weird situation with boundary question

[gfro]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?california Hi folks-looking for a little advice,knowledge,clue....We just bought a property at a tax sale with a mobile home and addition.The addition was built in 1977 and on permanent footings and taxed by the county as such.The mobile is not on permanent footings and taxed thru another agency. So we buy this property and find that the addition is 10 feet over the property line of the vacant lot next door. At one time these 2 lots were together. The folks that own the lot next to us also bought it in a similiar sale.They told us they knew the addition was on their lot when they bought it and intended to buy ours too. It didn't go as planned for them and we got it (they stopped bidding at half of the sale price). We bought it at an online auction and didn't know the addition is partially on their property.We would be willing to let them have it ,but cannot afford to take a loss and they seem unwilling to sell us theirs. They seem friendly enough but they think we should take the addition down and possibly move our mobile home(not on their property but within 2 feet) . I feel bad from them but it's not our fault they didn't get our property, too. They said they had made some kind of arrangement with the former owner of our property to buy it and were surprised when it didn't work out and they had to bid on it like everyone else.Actually the former owner did better to let it go to auction and receive what was left after the tax was paid than to sell it to them pre-tax sale. Does anyone think they have a case to actually make us take our addition down? The lots are small and we're not sure if they can even build anything(septic,etc.) if they can't get us to move it.We don't want to be jerks but this is part of what we paid for and feel they bought their property knowing it was there and it's been there since 77 and taxed as a permanent building. Do we have to do anything at all( like survey, hire a lawyer , etc.)? We kind of feel it should be at their expense if they want to try and make us move it. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.thanks...

 

[Shel77]

I don't have an anwser for you on the perment building. I would think they could make you move it since it is on their property. I don't understand how they can sell these two lots to different people considering this building covers both properties. However no they can't make you move the mobile home if it is on your land even if it's only by 2 feet.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?california Hi folks-looking for a little advice,knowledge,clue....We just bought a property at a tax sale with a mobile home and addition.The addition was built in 1977 and on permanent footings and taxed by the county as such.The mobile is not on permanent footings and taxed thru another agency. So we buy this property and find that the addition is 10 feet over the property line of the vacant lot next door. At one time these 2 lots were together. The folks that own the lot next to us also bought it in a similiar sale.They told us they knew the addition was on their lot when they bought it and intended to buy ours too. It didn't go as planned for them and we got it (they stopped bidding at half of the sale price). We bought it at an online auction and didn't know the addition is partially on their property.We would be willing to let them have it ,but cannot afford to take a loss and they seem unwilling to sell us theirs. They seem friendly enough but they think we should take the addition down and possibly move our mobile home(not on their property but within 2 feet) . I feel bad from them but it's not our fault they didn't get our property, too. They said they had made some kind of arrangement with the former owner of our property to buy it and were surprised when it didn't work out and they had to bid on it like everyone else.Actually the former owner did better to let it go to auction and receive what was left after the tax was paid than to sell it to them pre-tax sale. Does anyone think they have a case to actually make us take our addition down? The lots are small and we're not sure if they can even build anything(septic,etc.) if they can't get us to move it.We don't want to be jerks but this is part of what we paid for and feel they bought their property knowing it was there and it's been there since 77 and taxed as a permanent building. Do we have to do anything at all( like survey, hire a lawyer , etc.)? We kind of feel it should be at their expense if they want to try and make us move it. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.thanks...

Q: Does anyone think they have a case to actually make us take our addition down?

A: Yes; you are trespassing on their property.

 

[Greg 2]

Q: Does anyone think they have a case to actually make us take our addition down?

A: Yes; you are trespassing on their property.

I would remove it like yesterday if both you and them agree it is your addition-I suspect that with it being a permanant building, it was sold with the land it occupies [because it is attached to the land] and now belongs to them. Questions? See a RE attorney pronto! That might be a wise move anyway, 'cause ...what if...you take it and later they discover it was theirs. They might be **$@ off.

 

[gfro]

thanks for your response . It was built in 1977 with the usual permits and this/our lot has always carried the tax burden for it. We are wondering about "adverse possession" and if it'd apply here.Also why didn't the owners of the other lot claim the addition and start paying the taxes? thanks...

 

[seniorjudge]

thanks for your response . It was built in 1977 with the usual permits and this/our lot has always carried the tax burden for it. We are wondering about "adverse possession" and if it'd apply here.Also why didn't the owners of the other lot claim the addition and start paying the taxes? thanks...

You are a trespasser. To start the elements of adverse possession running, you must possess the land under a claim of right which you (and your predecessors in title) never had.

 

[gfro]

right

I think the previous owners (back in '77)did have a legal right to build the addition since they owned both lots at one time.Doesn't this make any difference?thanks...

 

[seniorjudge]

I think the previous owners (back in '77)did have a legal right to build the addition since they owned both lots at one time.Doesn't this make any difference?thanks...

Yes, that makes quite a bit of difference and you did not make it clear in your first post.

Now my answer is that your property line runs through this building; you own what is on your side and neighbor owns what is on his side.

Welcome to the wonderful world of tax sales...always a dangerous undertaking.

 

[gfro]

well ok. Then what do you think of the the possibility of a "prescriptive easement"?Would we have a better chance at this?thanks...

 

[seniorjudge]

well ok. Then what do you think of the the possibility of a "prescriptive easement"?Would we have a better chance at this?thanks...

A prescriptive easement on or for what? The property line runs through the building.

 

[bbear401]

rhode island. ,,,,,,,,if any of your improvements are on your neighbors property and have been there peaceably for the statutory period of time you have have a good chance of an adverse possesion claim.

I did read in this thread that someone suggested that you must have a "claim of right" to the underlying dirt to have an adverse possesion claim. This is not entirely true. many states, one of the tests for adverse possesion is claim of right and others it is "color of title"

The first being "claim of right" can be as simple as maintaining a garden as if you were allowed to, or parking your vehicles in an area never asking for permission as if it was your right to do so. A "Claim of Right" can also be a simple as telling your neighbors that you own that land (over there).

Claim of right is distinguished from the more stringent standard of "Color of Title". Under color of title one usually must have had a good faith beleif of ownership and usually some recorded or unrecorded documents to support their claim. These type of cases usually only prevail where boundary lines have long been lost and have been acquiesced to by the abutting land owners.

Most juristictions use a seven point test for adverse possesion, were an individual or entity must under 1) "Claim of Right" or depending on the state under "Color of Title" 2)occupy 3)openenly, 4)Hostilely, 5)exclusively, and 6)continuously for the space of the 7)statutory time (10 years, 20 years, depending on state) the land.

 

[john123456]

Poster:

Read this thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=194318&page=1&pp=15&highlight=case+closed

 

[seniorjudge]

rhode island. ,,,,,,,,if any of your improvements are on your neighbors property and have been there peaceably for the statutory period of time you have have a good chance of an adverse possesion claim.

I did read in this thread that someone suggested that you must have a "claim of right" to the underlying dirt to have an adverse possesion claim. This is not entirely true. many states, one of the tests for adverse possesion is claim of right and others it is "color of title"

The first being "claim of right" can be as simple as maintaining a garden as if you were allowed to, or parking your vehicles in an area never asking for permission as if it was your right to do so. A "Claim of Right" can also be a simple as telling your neighbors that you own that land (over there).

Claim of right is distinguished from the more stringent standard of "Color of Title". Under color of title one usually must have had a good faith beleif of ownership and usually some recorded or unrecorded documents to support their claim. These type of cases usually only prevail where boundary lines have long been lost and have been acquiesced to by the abutting land owners.

Most juristictions use a seven point test for adverse possesion, were an individual or entity must under 1) "Claim of Right" or depending on the state under "Color of Title" 2)occupy 3)openenly, 4)Hostilely, 5)exclusively, and 6)continuously for the space of the 7)statutory time (10 years, 20 years, depending on state) the land.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a161.htm

"Color of title" and "claim of right" and "color of claim" are all virtually synonymous.

In any event, if I am reading the facts correctly, there were two lots, Blackacre and Whiteacre, owned by the same person. That person built the building.

Taxes were not paid on either Blackacre or Whiteacre. Tax sale ensues. Two different owners wind up with two different lots. Our guy has Blackacre and neighbor has Whiteacre.

The building with the property line running through is now owned by each of the purchasers at the tax sale.

If both lots were owned by the same person to the date of the tax sale, there is no adverse possession. You cannot adversely possess against yourself.

Thus, we have a building owned by two neighbors.

 

[gfro]

We believe this is what happened - both lots were owned by the mother since 1977- mom died ,left it to the kids with one of theirs names on each lot in 1997.Daughter takes off a couple of years later leaving all her stuff in the house and addition.Son sells his lot to our neighbors. Daughter loses our lot in tax sale a year later.The folks next door bought awhile ago-less than a year we think in some kind of sale(?).We got his info. from the neighbors(that own the lot next to us) and other people involved. Their lot is assessed as a vacant lot-no improvements,nothing ... only hoping to obtain our lot and improvements pre-tax sale from the son who says he thinks his sister is dead (I guess they didn't keep in touch) and he'll be able to do this .Sister reappears before the sale , grabs her stuff and says they can bid with the rest of us(of course she gets money excess of the taxes brought in the sale). We own the addition.We pay the taxes on it.Any better or worse?thanks...

 

[Shel77]

So you saying their title shows there in no additions on their property and your title shows these additions so the additions are yours, you paid for them but they happen to be on neighbors land. This is all very crazy I would think that you would have to own the land that this building is on if it shows you own it. Have you asked if they would grant you an easment for that 10 feet or if you could purchase that 10 feet from them?