[jccoleman]

On the door of a house states there's no relatives and the owner has past away how can I take owner ship off property inside the houseand garage

[smoothy]

You buy it off whomever has it. If someone died without a will or heirs then the local authorities will take it and auction it off to the highest bidder.

What you can't do is simply think you can claim it without paying for it. Squatters have no rights...

Your question isn't clear and it was hard to read... if I misunderstood you then please clarify it better.

[Fr_Chuck]

You can find the owner, some cousin, some newphew and buy it from the estate.

You can follow the taxes and if the property is sold for taxes buy it.

Also you can check to see if there a loan on the house, if it goes into foreclosure then you buy it at that auction.

You can risk I guess in some areas just moving in, which is illegal, tresspass but there are adverse possession, that can allow ownership after 10 years or so. So you risk putting money into a home and not getting arrested or evicted. You can get ownership

[AK lawyer]

... but there are adverse possession, that can allow ownership after 10 years or so. ...

No it can't. Not unless the squatter has some legitimate claim of right.

[Fr_Chuck]

No it can't. Not unless the squatter has some legitimate claim of right.

Yes, most states in US have statues for it, seldom allowed or used but without know their exact location, it is a possible action. Georgia requires 20 years


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

[AK lawyer]

Yes, most states in US have statues for it, seldom allowed or used but without know their exact location, it is a possible action. Georgia requires 20 years


Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am well aware of adverse possession. But what I'm telling you is that adverse possession requires a bona fide claim of right. Even in Georgia, I would bet.

"...
Non-permissive, 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.
...
Good faith (in a minority of states) or bad faith (sometimes called the "Maine Rule" although it is now abolished in Maine)[citation needed] ..."

I am confident that if one looks closely at the specific jurisdiction, neither the so-called "objective view" nor "bad faith view" really applies.

[LisaB4657]

I am well aware of adverse possession. But what I'm telling you is that adverse possession requires a bona fide claim of right. Even in Georgia, I would bet.

Whether your response is correct depends on the state. For example Arizona does NOT require what you call a "bona fide" claim of right for a successful action for title by adverse possession. http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/survey/SRI/publications/AZ_Surveying-BoundaryLaw/Chp3_Adverse_Possession.pdf at Page 9.

Maybe you should try defining "bona fide" for us, particularly since I can find no statute or treatise that requires that a claim be "bona fide".

Before you continue making sweeping statements regarding application of adverse possession I suggest that you read http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=facpub

From that article:

"Despite the many rounds of argument,69 readers are left uncertain as to how many cases require good faith (by holding against an AP because she was in bad faith) and how many cases preclude good faith as an element (by holding for an AP who was aware she did not have title).70"

Finally, (because I'm tired of doing research to continually refute your claims), from the Lexis-Nexis guide for Real Property at Chapter 27:

"[E] Adverse or Hostile Possession Under Claim of Right

In most states, the requirement of adverse or hostile possession under a claim of right is met if the claimant merely uses the land as a reasonable owner would—without permission from the true owner. In a minority of states, however, the claimant must believe in good faith that he owns title to the land."
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/prop/index_Full.asp

[AK lawyer]

... Maybe you should try defining "bona fide" for us, particularly since I can find no statute or treatise that requires that a claim be "bona fide". ...

The phrase is Latin for "good faith".

And that English phrase is used frequently, including in the Indiana University School of Law article you cited. That article, by the way, makes it clear that the courts and commentators have hopelessly muddled the distinction: "... Finding an absence of the proper intent, the courts conclude that there was no adverse possession, without making clear whether possesssion or adversity was missing. ..." p. 2429

[LisaB4657]

The phrase is Latin for "good faith".

And that English phrase is used frequently, including in the Indiana University School of Law article you cited. That article, by the way, makes it clear that the courts and commentators have hopelessly muddled the distinction: "... Finding an absence of the proper intent, the courts conclude that there was no adverse possession, without making clear whether possesssion or adversity was missing. ..." p. 2429

The Indiana University School of Law article also makes it clear that there is a definite difference among the states, and even within the states, whether a "good faith" claim of right is required for adverse possession. Therefore I would appreciate it if you would stop telling people here that: "But what I'm telling you is that adverse possession requires a bona fide claim of right." As shown by the various links I've provided, sometimes it is required and sometimes it isn't.

Unless, of course, you have become an authority on the laws of adverse possession across the US and have done research above and beyond that done by the author of the Indiana University School of Law article. If so then I look forward to reading your article as soon as it is published.

[AK lawyer]

... Unless, of course, you have become an authority on the laws of adverse possession across the US ...

When and if OP tries to appropriate property (wherever that might be) that doesn't belong to him, I will be happy to represent the true owner in court (for the right fee, of course). Until then, it's not worth my time exploring the laws of 50 states and other U.S. territories in order to make the point to you.

[LisaB4657]

Better make sure your malpractice coverage is up to date, then. Because if you represent an owner and tell them they don't have to worry about losing their property to another due to adverse possession because the claimant doesn't have a "bona fide" claim of right, then depending on the state you may be liable for malpractice.

But that's not my problem. Instead I choose to make sure that the information given on this site is correct. When someone posts information that I know is incorrect, or not entirely correct, I'm going to say so and I'm going to back it up.

Have a nice day.