I know of this woman who after some life altering events she went insane , she gave up her kids for adoptions years ago when they where new born kids they do not live in the united states,and do not make contact with her. They do not want to take power of attorney for her because of the cost of a lawyer and they would also be responsible for her medical bills. For the past year I have been keeping up with her house and paid the taxes . Would I be able to take possession of this home and use it as my own personal home ?

You would have to do adverse possession law. You have to see if you fit all the criteria to be eligible
Adverse Possession in Texas (http://www.lonestarlandlaw.com/Adverse.html)

Who is listed on the title? Where is the owner now? Who is her conservator? How did you come to live in the house?

... for the past year I have been keeping up with her house and paid the taxes . Would I be able to take possession of this home and use it as my own personal home ?

No. Adverse possession doesn't work that way.

Do you believe that it's yours? No? Didn't think so.

No. Adverse possession doesn't work that way.

Do you believe that it's yours? No? Didn't think so.

Incorrect.

Adverse possession laws in Texas do not require a claim under color of title according to the Ten Year Statute. (C.P.&R. Code, Sec. 16.026)

That IS part of adverse possession

Incorrect.

Adverse possession laws in Texas do not require a claim under color of title according to the Ten Year Statute. (C.P.&R. Code, Sec. 16.026)


"Sec. 16.026. ADVERSE POSSESSION: 10-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD. (a) A person must bring suit not later than 10 years after the day the cause of action accrues to recover real property held in peaceable and adverse possession by another who cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property.

(b) Without a title instrument, peaceable and adverse possession is limited in this section to 160 acres, including improvements, unless the number of acres actually enclosed exceeds 160. If the number of enclosed acres exceeds 160 acres, peaceable and adverse possession extends to the real property actually enclosed.

(c) Peaceable possession of real property held under a duly registered deed or other memorandum of title that fixes the boundaries of the possessor's claim extends to the boundaries specified in the instrument."

Color of title means the same as "a title instrument" as used in this section. But the possession must still be adverse. A lessee, or licensee, for example, does not possess adversely.

"Sec. 16.026. ADVERSE POSSESSION: 10-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD. (a) A person must bring suit not later than 10 years after the day the cause of action accrues to recover real property held in peaceable and adverse possession by another who cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property.

(b) Without a title instrument, peaceable and adverse possession is limited in this section to 160 acres, including improvements, unless the number of acres actually enclosed exceeds 160. If the number of enclosed acres exceeds 160 acres, peaceable and adverse possession extends to the real property actually enclosed.

(c) Peaceable possession of real property held under a duly registered deed or other memorandum of title that fixes the boundaries of the possessor's claim extends to the boundaries specified in the instrument."

Color of title means the same as "a title instrument" as used in this section. But the possession must still be adverse. A lessee, or licensee, for example, does not possess adversely.

I don't see your point. Section (b) permits title by adverse possession without a title instrument. The OP here has not said that he would take possession of the property with her consent.

I don't see your point. Section (b) permits title by adverse possession without a title instrument. The OP here has not said that he would take possession of the property with her consent.

The statute you cited did not say that Texas allows mere trespassers to squat on land and thus acquire title by adverse possession. "Adverse" in most places means some sort of claim of right. If you have Texas authority for your position, by all means let us know what it is.

"Color of title" (or as Texas puts it less confusingly, "a title instrument") is completely beside the point.

Is the crux of the argument here that the owner probably has no knowledge of the person living in her house? Even though there is no mention of 'hostile' possession?

In most states, the owner of a property has to be aware of the adverse possession.

Is the crux of the argument here that the owner probably has no knowledge of the person living in her house? Even though there is no mention of 'hostile' possession?

In most states, the owner of a property has to be aware of the adverse possession.

That's why I asked the questions I did (post #3). Without those answers, I think we are just speculating with insufficient info.

Is the crux of the argument here that the owner probably has no knowledge of the person living in her house? Even though there is no mention of 'hostile' possession?

In most states, the owner of a property has to be aware of the adverse possession.

That would be another issue. Adverse possession must, in most places of which I am aware, be "open and notorious". Thus the true owner would be put on some sort of notice of the claim. But it's not the same as actual notice. If the owner is, for example, abroad, it would be his or her duty to check on the property every once in a while.

But in the instant case, it is unclear who the owner is. She, we are told, is insane and (perhaps) has been committed. She had children, but we are told that someone else adopted them, and they refused to accept a POA. If they do somehow retain an interest, the adverse possession statute might not begin running until their disability of minority has ended. The same might be true for the "crazy" owner.

If she has some sort of guardian or conservator, it would perhaps be that person or entity.

Another wrench in the works: if she is in public housing or a nursing home, she probably is on Medicaid. Medicaid will take any property she owns, if they become aware of it.

So if OP is paying taxes on the place, I hope they aren't more than what rent would be, and I hope he isn't doing improvements, or even much maintenance.

Another wrench in the works: if she is in public housing or a nursing home, she probably is on Medicaid. Medicaid will take any property she owns, if they become aware of it.

So if OP is paying taxes on the place, I hope they aren't more than what rent would be, and I hope he isn't doing improvements, or even much maintenance.

As Scott is won't to note, it reaches a point at which further speculation is futile. But if the government owns it, adverse possession doesn't work against the government.

The statute you cited did not say that Texas allows mere trespassers to squat on land and thus acquire title by adverse possession.

What do you think adverse possession is?? Of course it's the right of "mere" trespassers to obtain title to property!


"Adverse" in most places means some sort of claim of right. If you have Texas authority for your position, by all means let us know what it is.

"Color of title" (or as Texas puts it less confusingly, "a title instrument") is completely beside the point.

I suggest that you read this article. Adverse Possession: When Trespassers Become Property Owners | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html)

I'm not suggesting that 'the gov't owns it.' Medicaid, are you kidding? They put it up for sale before you can wink an eye. I'm suggesting that if the OP starts going through the process, he's likely to draw attention of Medicaid, and he might be better off paying rent in the form of property taxes.

In most states, the owner of a property has to be aware of the adverse possession.

Incorrect. In most states the owner of the property has to have the capacity to be aware of the adverse possession, meaning not prevented by incapacity. I think that incapacity also includes being under the age of 18. Otherwise the elements of adverse possession merely require that the possession is open, meaning that the owner would be aware if they bothered to check.

Incorrect. In most states the owner of the property has to have the capacity to be aware of the adverse possession, meaning not prevented by incapacity. I think that incapacity also includes being under the age of 18. Otherwise the elements of adverse possession merely require that the possession is open, meaning that the owner would be aware if they bothered to check.

Yes, I stand corrected.

What do you think adverse possession is???? Of course it's the right of "mere" trespassers to obtain title to property!



I suggest that you read this article. Adverse Possession: When Trespassers Become Property Owners | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html)

."... The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the mere intent to take the land as one's own constitutes "claim of right."[citation needed] Other cases have determined that a claim of right exists if the person believes he has rightful claim to the property, even if that belief is mistaken.[citation needed] A negative example would be a timber thief who sneaks onto a property, cuts timber not visible from the road, and hauls the logs away at night. His actions, though they demonstrate actual possession, also demonstrate knowledge of guilt, as opposed to claim of right.
Good faith (in a minority of states) or bad faith (sometimes called the "Maine Rule" although it is now abolished in Maine)... " Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession)

Are you suggesting that Texas follows the "Maine rule"? Or do you follow any of this?

."... The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the mere intent to take the land as one's own constitutes "claim of right."[citation needed] Other cases have determined that a claim of right exists if the person believes he has rightful claim to the property, even if that belief is mistaken.[citation needed] A negative example would be a timber thief who sneaks onto a property, cuts timber not visible from the road, and hauls the logs away at night. His actions, though they demonstrate actual possession, also demonstrate knowledge of guilt, as opposed to claim of right.
Good faith (in a minority of states) or bad faith (sometimes called the "Maine Rule" although it is now abolished in Maine) ..." Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession)

Are you suggesting that Texas follows the "Maine rule"? Or do you follow any of this?

You're relying on a Wikipedia article for the definition of claim of right? And you neglected to include the opening language, which says "A court may require some combination of the following as elements of the basic requirements for adverse possession listed above. Which of these applies varies by jurisdiction and may be a result of interpreting common law or of statute."

As for Texas, I was able to find Richardson et ux. V Ball through Google Books. I'm not able to copy and paste it in here but you can read the decision for yourself at The Federal Reporter: With Key-number Annotations ... - Robert Desty, James Wells Goodwin, Peyton Boyle - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=IGk4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA824&lpg=PA824&dq=adverse+possession+%22definition+of+claim+of+ri ght%22&source=bl&ots=xzWjhxJo2x&sig=ELjJl9MTeGIhvtrbKX7R69la5E0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=19I4UoT2OIrNqQH5w4CoCA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=adverse%20possession%20%22definition%20of%20clai m%20of%20right%22&f=false) where it makes it very clear that Texas follows what you refer to as the Maine rule for the Ten Year Statute.

Do you follow any of this?

OK, without getting the OP to return and give more information, lets not continue abstract arguments of the law.

What more do you need to know ?

1. Who is the owner of record on the deed (easy to find at your deed office)?
2. Where is the owner now, and if the same woman, what is her status as far as disability and getting welfare benefits such as Medicaid?

what more do you need to know ?

In Post #3 I asked:


Who is listed on the title? Where is the owner now? Who is her conservator? How did you come to live in the house?

Also the questions Joy just asked are pertinent.

The home owner is the one that is in the crazy home, her kids live out of country and do not want anything to do with her she legally gave them up for adoption when she was young. And her neighbor is a friend of mine that told me about the home

If the owner is in a "crazy home" then most likely she would qualify for a legal disability according to the state law. In such a case you would have to live in the home for 25 years (and fulfill all of the other requirements for ownership by adverse possession) before you could apply to a court for ownership.

Answers leave more questions. Who paid the taxes all the years before you moved in?
What is the timeline of all events? For the last time, who pays her bills? If it's the state, THEY are going to take the house and put it up for sale in order to pay her medical bills.

You could end up not only with no house, but maybe even evicted by the state.

Joy that's something I would have to look up , this house has been vacant for sometime I just paid last years it was cheap 10$ but I want to say she's been in the nursing home for less than 2 years I don't know who's paying her debt. I've personally been there for less than 6 months I had talked ot my friend about the time it was to pay the taxes and I offered to help because I felt sorry for her situation

joy thats something i would have to look up , this house has been vacant for sometime i just paid last years it was cheap 10$ but i want to say shes been in the nursing home for less than 2 years i dont know who's paying her debt. iv personally been there for less than 6 months i had talked ot my friend about the time it was to pay the taxes and i offered to help because i felt sorry for her situation

OK, Here's the situation. You are legally a trespasser. You have absolutely NO right to live in this house. If this woman has been institutionalized because she is not competent to attend to her own affairs, then, as part of her commitment to the institution someone was appointed as conservator to oversee her affairs. That person could be a social worker, state appointed attorney, or someone else. That conservator is probably unaware that you are trespassing.

At some point, the conservator will check on the house and find out you are there. At that point you will either be arrested for trespassing, thrown out as a trespasser, or evicted. Any taxes you paid, work you did on the house etc, will be forfeited.

So, you have a couple of choices. One, you could try to find out who the conservator is and offer to buy the house. Two, you could leave the immediately. Note: if you are thrown out for trespassing, you could lose any belongings you have in the house.

One last point, how did you get into the house in the first place? If the doors were locked or boarded up, then you could be prosecuted for breaking and entering.

Bottom line here is there is a process for trying to gain ownership of abandoned property. And its not what you have been doing.