I recall an aspect of property law that says that is person A owned property, but person B used that property (i.e., built on it) with person A’s knowledge, and person A did not stop them, after a certain amount of time, person A has lost the right to evict the person.
Is there there such a provision? What is it called? Is it generally accepted? Is its source in English common law, or in statute?
This is a theory question – there is no legal claim at stake or contempated.
The doctrine you are thinking of is called adverse possession, but you have a few of the elements wrong. This doctrine is basically an application of the statute of limitations to property rights.
In order to obtain title to land by adverse possession, you must actually possess the land, openly, continuously, and exclusively, without permission from the owner, for the statutory period (which varies from state to state - in Washington state, it’s usually 10 years). The owner doesn’t have to actually know about it - he is constructively assumed to know about it because your use is open (aka notorious). The classic example is when you build a structure a little over the property line, and the other landholder doesn’t do anything about it for the statutory period. The owner knows your structure is there (and he’s usually charged with knowing the boundary lines for his own property), he can’t get in (so your use is exclusive), and he didn’t give you permission.
You can also read about prescriptive easements, which are very similar to adverse possession claims but you get an easement instead of actual ownership.
Thanks so much. This board is really great for these kinds of interchanges.
I owe you one.
Don’t forget “notoriously”! Openly, Continuous, Exclusively, Actually, Notoriously = OCEAN. Still remember my Bar Exam mnemonics, how cool/ lame is that?
I agree with ENugent. For more info, you can take a look at a couple prior threads where we discussed this issue:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307495&highlight=adverse
I’m not going to link directly to the second thread, because it’s best read with the introduction in reply #7 in the above-linked thread.
This happened to my Wife. Her jerk of a neighbor was parking on her property, and my Wife thought he had a right to do so. On the ILC it said “Parking Area” as apposed to “Parking Easement”. This was a managed community, with dues, and they even plowed the area and put gravel down so this guy could park there.
After she sold it, the new owners wanted to put up a fence but couldn’t because said jerk did not want to park where he was supposed to. It would have made him walk another 10 feet to his door.
We just about got sued. And if we did, we planned to bring the property management company and surveyor down with us. IMO, they are the ones that screwed up. Cost us $1500 in lawyer fees (that’s a whole ‘nother story).
Yeah, I’m still pissed about it.
Sorry, but “notorious” is the same as “open.” The OCEAN mnemonic is Openly, Continuously, Exclusively, Actually, and Nonpermissively. I just took my local bar exam in February, so I’m pretty sure about this one. (Of course, I don’t have results yet… :eek: )