertained, your attorney will have them served by publication of the summons.

Incidentally in case you are not aware, California like all the other states have statutes of limitation upon the expiration of which dispossessed/absent owners CANNOT assert their rights of ownership.

In California it is five years; to-wit:

“No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the property in question, within five years before the commencement of the action. “California Code of Civil Procedure Section 318.

Sax

[tranquility]

While I don't know any of the real case law on adverse possession, how can an *owner* be both adverse and hostile to *ownership* and the inherent right of possession. I don't think the other *owners* have a requirement (or the right) to kick the *owner* off to enforce possession to prevent an adverse possession.

No matter what, an attorney will be required.

[latigo]

Originally Posted by tranquility

While I don't know any of the real case law on adverse possession, how can an *owner* be both adverse and hostile to *ownership* and the inherent right of possession. I don't think the other *owners* have a requirement (or the right) to kick the *owner* off to enforce possession to prevent an adverse possession.

No matter what, an attorney will be required.

I think I understand where you are coming from tran. That is, that he has been in possession as a cotenant.

But even though he has done so under color of title his possession has been exclusive for the 5 years period. And according to the California definition, “adverse”.

That plus the fact that all the absent descendants, heirs and assigns of the other original cotenants are now estopped under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 318.from asserting and legal rights of ownership, a quiet title action should be available.

The trouble is that with the way they charge for legal services in that state he may have to sell the land to pay the lawyer.

I charged $1,500 for (and hopefully) the last QT I did.

My guess is that it will be that much times 10. But then someone has to keep them in their BMWs and Emporio Armani togs.

[tranquility]

Again, I don't know the case law, but a black letter law element in adverse possession is that it is hostile. Permission here is based on ownership. If the OP gave possession to another (who lived there for 5 years/paid taxes/etc.), would that other now have adverse possession rights over the owners who did not give permission? Why not? I think there is a problem here on the basic elements.

Even if we accept the others cannot sue for possession at this time (of which I am uncertain), that does not mean they don't get their share of the money from the sale. I'm assuming the OP wants title to sell eventually someday. He's the one who is going to have to quiet title unless his best friend is a title insurance company who will insure around things. OP will have to post and serve bunches of people. Even if we assume he has the power to gain the property, he has a long path ahead of him before he's there. Besides, the statute mentioned "seized or possessed" and I suspect that phrase is intended to include seizin.

As to the estoppel argument, there is one property. What is possession among owners? We can look to this at CCP 321. We have presumption owners are in possession unless an adverse possession is established. I am still uncertain if owners can adversely possess against other owners. Owners have a right of possession. How can that be adverse?

(Let's not even get into the tolling of the statute on these facts by people being too young or insane or out of state or....)

[tranquility]

I just lost a fairly long additional info edit to my above post. Suffice to say, cotennants can disseize other owners. The interactions are not quite the same and the notorious and adverse elements require acts of such nature to give "information and notice to his cotenants that disseizin and adverse possession is intended".

The remedy between cotenants is a barring of statutes intervenes.

[Sebastopol]

I was "guessing" that the adverse action could not be claimed, since I am one of the original owners. FYI, I don't plan to sell the property, but want to improve it to a more liveable condition. I just don't want to put money out and not own the property. I doubt the property is worth more that $20K. Sounds like attorney fees in California could amount to that. Can I at least get the dead people's names removed from the title, and start there?

[tranquility]

Sorry, no. Unless the title was as joint tennants with right of survivorship (unlikely by the way you got title), others still own the portions owned by the dead people. Just like you, others were sold the property, or inherited it or the state owns it by escheat. Dissappearing the names was the point of the entire discussion. You would have to trace ownership to the current owners and file against them to quiet title by adverse possession and not just get rid of the names of the now-dead former owners.