Adverse Possession?

[doucar]

If they do it with your consent they aren't acting against the rights of another.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

You don't have to involve the police All you have to say is thank you for mowing part of MY lawn and then it is no longer hostile (of the open, notorious and hostile requirement for adverse possesion)

That’s all I have to “say” to the boundary bug?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That’s all I have to “say” to the boundary bug?

That's probably a good thing.

 

[doucar]

Yep. It won't hurt to document it, if you think it could turn ugly

 

[Zigner]

If they do it with your consent they aren't acting against the rights of another.

Saying "thank you" is not giving consent.

With that said, North Carolina operates with the presumption that usage is permissive with the burden of proof on the claimant to prove that it's not permissive.

 

[doucar]

we agree to disagree. but with the NC presumption, it couldn't hurt.

 

[LdiJ]

Your statement is not correct. What you have described isn't what "hostile" means in this context. In this context, "hostile" means (paraphrasing) acting against the rights of another.

I think perhaps his point was that by thanking the person, it turns into permissive rather than hostile.

It cannot be hostile if its permissive.

 

[LdiJ]

Saying "thank you" is not giving consent.

With that said, North Carolina operates with the presumption that usage is permissive with the burden of proof on the claimant to prove that it's not permissive.

I disagree that saying "thank you" is not giving consent.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree that saying "thank you" is not giving consent.

So, if you kill the little yapping dog that won't shut up and I say "thank you", does that mean I gave consent?

Yes, that's a bit hyperbolic

 

[Bali Hai Again]

I disagree that saying "thank you" is not giving consent.

In any event whether “saying” thank you or not has to be proven. How do you prove to the court you “said“ thank you and gave consent? The best way I know is to provide the court with police reports. The most effective way to fumigate boundary bugs Is to make them feel pain in their wallet.

 

[Litigator22]

It doesn’t matter if you buy land and you know exactly what you are getting or not, the law says someone can legally steal it from you.

If I was the titled owner of the property the thief would be facing a court battle. With these stupid adverse possession laws I may or may not win of course. In the absence of these stupid adverse possession laws there would be no question who the lawful owner of the land was and the trespasser would be forced to negotiate a remedy or vacate.

With unscrupulous squatters and large tracts of land rarely, if ever, visited by the out of state owner you would need a 24 hour guard to patrol and protect it.

Of course, the proper application of these laws can result in the forfeiture of lawfully acquired property rights. But contrary to your uneducated and ill-informed haranguing their purpose is neither to punish a neglectful property owner nor award a watchful monitor bent on devilishness.

And they are borne of the same sound philosophy (loss of evidence, absence/illness/death of witnesses, memory lapses, etc.) that warrants the enactment and preservation of all similar laws prescribing the amount of time within which various legal proceedings/claims can be adjudicated.

What's more they are not unique to American Jurisprudence. They are universal!

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Of course, the proper application of these laws can result in the forfeiture of lawfully acquired property rights. But contrary to your uneducated and ill-informed haranguing their purpose is neither to punish a neglectful property owner nor award a watchful monitor bent on devilishness.

And they are borne of the same sound philosophy (loss of evidence, absence/illness/death of witnesses, memory lapses, etc.) that warrants the enactment and preservation of all similar laws prescribing the amount of time within which various legal proceedings/claims can be adjudicated.

What's more they are not unique to American Jurisprudence. They are universal!

I of course (having my uneducated and I’ll-informed haranguing) can’t argue with a lawyer other than to say the purpose of those laws “I don’t like it” (adverse possession) here at home or abroad.

 

[STEPHAN]

You could buy the land.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

You could buy the land.

Yep, that’s what most people with would attempt and simply ask if the lawful owner was interested in selling. But others will attempt to possess the land from the unknowing owner without paying for it. It’s cheaper to submit an adverse possession claim.

 

[doucar]

Claim yes, litigation not necessarily.