Cutting my grass- adverse possesion

[Zigner]

Did I say otherwise? I don't think so.

as I said, a prescriptive easement does not require exclusive use for a claim to be possible. It is merely that the person uses the property against the intent of the owner for the prescribed period of time. That continued adverse use allows the person to seek a continued use of the same nature, regardless of whether the use was exclusive or not.

We're not disagreeing here You are speaking of an easement, I am speaking of adverse possession

 

[justalayman]

We're not disagreeing here You are speaking of an easement, I am speaking of adverse possession

correct. Everybody else was dealing with an adverse possession claim while ignoring the possibility the neighbor could end up with a prescriptive easement. That is why OP needs to either grant a license or actually prohibit neighbor from entering the land in question. The problem with granting a license is one of liability. His duty of care owed to a licensee or invitee is such that he must be proactive in ensuring the person is not injured. Not worth it in my mind.

 

[tranquility]

correct. Everybody else was dealing with an adverse possession claim while ignoring the possibility the neighbor could end up with a prescriptive easement. That is why OP needs to either grant a license or actually prohibit neighbor from entering the land in question. The problem with granting a license is one of liability. His duty of care owed to a licensee or invitee is such that he must be proactive in ensuring the person is not injured. Not worth it in my mind.

Well, not everybody.

Send a letter describing your boundaries and tell him you give him a license, revokable at any time you choose, to mow. You hope you get a response from him. Even if a denial it is your boundaries, you would have proof he had knowledge you gave him a license--thus eliminating the element of the possession being notorious. You might try mowing the disputed area yourself once in a while and getting a dated video of it to help prevent the "exclusive" element as well. I mean, if his only claim of possession is mowing and you are mowing too....

Also, I don't think one can get a prescriptive easement unless the other party is getting value from the possession. Doing mowing on certain areas does not seem to me to be value.

Such a "notification" would HELP the elements of adverse possession. Permission to cut the grass in such a letter would prevent the element of "hostile" and would be a better choice if the only fear was to lose the land. Otherwise, the OP must act to prevent the possession by the other party. (Although, I am uncertain as to if merely cutting the grass would be enough for adverse possession.)

 

[justalayman]

Well, not everybody.

I stand corrected...

but gaining something of value is not a requirement to make a PE claim. Use is the requirement.

and again, as I said, giving a license to enter the OP's property allows liability to attach for injuries. It would be best to simply stop the intrusion and be done with it.

you also made the mistake of believing the use must be exclusive for a claim of PE to attach. It doesn't.

 

[tranquility]

I stand corrected...

but gaining something of value is not a requirement to make a PE claim. Use is the requirement.

and again, as I said, giving a license to enter the OP's property allows liability to attach for injuries. It would be best to simply stop the intrusion and be done with it.

you also made the mistake of believing the use must be exclusive for a claim of PE to attach. It doesn't.

I am aware of the difference between adverse possession and PE. If you read as though I was careful in my posts, you would see no "mistake". "Use" is interesting. Are you sure no value is required for "use"? If so, let us debate it. But, to accept the premise and the right, a person would have the claim in court they have the right to mow the grass in the area because they mowed it for 21 years. I can imagine this could win, but how much do you think such a "right" is worth?

 

[HomeGuru]

The right would be worth probably one goat.

 

[justalayman]

I am aware of the difference between adverse possession and PE. If you read as though I was careful in my posts, you would see no "mistake". "Use" is interesting. Are you sure no value is required for "use"? If so, let us debate it. But, to accept the premise and the right, a person would have the claim in court they have the right to mow the grass in the area because they mowed it for 21 years. I can imagine this could win, but how much do you think such a "right" is worth?

The fact they entered the property, for no specific purpose, is adequate to make the claim. Heck, the neighbor could claim it was for purposes of cathartic activities if you need a specific purpose.
I don't understand the point of asking what the worth of the activity is (to the neighbor I presume)



If you are suggesting it may not be worth it for the neighbor to make his claim in court, well, that is a totally different question.

 

[justalayman]

And the mistake was implying their must be exclusitivity for the claim to be valid.