Move your fence . . .

[Orcons]

Listen I'm not going to play this game with you. IF this is so important to you then I'll await YOUR answer.

So? let's hear it. I'd be very interested to hear the Doctrine of laches doesn't apply to adverse possession cases.

Nice try. You are the one who raised the issue. It is incumbent upon you to explain why it does apply. There are lots of things that don't apply, are you going to raise them and then expect me to explain why they are not relevant? Don't be stupid.

 

[Sirena7cs]

Orcons
Got to love ya!
S

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Nice try. You are the one who raised the issue. It is incumbent upon you to explain why it does apply. There are lots of things that don't apply, are you going to raise them and then expect me to explain why they are not relevant? Don't be stupid.

Well now, since coming here for the first time in July and asking a question about real estate law you have not only applied to but been accepted to law school, graduated and attained your license to practice law.

Very impressive.

I would suggest now you learn something by reading the following cases:

VAN METER v. KELSEY, Supreme Court of Florida
Simons v. Tancre, 321 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1982)
Sickler v. Pope, 326 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1982)
Spears v. Spears No. 441 WDA 2000
PONDER v. PONDER et al

Now, instead of playing this game, why don't you go back and read the ORIGINAL POST.

 

[Sirena7cs]

we're still waiting...windbag