Check out some similar questions!

bubbaroo · Feb 15, 2012, 05:23 PM

The home across the street had been through a foreclosure unable to sell with no one there living in it. I am filing adverse possession & plan to set aside money to pay the taxes that may be due at the end of the year. Will the bank make me have a loan on the property to stay (qua;ify). OR Can I stay regardless and just keep up with taxes & maintenance for the 7-20 year period, as I read it.

ScottGem · Feb 15, 2012, 05:35 PM

Neither. You can be arrested or thrown out as a trespasser.

I suggest you read up on Adverse Possession laws, because you clearly don't understand them.

LisaB4657 · Feb 15, 2012, 05:52 PM

It is highly unlikely that you'll be able to fulfill all of the requirements of adverse possession in this case. I doubt the bank will completely ignore the property for 7 years (or whatever time is required in your location). And if you tried to make an arrangement with them then you would be there with their permission and that does not fulfill the requirements of adverse possession.

Why not just contact the bank and see if you can work out a deal to purchase the property?

ballengerb1 · Feb 15, 2012, 06:08 PM

Where do you live and what have you done to "possess" the property. Adverse possession is also know as open and notorious possession. There are at least 5 criteria to establish adverse possession.
Actual

▪ Open and notorious

▪ Hostile and under claim of right

▪ Continuous

▪ Exclusive

Fr_Chuck · Feb 15, 2012, 06:11 PM

Yes, you do not "file for it" until you have lived in the house for 5 to 20 years depending on the area, and have to live there without being arrested or thrown out. Any money you spend on the property, or any taxes you pay is just gifts to the owner. You have a must better chance of letting it sell for taxes and buy it that way, or buy it from the bank as a foreclosure.

AK lawyer · Feb 17, 2012, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

... There are at least 5 criteria to ...
...
▪ Hostile and under claim of right
...

In most states, you have to be claiming "under claim of right". Thus, you cann't just "squat" on property that you know isn't yours. The idea of adverse possession is that if you thought the land was yours for the requisite period, and were perhaps mistaken, the law will side with you.

In your case, this doesn't apply.

LisaB4657 · Feb 17, 2012, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

In most states, you have to be claiming "under claim of right". Thus, you cann't just "squat" on property that you know isn't yours. The idea of adverse possession is that if you thought the land was yours for the requisite period of time, and were perhaps mistaken, the law will side with you.

Your second sentence is incorrect. Not all states require that a claim of right be under color of title. At common law there was no requirement for color of title at all. Some states have legislated such a requirement but it is certainly not the case in most states.

If a person in a non-color of title state squats on property that they know is not theirs, and fulfills all of the requirements for ownership by adverse possession in their state, then they can obtain ownership.

AK lawyer · Feb 18, 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Your second sentence is incorrect. Not all states require that a claim of right be under color of title. At common law there was no requirement for color of title at all. Some states have legislated such a requirement but it is certainly not the case in most states.

If a person in a non-color of title state squats on property that they know is not theirs, and fulfills all of the requirements for ownership by adverse possession in their state, then they can obtain ownership.

My second post "Thus, you can't just "squat" on property that you know isn't yours.", referred to the previous sentence which began "In most states ...".

Also, many people are confused between "color of title" and "claim of right". The term "color of title" refers to a piece of paper (i.e. a document) which, although perhaps faulty, forms the basis for an adverse possession claim. There are frequently two statutes of limitations for adverse possession: one for situations in which the claim is based upon " refers to a piece of paper (i.e. a document) which, although perhaps faulty, forms the basis for an adverse possession claim. There are frequently two statutes of limitations for adverse possession: one for situations in which the claim is based upon ", and a shorter one where such a document does not exist. It is not the same as ", and a shorter one where such a document does not exist. It is not the same as ", in most states.