[jcastle]

I have a wooden deck about 25ft x 15 ft. the corner of which over hangs my property line at a triangular angle some 4 ft x 6ft at a hight of 5ft above the lake level. This is clearly marked on my survey and has been there as long as the house - some 27 years. The lake owners have contact me to either remove the deck or purchase the land..

My questions is:

A: Are they within theirs right to make this request as Florida has a 7 years usage law which I understand rules in my favor?
B: As this is 5 ft in the air and is overhanging mostly my water frontage anyway.. what land am I buying?

TYhanks for a reply.

[Fr_Chuck]

Florida Adverse Possession Laws | eHow.com

This along with other sites were interesting reading, and one that your attorney will have to deal with them in court over since adverse possession ( there is no such thing as squatter right) has to deal with two different avenues in Fl.

For the first, you were not paying the taxes so you do not fit that case.
In the second, you are required to build a fence or build some other improvement "on" the land, since your deck is 5 foot above, in very tech terms you have not built anything on their land ( unless your posts go into the ground at some point on the property. ** you did not say.

In either way, to gain legal right to keep your deck you will have to file for rights under adverse possession under Florida law in court.

[AK lawyer]

I have a wooden deck about 25ft x 15 ft. the corner of which over hangs my property line at a triangular angle some 4 ft x 6ft at a hight of 5ft above the lake level. This is clearly marked on my survey and has been there as long as the house - some 27 years. The lake owners have contact me to either remove the deck or purchase the land..

My questions is:

A: Are they within theirs right to make this request as Florida has a 7 years useage law which I understand rules in my favor?
B: As this is 5 ft in the air and is overhanging mostly my water frontage anyway.. what land am I buying?

TYhanks for a reply.

"Squatters rights" is coloquial term for what lawyers call "adverse possession". What it comes down to is this: did you and your predecessors in title think it was yours? If it has always been shown on the survey, this is doubtful. One would have to look more closely at what occurred back then to be sure. I suggest you consult an attorney.

I don't know if you own a portion of the lake or not. If so, you would be buying that too. Again, an attorney will be able to advise you.

[excon]

The lake owners have contact me to either remove the deck or purchase the land..

Hello j:

The Padre and the lawyer are right, as usual...

However, from a tactical standpoint, I'd put the onus on them to start legal proceedings. Send them a certified letter informing them that, after due consideration, you HAVE determined that you HAVE rights under the Florida adverse possession laws. Furthermore, you'll seek to have those rights ratified in court if need be, and you'll SUE them for those legal costs.

Let's see who blinks.

excon

[AK lawyer]

Florida Adverse Possession Laws | eHow.com...
For the first, you were not paying the taxes so you do not fit that case.
In the second, you are required to build a fence or build some other improvement "on" the land, ...

As described in the link that Fr_Chuck gave, there are two sections in the Florida statutes for adverse possession claims. Indeed "paying the taxes" certainly does apply for "without color of title" claims under section 95.18.

But it doesn't necessarily appy for AP " with color of title" claims under section 95.16. In that case, the "paying taxes" argument is only one factor to be considered, and it would be difficult to determine. The tax collector probably hasn't been sending out a tax bill for "that sliver of land covered by the deck"; but instead has been billing for the entire tax lot, including (or not including) the disputed portion. In other words, who paid the taxes is frequently a red herring in adverse possession cases.

Keep in mind, "color of title" is a legal term which does not mean what many people incorrectly assume it means (a good faith belief). It means that the claim is founded on some sort of written document, but that document is somehow deficient. For example, one has a deed, but the deed mistakenly has an incorrect legal descripition. On the other hand, "without color of title" would often occur if, for example, the possessor verbally agreed to buy the land, but the parties forgot to reduce the agreement to writing. Or, perhaps, the owner dies, and the owner's child mistakenly figured that she automatically inherited it (It doesn't work that way.).

Regarding the "second" issue, I am afraid Fr_Chuck is incorrect. Real property rights (with the exception of condominium property) usually go from the center of the earth to "heaven" (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos ). Since the deck intrudes into this space, it certainly does constitute the type of improvement Fr_Chuck is writing about. No need to have posts going into the dirt.