# "Statute of Limitations" for real estate ownership **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 4, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444 "2013-12-04T06:46:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/1 "2013-12-04T06:46:24Z")
Suppose I steal some real estate… say I just break into the town clerk’s office and erase someone else’s name on a title deed and replace it with my own. Something clearly and inarguably a crime. So I move into this house and live there for a few years. At that point, the crime is discovered. Presumably, I get kicked out of the house, and punished for the crime, and the original owners get the house back. What happens if the crime is discovered 20 years later? 60 years later? What if it’s my son or grandson now living in the house? What if I’ve sold the house and the new owners are completely ignorant that anything transpired? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/2 "2013-12-04T07:37:50Z")
Obviously, this is going to vary from place to place depending on the law. But, in general: Breaking into the registry and forging an entry in the register is never going to give you good legal title to anything, over any time period. However, occupying the property for long enough with no challenge from anyone with a better right may do so; it’s called “adverse possession”. The period of adverse possession reqired to defeat the title of the original owner varies from place to place; at common law it was twelve years. But your occupation must be open; if you engage in fraud or concealment to maintain your occupation, you get no rights from that occupation - so forging an entry in the register may actually hinder your efforts, not help them. However a forgery could help in this situation; if you forge title to the property, and then sell it to a purchaser who acts in good faith, and gives value for the property, _he_ may get good title. The true original owner has a remedy against you, and against the sale proceeds if he can trace them through your hands, but the land is gone. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/3 "2013-12-04T07:50:08Z")
note that in some jurisdictions, adverse possession has been eliminated. In Canadian Torrens systems, adverse possession cannot defeat the title. However, as **UDS** notes, fraudulent transfers can create good title for the innocent third party purchaser - but that doesn’t help the OP. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/4 "2013-12-04T08:01:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > note that in some jurisdictions, adverse possession has been eliminated. In Canadian Torrens systems, adverse possession cannot defeat the title. However, as **UDS** notes, fraudulent transfers can create good title for the innocent third party purchaser - but that doesn’t help the OP. Has adverse possession even been eliminated for the “for 20 years we’ve acted as if the property line was here, but actually it’s five feet over” type of situation? ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/5 "2013-12-04T09:17:53Z")
In the UK the time limit on adverse possession has been reduced from 12 to 10 years. But there are very strict conditions. To squat on land, it is usually necessary to fence it. I remember a case way back in the 60s in a Northern town, where an enterprising squatter had fenced off a large plot behind some shops and offices near the city centre. All the buildings had been demolished by the Luftwaffe, and, presumably, most of the original owners were dead. This guy simply put up a basic post and rail fence, and visited a few times a year to maintain it. After 12 years he applied to take possession, and there was a court case which he won. This land was worth, even then, several £million. I don’t know how it works in the US, but I suspect that there are more records of ownership extant than the one in the Town Clerks office. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/6 "2013-12-04T15:25:19Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > What happens if the crime is discovered 20 years later? 60 years later? Are you talking about a criminal prosecution of yourself? In Ohio the SOL on a crime does not start until the “corpus delicti” is discovered. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/7 "2013-12-04T16:05:07Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Has adverse possession even been eliminated for the “for 20 years we’ve acted as if the property line was here, but actually it’s five feet over” type of situation? I believe so, but can’t say for certain. The basic principle of the Torrens system is that title is as shown on the registry. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/8 "2013-12-04T16:12:31Z")
In Nova Scotia, for example: [http://novascotia.ca/natr/land/adverse-possession.asp](http://novascotia.ca/natr/land/adverse-possession.asp) > [@](#): > > In plain language that means you must be using the land in a visible and public way that is known in the community where the land is located. If you are claiming to own land that belongs to the province, you must have total control of the land and you must be able to show that you or others who used and occupied the land before you have been on the land for a total period of 40 years without any breaks in time. Your activities on the land must demonstrate that you believe that the land is yours and that the person with the deed to the land has no right to the land. If you are claiming land owned by a private individual, you need to show 20 years of continuous use and occupation. The site also mentions this criteria - > [@](#): > > Open and Notorious - The use and occupation must take place in an open and visible manner so that others, in particular the true owner, might know of or could regularly observe it. The use and occupation will generally be widely known by others in the area. The degree of notoriety will be consistent with the nature of the area in which the land is located. So this suggests that fencing off a “lost” lot and visiting it a few times a year hoping nobody gets curious, as in the UK case, might not qualify in NS. As I understand it, (IANAL) it’s to protect people who openly and honestly assume they have rights to the land; if the true owner for 20 years does not notice “hey, that’s my land, get off!” then they lose rights. So the OP question revolves around… why would you have to fiddle with titles? I guess the question is - If someone thinks they own a piece of land, they complain to the authorities and ask for help recovering their land… the authorities say “sorry, according to our records, they own the property, not you”. Then, years later, the fraud is discovered… Would that initial effort be enough to thwart adverse possession? “I tried to get my land back but the authorities stopped me.” I assume that even if adverse possession kicks in, the person perpetrating the fraud is still liable for the loss, civily and criminally? Which brings up the question, if Sam commits fraud on the land registry, then kicks the bucket; can Son of Sam be sued for the damages out of his inheritance when the fraud is discovered, or does liability end when the estate is settled, even if the crime is not found yet? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/9 "2013-12-04T16:17:31Z")
Interesting question. In my town, there is an abandoned RR line (not used since 1956). A local business sits on it, and they have been sprucing up the land-I wonder if they plan to claim it? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/10 "2013-12-04T16:22:55Z")
Also, Alberta - (a write-up from last year) This one mentions the Torrens system, and the limit is 10 years. [http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publications/newsletters/real-estate-report/2012-archives/august-15-2012/adverse-possession-whats-yours-is-mine](http://www.millerthomson.com/en/publications/newsletters/real-estate-report/2012-archives/august-15-2012/adverse-possession-whats-yours-is-mine) > [@](#): > > 1. The limitation period for the person being adversely possesesd against begins on the transfer of title; because of the Torrens system in Alberta, a purchaser can typically rely on the title they are given. As an aside, if the adverse possessor sells land they adversely possess, the buyer buys the portion of time the adverse possessor has into the possession. > > 2. For the adverse possession to be effective to get title: > > (a) the true owner must be out of possession of the lands; > > (b) the claimant must be in use and occupation of the claimed lands; > > (c) the claimant’s use and occupation must be exclusive, continuous, open or visible and notorious for the 10 year period; and > > (d) the belief, ignorance, mistake or intention of the claimant is immaterial. > > 1. The main ways to deal with an adverse possessor within the 10 years is to: > > (a) re-enter the property in order to recover possession; > > (b) get an acknowledgment of title from the person in possession of the property (i.e. an Encroachment Agreement); or > > (c) take proceedings to recover the property. > > One of the main issues in Wellhead was whether the titled owner re-entered to recover possession. There must be more than a mere entry. In Wellhead, there were entries to take measurements and such; and this was evidence of an intention to recover possession, but was not an actual act of recovering possession: As an aside, I heard of a case in a small town where the small mortage loan company went belly up during particularly bad times. This was the 1960’s, records were mainly paper, and I guess because the town was so down on its luck, nobody took a great deal of interest in the situation (or maybe the managers destroyed a lot of documentation on the way out.) A friend of mine says one of the homeowners approached him (since he used to work in a bank) and asked what he should do, there was nobody to pay the mortgage to. He told him to wait 10 years, then claim squatters’ rights. Nobody came after him for payments, so apparently this worked - after 10 years he had clear title. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/11 "2013-12-04T16:34:06Z")
Also, Ontario: just the opposite, as Piper says, the right to acquire title disappears. Not clear what that means - I assume from this the squatter has right to be there, but cannot pass it on to anyone else. > **[What is the time line for adverse possession in Ontario? - Answers](https://www.answers.com/travel-destinations/What_is_the_time_line_for_adverse_possession_in_Ontario)** > > Adverse possession is more complicated in Canada than in the US, has a different legal effect and it is not common.Generally, the claimant doesn't gain title to the property but the owner loses the right to sue after 10 years and the squatter only... > [@](#): > > Generally, the claimant doesn’t gain title to the property but the owner loses the right to sue after 10 years and the squatter only gets to occupy the land. They do not acquire any title. For that reason some think it should be more accurately called adverse occupation. The limit for prescriptive rights (personal, as in a right of way) is 20 years. Also, there are several overlapping statutes that apply and conflict in some cases. It takes occupation for 60 years to gain the right to occupy “Crown Lands”. Adverse possession is rarely accomplished by deliberate encroachment. Rather, an adverse possessor must have acted in the belief that he or she owns the land. > Ontario maintains two separate paper based systems for recording owners of land: the Registry System and the Land Titles System. Land registered in the Land Titles system is immune from adverse possession. In order to be vulnerable to an adverse possession claim the property must be in the Registry system. > > Over the last few years, there has been an official program in Ontario to convert all land registration to the Land Titles System under an electronic program called POLARIS ( Province of Ontario Land Registration and Information System). During the conversion process, the ‘old’ paper registry records are converted to an electronic system. As land is entered to the Land Titles System, any existing disputes are addressed, the clock for adverse possession stops running and future claims of adverse possession are barred. As time passes claims for adverse possession will diminish and eventually disappear. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/12 "2013-12-04T17:03:45Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > … > > However, occupying the property for long enough with no challenge from anyone with a better right may do so; it’s called “adverse possession”. The period of adverse possession reqired to defeat the title of the original owner varies from place to place; at common law it was twelve years. But your occupation must be open; if you engage in fraud or concealment to maintain your occupation, you get no rights from that occupation - so forging an entry in the register may actually hinder your efforts, not help them… I think Adverse Possession may be the answer that you’re looking for. Obviously the extent to which this might apply is going to depend on jurisdiction. Iirc, Adverse Possession is intended for situations where e.g. a long-dead ancestor who you thought bought the land turns out to have made a surveying error, was actually so mentally incompetent as to be unable to consent to financial transactions, “bought” it from a con-artist who had murdered the actual owner and stolen his identity, etc. I.e. it protects innocent people who discover a long-forgotten flaw in their title. Since the “victims” didn’t protest by 1850, it’s your land now. To what extent you can _intentionally_ try to grab (i.e. steal in a moral, if not exactly legal sense) land that you know isn’t yours using Adverse Possession would be interesting to know and is probably very jurisdiction specific. It probably is fairly difficult to do or else people would do it all the time and there would be serious economic and social issues over this. People would be posting on online message boards about how unjust the world is because they are losing their home to a shifty con-artist who managed to sneak onto their property in the dead of night and bury a “claim cube” ten feet underground that broadcast a shortwave message saying that any person who objects to the cube owner’s ownership of the land must file a protest at the claims department at a shack outside Barrow, Alaska between 9 and 10 AM on December 5, else ownership is waived. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/13 "2013-12-04T17:26:31Z")
Several jurisdictions I read about, the intent is irrelevant. Open (“notorious”) occupation is the key - if everyone can see you using the land in the same ay an owner would - openly, mostly exclusively, continuously, etc. If you openly use land and the real owner doesn’t notice for years, then he obviously isn’t paying attention. A few jurisdictions, you cannot knowingly intend to take away the title. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/14 "2013-12-04T18:49:34Z")
A lot of con artists have been thinking along the same lines in recent years - [this](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/ohio-man-using-a-scheme-to-snatch-up-abandoned-houses-thats-so-absurd-its-scary-to-think-its-actually-working/) being just one example that happens to be in the news these days. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/15 "2013-12-04T19:32:39Z")
Adverse possession generally requires that the claimant pay the property taxes on the land, right? In the OP’s scenario, that could well mean two sets of payments going to the tax office, who would presumably refund the overage to whomever they have listed as the owner. If the refund goes to the true owner, then she is presumably charged with knowledge at that point that something weird is happening with her property. If the refund goes to the fake owner, that helps to defeat his adverse possession claim, since he would not really have been paying any tax. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/16 "2013-12-04T20:47:25Z")
IIRC, Someone on this board posted about how their rural neighbors were dicks to them. They found out that when they moved into the area and fenced off a certain piece of their newly acquired land, it ruined that neighbors scheme of claiming it as abandoned after so many years. Apparently, they were within a few months of the time limit when it got fenced off. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/17 "2013-12-04T21:06:32Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > To what extent you can _intentionally_ try to grab (i.e. steal in a moral, if not exactly legal sense) land that you know isn’t yours using Adverse Possession would be interesting to know and is probably very jurisdiction specific. It probably is fairly difficult to do or else people would do it all the time and there would be serious economic and social issues over this. People would be posting on online message boards about how unjust the world is because they are losing their home to a shifty con-artist who managed to sneak onto their property in the dead of night and bury a “claim cube” ten feet underground that broadcast a shortwave message saying that any person who objects to the cube owner’s ownership of the land must file a protest at the claims department at a shack outside Barrow, Alaska between 9 and 10 AM on December 5, else ownership is waived. I don’t think intent matters. But your possession has to be open, continuous, and exclusive. So the claim cube stuff doesn’t work. The typical time period is so long that it’s hard to imagine it getting done without acutal abandonment of the land (unless we’re in the “fence over the property line” context). ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/18 "2013-12-04T21:59:34Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Has adverse possession even been eliminated for the “for 20 years we’ve acted as if the property line was here, but actually it’s five feet over” type of situation? In my area (WA state), one requirement to claim adverse possession is that you also paid any applicable taxes on the property. That would pretty well kill the argument of someone in your situation, since the property taxes would almost certainly have been based on the old surveying and/or plat maps and not just the modern usage of the property. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/19 "2013-12-04T22:26:36Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Has adverse possession even been eliminated for the “for 20 years we’ve acted as if the property line was here, but actually it’s five feet over” type of situation? Here’s what the Saskatchewan Land Titles Act says about it: > [@](#): > > **No title by adverse possession > 21**(1) After the issuance of first title pursuant to a Crown grant: > > (a) no person acquires by way of possession any right, title or interest adverse to or in derogation of the registered owner’s title or right to possess the land for which the title has issued; and > > (b) the right of the registered owner to enter or to bring an action to recover the land for which the title has issued is not impaired or affected by the possession of the land by any other person. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444/20 "2013-12-04T22:40:40Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > In my area (WA state), one requirement to claim adverse possession is that you also paid any applicable taxes on the property. That would pretty well kill the argument of someone in your situation, since the property taxes would almost certainly have been based on the old surveying and/or plat maps and not just the modern usage of the property. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Here’s what the Saskatchewan Land Titles Act says about it: The Saskatchewan law, if I’m reading it right, says there are no more Adverse Possession claims. Still, in the case of Washington or similar, what DOES happen when a person is paying property taxes on what they thought was their land, only to find that their interpretation of the boundaries is off? Is paying property taxes on the property beside the 5 feet sufficient if they honestly believed the fencline was correct? I assume the “pay property tax” provision is to (a) ensure the property cannot be taken and sold for taxes and (b) ensure the county/city gets paid for it by someone, and (c) is additional proof to show the person truly “used” the land, they were seriously occupying it. Or are they accepting “paid property tax” as one indicator of occupancy, so if the title holder paid taxes, there are competing “occupancy” claims and the squatter’s claim is not exclusive enough? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-for-real-estate-ownership/675444.md?page=2)