Check out some similar questions!

lulueagles · Jul 8, 2009, 12:17 PM

My family and I have been living in my husband's grandmothers house for 15 years... we moved in to take care of her when her only daughter would not. The homestead is in my mother and father in law's name since before the grandmother died. We have been paying upkeep, insurance, utilities, taxes, repairs, etc. for 14 of these 15 years. My in=laws now decide they want to evict their only son... do we have any rights?

LisaB4657 · Jul 8, 2009, 12:52 PM

Squatter's rights don't exist anymore. It has been replaced by the law of adverse possession. That law allows someone to take ownership of property if they fulfill specific conditions. One of the most important conditions is that they had occupancy of the property without the owner's permission. Since you had the owner's permission to live there during those 15 years, and it is only now that permission has been withdrawn, the law of adverse possession would not apply to you.

excon · Jul 8, 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by lulueagles

We have been paying upkeep, insurance, utilities, taxes, repairs, etc. for 14 of these 15 years.

Hello l:

But, you paid NO rent, is that correct? Seems like you had a pretty good deal. You could have made an offer to buy it. You didn't. Did you think the situation was going to go on forever?

Maybe you can offer to buy it NOW.

excon

AK lawyer · Jul 8, 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Squatter's rights don't exist anymore. It has been replaced by the law of adverse possession.

Actually, they are the same thing. The former is the venacular for the latter.

lulueagles · Jul 9, 2009, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello l:

But, you paid NO rent, is that correct? Seems like you had a pretty good deal. You could have made an offer to buy it. You didn't. Did you think the situation was going to go on forever?

Maybe you can offer to buy it NOW.

excon

We offered many times and she was never ready to sell... I think she liked the hold over us, regardless, do squatters rights apply
Ps She never paid for the house either, so she is not out anything

lulueagles · Jul 9, 2009, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Squatter's rights don't exist anymore. It has been replaced by the law of adverse possession. That law allows someone to take ownership of property if they fulfill specific conditions. One of the most important conditions is that they had occupancy of the property without the owner's permission. Since you had the owner's permission to live there during those 15 years, and it is only now that permission has been withdrawn, the law of adverse possession would not apply to you.

So, because we lived there with permission and paid everything, we have no rights, but if we didn't pay anything we would... how does that make sense... we only moved in to take care of an ailing grandparent because no one else would, do we have any recourse with everything we paid for, can we deduct it off purchase price, legally... new roof, new garage door, new driveway, 14 years of homeowners (in their name, not ours, we just paid it) 14 years of taxes...

LisaB4657 · Jul 9, 2009, 05:46 AM

If you lived there without their permission you still would've had to pay for the upkeep of the property in order to qualify for ownership by adverse possession. So whether you paid or didn't pay had nothing to do with it.

Since you lived there with their permission you have the same status as a tenant. Since there is no written lease that makes you a month-to-month tenant and the owner of the property can terminate that tenancy with 30 days notice.

If you made substantial improvements to the property that would go beyond the amount of rent that would be typical for that type of property, you might be able to sue them for the value of those improvements. But I wouldn't count on it. However if the owner had made promises to you in the past that they would sell you the house, and if you made those improvements because you were relying on those promises, that would give you a much better case for suing for the value of those improvements.

N0help4u · Jul 11, 2009, 03:06 PM

They would also have had to keep up the maintanence and paid the taxes and no body dispute it.