I live in Bridgewater Massachusetts in a home that my parents bought in 1958 and I purchased in 2007. Back around 1962 my father got permission from the adjacent neighbor to extend a driveway parking space onto the neighbor's property. The parking space is angled such that a corner of the parking space at its furthest corner extends about three feet onto the neighbor's property (about 30 square feet max). This parking space was then asphalted to blend in with our driveway. So, we used this parking space since 1962, about 50 years. Then both the neighbor and my father died about three years ago and the neighbor's house was sold. The land that our parking space extends onto is actually another house lot that was grandfathered to the neighbor's property. This lot was sold separately after the neighbor died. The lot was sold to a real estate company. A house was built on the lot and the house was sold to the people that now own it. The house is rather large compared to our house and is located 26 feet off the property line. The small part of the parking space that extends over the property line is on open land near the street does not in any way pose an obstruction to the neighbor's house or property. During the sale of the house, the real estate person told the owner that the parking space was still used by us. The owner at the time said that he did not have a problem with that and bought the house.
Now the neighbor is demanding that we stay off his property and does not want us to use the parking space because it is on his property. He can't afford a fence and has erected a chain along the property line. We have welcomed the neighbor when they moved in and have done nothing to provoke this behavior by the neighbor. Do I have squatters rights to this small piece of property that me and my family have been using for the past 50 years?

First it is adverse possession and deals with use of the property. ( there are not "squatters rights") You will have to hire an attorney and file to have that small section ( not the entire lot) deeded over to you because of the use, / or get easement for use of that parking area.

Obviously they have money, so they will hire an attorney to fight it , if they want, so you will need an attorney

It's called adverse possession, and I think this is a good case in your favor, except for the part about it needing to be 'hostile.' Hostile doesn't have to mean fighting, but it does mean without permission.
To win you might have to NOT mention that it was agreed upon 50 years ago! See a lawyer.

We all agree that you may need a lawyer. However, you and your lawyer need to get up to speed on MA law. Massachusetts Adverse Possession (http://www.lawyerviews.com/lawsite/basicinfo/ap.html) Your dad may have used that land for 20 years but we see/hear nothing that he exercised adverse possession. Also, the true owner agreed to allow him to use the area, does not sound adverse does it? The true owner's tax bill was based on the recorded deeds so he was paying tax on this land. Does not seem to me dad took ownership. Now you buy the property in 2007 and what does your survey or deed say/show regarding this space, likely nothing. Your have not openly and adversely possessed the land for 20 years. "Do I have squatters rights to this small piece of property that me and my family have been using for the past 50 years?
" No, sorry, not you and your dad. Dad was the owner of the home, not you. You were likely a child in 1962 and property rights to not extend to the children of the owner whle the owner is living.

The issue is that if the other owner was just letting him use it, it is possible a future owner, or even the old owner could take that right away. Part of the issue with adverse possession is that you use is suppose to be done without permission of the other party.

... Dad was the owner of the home, not you. You were likely a child in 1962 and property rights to not extend to the children of the owner whle the owner is living.

Ballengerb1, I am afraid you are incorrect here. OP is a successor in interest to his/her father. The child would be able to take advantage of the father's period of adverse possession. However, as you and others have correctly noted, said possession would not qualify as adverse (a/k/a "squatters' rights").

I...
To win you might have to NOT mention that it was agreed upon 50 years ago! See a lawyer.

I don't think we should be encouraging people to lie, or withhold the truth, on this forum. If an attorney gave that advice to his or her client, the attorney could get in serious trouble if found out.

AK, don't see she is a successor if she had to buy the home. This clearly signals it was not inherited. The 20 year period starts, for her, in 2007. Also property was used with permission which indicate possession is not adverse.

If you read the link ballenger gave you, this doesn't appear to qualify as adverse possession. You can try to take this to court, but would likely lose. So I would suggest that you offer to buy the small piece from the. Current owner.

AK, don't see she is a successor if she had to buy the home. This clearly signals it was not inherited. ...

It would be the same: purchaser, heir, or devisee; all can take advantage of ("tack") their predecessors' possessory periods.


... Also property was used with permission which indicate possession is not adverse.

I already agreed with you on that.

If you agree it is not adverse possession then all other discussion is unnecessary isn't it? However I an not in agreement on "It would be the same: purchaser" the 1st requirement of the MA laws is "1) You were the exclusive possessor and actually entered the property" I do not see that she qualifies as the exclsuive possessor if you did not have title until 2007.

If you agree it is not adverse possession then all other discussion is unnecessary isn't it? However I an not in agreement on "It would be the same: purchaser" the 1st requirement of the MA laws is "1) You were the exclusive possessor and actually entered the property" I do not see that she qualifies as the exclsuive possessor if you did not have title until 2007.

Ballengerb1, AKlawyer is correct. For purposes of adverse possession, the "exclusive possessor" includes their heirs, successors and assigns. It is called tacking and is permitted in most jurisdictions.

Thanks but outside this debate on heirs I think many of us have agreed that this does not appear to qualify as adverse possession since it happened with permission and knowledge of the owner. See post #3. Not a lawyer so tacking is new to me. So does this mean, when trying to establish adverse possession you could go back and historically search to see if 20 years of prior owners adversely possessed property? What if 5 people each owned the land for 4 years. Then you add up all of their parts of the 20 year possession requirement and you have met the letter of the law?

Thanks but outside this debate on heirs I think many of us have agreed that this does not appear to qualify as adverse possession since it happened with permission and knowledge of the owner. See post #3. Not a lawyer so tacking is new to me. So does this mean, when trying to establish adverse possession you could go back and historically search to see if 20 years of prior owners adversely possessed property? What if 5 people each owned the land for 4 years. Then you add up all of their parts of the 20 year possession requirement and you have met the letter of the law?

I agree. This case doesn't look like it will qualify for adverse possession. And to answer your questions, yes. If the jurisdiction permits tacking (and most do) then the total combined adverse use of the property would be permitted, even if there were several owners. The only requirement is that the adverse use be continuous and uninterrupted throughout that time. If one of the owners began an adverse possession of property, a subsequent owner stopped possessing the property adversely and the next owner began again, the time would be started from the third owner, not the first owner.

I have more information concerning this issue of Adverse Possession regarding the driveway. At the time (back about 1962) I was a small boy and didn't know the details involving the extension of our driveway. I assumed that my father got permission from the neighbor to extend the driveway but as it turns out according to my mother, he didn't have the neighbor's permission. My mother told me that my father extended the driveway without consulting the neighbor or asking his permission. The neighbor saw that our driveway had been widened along our property line that bordered his vacant lot and that we were using it as part of our driveway. The neighbor never contested what was done or ever said anything about it. We continued to use this part of the driveway for the past fifty years. My father and the neighbor remained friends until they both died. Does this missing piece of information change the opinion about this being a case for Adverse Possession?

I have more information concerning this issue of Adverse Possession regarding the driveway. At the time (back about 1962) I was a small boy and didn't know the details involving the extension of our driveway. I assumed that my father got permission from the neighbor to extend the driveway but as it turns out according to my mother, he didn't have the neighbor's permission. My mother told me that my father went ahead and extended the driveway without consulting the neighbor or asking his permission. The neighbor saw that our driveway had been widened along our property line that bordered his vacant lot and that we were using it as part of our driveway. The neighbor never contested what was done or ever said anything about it. We continued to use this part of the driveway for the past fifty years. My father and the neighbor remained friends until they both died. Does this missing piece of information change the opinion about this being a case for Adverse Possession?

Yes, it changes my opinion. If your father didn't have permission and the use fulfilled all other requirements of adverse possession in your location, then it sounds like you have a good case. Have you seen an attorney yet? You should.

... I assumed that my father got permission from the neighbor to extend the driveway but as it turns out according to my mother, he didn't have the neighbor's permission.
...

Does this missing piece of information change the opinion about this being a case for Adverse Possession?

As Lisa may recall, in another thread involving adverse possession in Massachusetts, a few weeks ago, a similar issue arose. It is my belief that in most places in order to have a valid adverse possession claim, you must be under the mistaken belief that you have a right to use the property. However some lawyers confuse this with what is called "color of title". A "color of title" is not the same as a mistaken belief that one has title.

So, to answer your question in light of this new development, it is possible that the Massachusetts courts have confused the requirement that you, or your predecessor in title, subjectively believes that he has a claim to the property (i.e.: "hostile" and "under claim of title" with something else. I don't know. But the overweming majority of American jurisdictions don't allow adverse possession if you knew that the land wasn't yours.

Furthermore, you believed that your use of the land was with the permission of the owner. So you may not be able to assert adverse possession even if your father could have.

You need to get a Massachusetts attorney to advise you.

I need help researching this "jurisdictions don't allow adverse possession if you knew that the land wasn't yours." Can anyone provide a link to this point? I never heard of this before. Only a few cases of adverse possession in my area and I thought all of them the "squatter" knew full well the property was not really his property.

I need help researching this "jurisdictions don't allow adverse possession if you knew that the land wasn't yours." Can anyone provide a link to this point? I never heard of this before. Only a few cases of adverse possession in my area and I thought all of them the "squatter" knew full well the property was not really his property.

"... Hostile or adverse use of the property – The disseisor entered or used the land without permission. Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not hostile. The disseisor's motivations may be viewed by the court in several ways: Objective view—used without true owner's permission and inconsistent with true owner's rights. Bad faith or intentional trespass view—used with the adverse possessor's subjective intent and state of mind (mistaken possession in some jurisdictions does not constitute hostility). Good faith view—a few courts have required that the party mistakenly believed that it is his land. All views require that the disseisor openly claim the land against all possible claims.. . " Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession)