Adverse possession/squatters rights

[HRSchenker 2271]

I'm a member of a real estate networking group that had an interesting topic come up recently. Here it is

I'm inheriting large acreage in Oklahoma. No one in my family has been to the property in nearly 100 years (we live on the other side of the country). My brother visited the land for the first time last year and found most of it occupied. The neighbor to the north has put up fencing over the land and the neighbor to the south has completely blocked access to it from the road. My family has paid the property taxes for this land the entire time so I feel like I have a claim to the land. I want to sell it. Help!

How would something like this apply to Texas? Is paying property taxes enough to fight an adverse possession claim? I've always heard about this kind of stuff but never met anyone who has to deal with it. It gives me pause for concern on what I should do to protect the property I own so I never have to deal with something like this.

[Guest]

Who would've ever expected land thievery in Oklahoma?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

Who would've ever expected land thievery in Oklahoma?

I imagine Mexico would look at Texas with a very squinted eye at this comment...

[immamac 42864]

19 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

I'm a member of a real estate networking group that had an interesting topic come up recently. Here it is

I'm inheriting large acreage in Oklahoma. No one in my family has been to the property in nearly 100 years (we live on the other side of the country). My brother visited the land for the first time last year and found most of it occupied. The neighbor to the north has put up fencing over the land and the neighbor to the south has completely blocked access to it from the road. My family has paid the property taxes for this land the entire time so I feel like I have a claim to the land. I want to sell it. Help!

How would something like this apply to Texas? Is paying property taxes enough to fight an adverse possession claim? I've always heard about this kind of stuff but never met anyone who has to deal with it. It gives me pause for concern on what I should do to protect the property I own so I never have to deal with something like this.

Keep us updated on this, it's interesting. 

[VirginiaLonghorn 4777]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I imagine Mexico would look at Texas with a very squinted eye at this comment...

You need to keep up with current events. They’re being welcomed to Come and Take It back ...

[South Austin 52519]

I handle these cases regularly in Texas. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter if the record title holder pays property taxes, as long as the adverse claimant occupies the land in a way that is open, notorious, and hostile for a period of 10 years. Fencing in property and occupying a home on it is a typical way of acquiring property by adverse possession.  

It sucks, but the lesson is don’t let 10 years go by without keeping an eye on your property.

Edited March 7, 2021 by South Austin

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I handle these cases regularly in Texas. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter if the record title holder pays property taxes, as long as the adverse claimant occupies the land in a way that is open, notorious, and hostile for a period of 10 years. Fencing in property and occupying a home on it is a typically way of acquiring property by adverse possession.  

It sucks, but the lesson is don’t let 10 years go by without keeping an eye on your property.

Does that basically mean you have a title company for a client?  That would seem the most common way for this to arise.

[South Austin 52519]

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does that basically mean you have a title company for a client?  That would seem the most common way for this to arise.

I do, but it’s never come up from that client. Usually it’s like how OP describes. Someone goes to visit the old family spread, and says, “Holy shit, who put this fence up?!?!”

[Bevo 13579]

56 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I handle these cases regularly in Texas. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter if the record title holder pays property taxes, as long as the adverse claimant occupies the land in a way that is open, notorious, and hostile for a period of 10 years. Fencing in property and occupying a home on it is a typically way of acquiring property by adverse possession.  

It sucks, but the lesson is don’t let 10 years go by without keeping an eye on your property.

Seems to me that you could put cattle on it and re-fence it and deal with the neighbor. Take pictures and when the guy tries to claim it as his own show the deed and the pictures and say that you didn't see a fence other than the one you put up.

[South Austin 52519]

Just now, Bevo said:

Seems to me that you could put cattle on it and re-fence it and deal with the neighbor. Take pictures and when the guy tries to claim it as his own show the deed and the pictures and say that you didn't see a fence other than the one you put up.

You could. But the neighbor could lawyer up and sue you for trespass to try title, claiming he already owns the property you’re trying to fence. And if the neighbor does occupy the property, and because this is Texas, he may come out and shoot you when you’re trying to take his fence down.

[mycox 582]

I went through a adverse possession issue on my old house. You are going to need a lawyer if you are in a situation like the Oklahoma guy..

Edited March 6, 2021 by mycox

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 minutes ago, mycox said:

I went through a adverse possession issue on my old house. You are going to need a lawyer if you are in a situation like the Oklahoma guy..

Small strip of property?  

[mycox 582]

Fence barrier in the Heights. There are many houses in the area with he same issue. My neighbor had his fence encroaching 10ft on my property according to the survey (something you don't think to measure when buying a house). He claimed adverse possession.

We settled and he wound up paying me half the value of the strip of land and didn't move the fence. I wanted full value of the strip of land, but the case was dragging on and I wanted to sell my house. It wasn't worth paying more legal fees. I had to get the lot replatted.

Edited March 6, 2021 by mycox

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

The family in question didn't visit their property for 100 years but continually paid property tax?  I realize this wasn't you but its mind boggling that some family would own property but let it be for a century. 

[Bevo 13579]

53 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The family in question didn't visit their property for 100 years but continually paid property tax?  I realize this wasn't you but its mind boggling that some family would own property but let it be for a century. 

It's in Oklahoma

[South Austin 52519]

Yeah, I don’t fault anyone for avoiding the state of Oklahoma for decades.

[troph 24840]

4 hours ago, mycox said:

Fence barrier in the Heights. There are many houses in the area with he same issue. My neighbor had his fence encroaching 10ft on my property according to the survey (something you don't think to measure when buying a house). He claimed adverse possession.

We settled and he wound up paying me half the value of the strip of land and didn't move the fence. I wanted full value of the strip of land, but the case was dragging on and I wanted to sell my house. It wasn't worth paying more legal fees. I had to get the lot replatted.

We had this on an investment property and got it back. It was 3 feet though. The example I used for it being clear was 10 ft. Wasn’t enough in this case to be open and notorious.  And it was doubtful it was even hostile because the neighbor couldn’t prove he knew he was taking.  Not my area but we faked it and got the strip back. And in central Austin every foot counts for set backs and size limitations.

[Dahobbs 17625]

5 hours ago, mycox said:

Fence barrier in the Heights. There are many houses in the area with he same issue. My neighbor had his fence encroaching 10ft on my property according to the survey (something you don't think to measure when buying a house). He claimed adverse possession.

We settled and he wound up paying me half the value of the strip of land and didn't move the fence. I wanted full value of the strip of land, but the case was dragging on and I wanted to sell my house. It wasn't worth paying more legal fees. I had to get the lot replatted.

Yup, surveys in the Heights are fucked. Pretty much nothing is right. Had it come up in a pro bono case involving someone who had lived in their house for 80+ years (100 year old house). New neighbor claimed he owned a good 20% of her property, including a decent amount of her house. Ultimately reached a resolution where he paid a very nice premium on the property (house was a death trap) and then I'm sure collected some on his title insurance (he had paid for guaranteed lot lines). She died roughly a year later, but at least got to live it up that last year (gambling trips and the like.)

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Billy Pilgrim 1963]

So how does this work paying property taxes. Are you forced to sign over the occupied piece of land to the squatter to force them to pay property tax so you don’t have to keep paying for them?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

4 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

So how does this work paying property taxes. Are you forced to sign over the occupied piece of land to the squatter to force them to pay property tax so you don’t have to keep paying for them?

When push comes to shove and a lawsuit is filed, the winner will have record title to the disputed portion and henceforth owes the property tax.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

On 3/6/2021 at 4:58 PM, Dahobbs said:

Yup, surveys in the Heights are fucked. Pretty much nothing is right. Had it come up in a pro bono case involving someone who had lived in their house for 80+ years (100 year old house). New neighbor claimed he owned a good 20% of her property, including a decent amount of her house. Ultimately reached a resolution where he paid a very nice premium on the property (house was a death trap) and then I'm sure collected some on his title insurance (he had paid for guaranteed lot lines). She died roughly a year later, but at least got to live it up that last year (gambling trips and the like.)

How the hell do you adversely possess a portion of someone's house?  Sounds like some kind of horror movie.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

How the hell do you adversely possess a portion of someone's house?  Sounds like some kind of horror movie.

My kids did it for 18 years.... heeeeey ohhhhhhhh

[Dahobbs 17625]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

How the hell do you adversely possess a portion of someone's house?  Sounds like some kind of horror movie.

Actually the opposite in a way. The surveys were messed up and made it seem he had title to the land where her house stood. He sued for title probably expecting a default judgment (she was very poor and not sophisticated enough to know what to do). I got involved through a mutual friend. Even if his survey was technically accurate, the house had been there for 100 years and clearly established adverse possession not withstanding any title issues. 

[deadshank 24653]

9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Actually the opposite in a way. The surveys were messed up and made it seem he had title to the land where her house stood. He sued for title probably expecting a default judgment (she was very poor and not sophisticated enough to know what to do). I got involved through a mutual friend. Even if his survey was technically accurate, the house had been there for 100 years and clearly established adverse possession not withstanding any title issues. 

The plaintiff seems to be an opportunistic cocksucker that preyed on an old person.  

[gyroprotagonist 2594]

6 hours ago, deadshank said:

The plaintiff seems to be an opportunistic cocksucker that preyed on an old person.  

and did not even get Joe Namath or Wilford Brimley to shill for him.  The gall! There are protocols for this.

For the OP situation, damn, that would be like paying for an internet girl friend's boob job, never seeing a pic and then when you show up to meet a year later, 2 guys are spit roasting her.

[Bevo 13579]

2 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

and did not even get Joe Namath or Wilford Brimley to shill for him.  The gall! There are protocols for this.

For the OP situation, damn, that would be like paying for an internet girl friend's boob job, never seeing a pic and then when you show up to meet a year later, 2 guys are spit roasting her.

Yeah, almost the exact same situation.

[bigup2dahorns 3343]

Anyone take the Real Estate law class at UT undergrad? It was under the business school when I took it, taught by a lady with the last name Murray I think. Great class. We had a whole section of study on this topic and it was highly fascinating.

[Steel Shank 9428]

What is the thinking behind the adverse possession law? I'm not sure what the logic is. The whole squatters thing.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Gene Parmesan 4008]

3 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

What is the thinking behind the adverse possession law? I'm not sure what the logic is. The whole squatters thing.

 

Thanks in advance.

So people use their land. 

[Steel Shank 9428]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

So people use their land. 

So use your land or we'll let somebody take it? I still don't get it. There has to be some history or something.

[luke duke 6413]

I’m sure it started when some rich English Lord owned some land that he forgot that he owned and the local peasants started farming it. Rich guy remembers that he owned it 20 years later, he tries to kick the poor people off, local judge gives the land to poor people, ???, profit.

[deadshank 24653]

1 hour ago, Steel Shank said:

So use your land or we'll let somebody take it? I still don't get it. There has to be some history or something.

Use your land to produce something.  Tax on value of production. 
 

Fallow land doesn’t produce anything 

[Steel Shank 9428]

10 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Use your land to produce something.  Tax on value of production. 
 

Fallow land doesn’t produce anything 

Not arguing, but I just don't see how they can judge. Lot of land in west Texas is not "producing". Can I just go out there and squat?

 

[deadshank 24653]

9 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

Not arguing, but I just don't see how they can judge. Lot of land in west Texas is not "producing". Can I just go out there and squat?

 

You can try to go out and squat.  But if the LO finds out and tells you to haul ass and gets the local sherif and a judge behind him then you are not going to adverse possession the property.   He knows you are there and is doing something about it.  I don’t want you on my land. Get off. 
 

If you go on to land and nobody ever tells you to haul ass (1 of many stipulations) and you “claim” the land there is all yours, as in the OP’s dilemma, then potentially the property is yours   

Just showing up and simply saying “this is mine” and occupying the real property is overly simplistic and not how it works.  

[Bevo 13579]

10 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

Not arguing, but I just don't see how they can judge. Lot of land in west Texas is not "producing". Can I just go out there and squat?

 

I assume it is an anachronism. Back in the early settlement days, there was a lot of open land that the government wanted either for tax dollars or to keep the natives away. And the government didn't want the responsibility of having to kick people off the land. "If you didn't know they were on there, then why are you trying to claim it now? That is your problem, not ours." Even as late as the 60s, enforcing land ownership was a pretty difficult task for the government that would have required a lot of resources. OTOH, it would be my guess that the government put in place laws to protect itself so squatters rights couldn't exist on national or state forest land. Squatters rights persisted, however, because there never was a large outcry.

Now, and this is true throughout the world, most squatters do so for residential purposes. It isn't to grow crops or for ranching. Large numbers of people occupy land throughout the world and build slums and shanty towns. And the government allows it in many cases because it is 100s of individuals verses 1 land owner. If the land owner is rich, he can use his influences in government and kick the people off. If he is middle class, he is pretty much screwed. I've seen it in a lot of places like Guatemala.

And squatting now is pretty easy to prevent in the US. You could visit the land. You could fly a drone over it. You could have it surveyed. You could view your property on google maps. So, I would think that even though the law serves limited purpose, there is little impetus to throw it out.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Bevo

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I assume it is an anachronism. Back in the early settlement days, there was a lot of open land that the government wanted either for tax dollars or to keep the natives away. And the government didn't want the responsibility of having to kick people off the land. "If you didn't know they were on there, then why are you trying to claim it now? That is your problem, not ours." Even as late as the 60s, enforcing land ownership was a pretty difficult task for the government that would have required a lot of resources. OTOH, it would be my guess that the government put in place laws to protect itself so squatters rights couldn't exist on national or state forest land. Squatters rights persisted, however, because there never was a large outcry.

Now, and this is true throughout the world, most squatters do so for residential purposes. It isn't to grow crops or for ranching. Large numbers of people occupy land throughout the world and build slums and shanty towns. And the government allows it in many cases because it is 100s of individuals verses 1 land owner. If the land owner is rich, he can use his influences in government and kick the people off. If he is middle class, he is pretty much screwed. I've seen it a lot in places like Guatemala.

And squatting now is pretty easy to prevent in the US. You could visit the land. You could fly a drone over it. You could have it surveyed. You could view your property on google maps. So, I would think that even though the law serves limited purpose, there is little impetus to throw it out.

One fundamental policy underlying real property law is to insure that the land is put to it's "highest and best use" to the extent possible.

Like the situation reported by OP, the record or title owners were doing jackshit with the land, while the squatters or adverse possessors were doing at least something with the land, if not its "highest and best use."  Thus, they are awarded ownership.

The doctrine long predates the US.  You could adversely possess and acquire a possessory (as opposed to ownership, which was reserved for the Crown) interest in land going back to the middle ages.  Baron A could conquer and occupy the land of Duke B and obtain a superior interest to Duke B, but not the Crown.

The flipside of it is that property law is supposed to support ownership rights of a property owner to the maximum extent possible.  That generally means the record or title owner.  So, it generally takes a pretty clear and longstanding case of putting land to better use before ownership will be stripped.

(the 1st year moot court topic in my section was adverse possession, I know entirely too much about its history).

[DalTxHornFan 3106]

Interesting thread.  I've seen pieces that cite the Code of Hammurabi as the origin of this doctrine:

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/05/18/an-ancient-gardening-tool-putting-adverse-possession-to-modern-use/

[Bevo 13579]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The flipside of it is that property law is supposed to support ownership rights of a property owner to the maximum extent possible.  That generally means the record or title owner.  So, it generally takes a pretty clear and longstanding case of putting land to better use before ownership will be stripped.

To better use in California may have a different meaning to judges. Restoration of native grasslands may be of better use than the production of agricultural goods. So owners could theoretically claim that it was left vacant to restore and maintain native habitat. I guess the squatters could claim it was a fire hazard though. And yes, I know this case took place in Okie

Edited March 13, 2021 by Bevo

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

To better use in California may have a different meaning to judges. Restoration of native grasslands may be of better use than the production of agricultural goods. So owners could theoretically claim that it was left vacant to restore and maintain native habitat. I guess the squatters could claim it was a fire hazard though. And yes, I know this case took place in Okie

Well, like a lot of law, it has become sort of its own thing apart from its origins.  

If one person is actively using the land, and another isn't, the subjective value of the use compared to the non-use doesn't come into play.  Letting land lie fallow on purpose is different from never laying eyes on it for a century, or having your agents do so.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

28 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Interesting thread.  I've seen pieces that cite the Code of Hammurabi as the origin of this doctrine:

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/05/18/an-ancient-gardening-tool-putting-adverse-possession-to-modern-use/

In some sense, it's a variant on "finders keepers."  Property profs in law school love to start the course with "the finders cases," a series of English cases about rights in abandoned property.

[Steel Shank 9428]

31 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Interesting thread.  I've seen pieces that cite the Code of Hammurabi as the origin of this doctrine:

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/05/18/an-ancient-gardening-tool-putting-adverse-possession-to-modern-use/

Did you say 'Mesopotamia'?

[DalTxHornFan 3106]

1 hour ago, Steel Shank said:

Did you say 'Mesopotamia'?

 

[StassneyHorn 6613]

Buy a bunch of chickens/roosters, cows, and goats and let them roam freely. If the neighbors have a problem they can move, or you can fight them like a man

Edited March 14, 2021 by StassneyHorn

[Updawg 2268]

But still you haven’t ignored the land completely. You have been paying taxes on it the whole time. If not, then yeah, whatever’s

[RPM 26322]

21 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

 

That was over a condo made of stone-ah.

[Armybrat 40850]

On 3/6/2021 at 12:10 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The family in question didn't visit their property for 100 years but continually paid property tax?  I realize this wasn't you but its mind boggling that some family would own property but let it be for a century. 

We inherited a lot by Navarro Mills Lake near Corsicana 40 years ago (no lake view). We have paid taxes on it all that time, thinking it might be feasible to build a weekend place on it. Never did, and have only looked at it twice (last time about 10 years ago).

Now some hucksters out of Houston have left a couple of messages saying they want to buy it.... for a very lowball price I reckon. You know, those cold fishing calls & postcards.

The latest tax appraisal came in at $8,000, so we have thought about getting rid of it since we now regard it as a white elephant. Maybe get the equivalent tax payments back.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Armybrat

[crash_davis 23113]

@HRSchenker 

 

so??????? is there an update? 

[HRSchenker 2271]

6 hours ago, crash_davis said:

@HRSchenker 

 

so??????? is there an update? 

No update yet. Last we spoke they were going to meet with an attorney to discuss options

[SquishMitten 10414]

But still you haven’t ignored the land completely. You have been paying taxes on it the whole time. If not, then yeah, whatever’s

It’s been a got damn century. No way they would win in Texas. Can’t opine on OK laws, but 100 years is an absurd amount of time to abandon property and then come back to it. All original fences would’ve fallen decades ago...probably replaced multiple times by adjoining land owners. I’d say this is a pretty textbook case of AP.