From what I understand, it's not just property you own that can be squatted in. Two years ago, when I was living in an apartment in California, I allowed some people I knew to move in with me for what was supposed to be a few days. It turned into a few months; they didn't move out until I did. The apartment manager told me that since they were receiving mail there, they had squatters' rights and could have refused to leave.

Years ago we were mortified to find out that because a trimaran had no engine, the law regarded it as a trailer home. The offensive family within got 3 months after their eviction notice to leave the marina, during which time they were horrible, of course. They even claimed they had a right to a specific dock when construction would block it.

Our friends had vacant rental property. Some druggies broke in and were making meth. They had been there one week. The owners told them to leave and take their stuff. When they refused the owners started changing the locks. The "tenants" called the police who ordered the landlords not to touch anything and to leave under threat of arrest.

I see the problem with property left over a decade, but a week?

I heard something similar about the mail thing. I get mail from the VA for Gary M., a once-homeless artist I became friends with, and I send it all to him where he now lives. (He's now in Illinois with a roof over his head.) When I got it at my PO box, the guy who owns the place told me it could mean a person could have access to my mailbox, and I heard the same about mail giving someone some right to your home.

Gary would never do anything to hurt me, but with people who might, watch out.

Having just obtained a NC real estate license, I can tell you every state has an issue with squatters, not just California.

Gail and Isab are attorneys and can probably explain the squatting rules better.

For squatters to claim ownership, a legal time limit must pass (the property is then considered abandoned). They can't simply move in and claim squatter's rights the next day. So, if you own property on which you don't live, check it regularly and call the sheriff to evict any attempted squatters you find.

In North Carolina the time limit is variable, depending upon whether the squatters have "color of title" (some valid or believed-to-be-valid claim to ownership in said property). California tends to be hostile to landlords, so the time and requirements may be different there.

My last experience in this in California (as explained by a Kern County Sheriff's Deputy) was that if you allowed someone to move in and they receive mail at your place, they are generally considered tenants, not squatters, and have tenant's rights (30-60 day eviction notice, right to common areas, etc.) - whether they paid rent is immaterial. Other states may vary on that.

There are two or more issues here.

The first is adverse posession and the second is landlord tennant law.

The third is probably what laws the state has regarding losing your property by failure to maintain it or pay taxes or homeowners fees.

California and other big blue states have always been soft on squatters and renters. In other states the law is tilted towards the property owners.

The economic effect of making it difficult and expensive to evict squatters, and non paying renters is generally sky high property prices and rental rates in urban areas.
(Rent contol does that as well along with discoraging new construction)

Adverse posession is a common law concept. Some states recognize it, but real estate taxes levied in most states have kind of made it obsolete.
Generally if you are paying taxes on a piece of property, after a certain period of time, you will be able to establish ownership. It sounds like that is really what happened in the condo story above.

The one thing that seems really odd here: The squatters lived in the property for years before the owners noticed. You cannot realistically just leave a property totally untended for years.

Even if there is no yard to take care of, there may be storm damage, roof leaks, insects or rodents, broken windows, broken pipes - all sorts of things than can go wrong and must be taken care of. What kind of property owners would never visit the property to take care of it? For thirteen years??

The property tax question is their final chance. There's no information in the article, but based on the rest, I'll bet that the "old" owners never paid the property taxes, and the "new" owners did. If that turns out to be the case, given all the rest, I'm not so sure that a transfer of title is unfair.

Law on adverse possession varies from state to state. We're stricter in New York than in many states. The squatter must have lived openly in the property for at least ten years without interruption. Moreover, in 2008 we added an amendment to require that the squatter must have a reasonable basis for the belief that he has legal rights to ownership of the property.

Between the two, you have to have a fairly extraordinary situation for a squatter to legally gain rights to your property. You both have to walk away from it for a decade (that's a loooong time), and something must occur to give someone else a reasonable basis for thinking he legally owns it -- e.g., perhaps an unscrupulous real estate dealer pretends he has a right to sell the property and an unsuspecting person buys it. Ten years later, the real owner finally wakes up and notices.

That's not going to happen very often, and when it does, the "squatter" isn't unsympathetic. Indeed, I'd argue he's as sympathetic, possibly more so, than the original owner.

(A bigger problem we have here in NYC, at least, are deadbeat tenants who refuse to pay rent but won't leave. It's not easy to get them out. You have to go to housing court, and it can take a while. But that's another story.)

Taking aside New York's stricter (and, I submit, not unreasonable) laws on adverse possession, I can see a possible reason behind such laws: if you have an owner who completely neglects a property in every way for a very prolonged period of time -- everything from maintenance to paying fees to the condo office -- it can blight an entire neighborhood and bring down the value of their property. Someone moving in, taking care of the property, paying costs, etc., is a benefit to the community. In that way, adverse possession laws tend to discourage neglectful owners and encourage good use of the property.

However, that said, other ways around that problem could be found.

...agree with the points on property taxes. If the squatter has been paying them for a decade, and the owner has not...

E.g., the way the New York law works, someone who can show a reasonable basis for believing he's owned the property for ten years has almost certainly been paying the taxes for ten years.

The apartment manager told me that since they were receiving mail there, they had squatters' rights and could have refused to leave.

Their names weren't on the lease, so you could have simply called local LEO to escort them off the premises, and swear out a trespass complaint so they could be dealt with if they returned.

Conversely, if I forward my mail to Ms. Streisand's home and camp out in her back yard, I have squatter's rights?

"Conversely, if I forward my mail to Ms. Streisand's home and camp out in her back yard, I have squatter's rights?"

I'm not sure about the fine details of California law, but in some states yes. Though typically you have to avoid Ms. Streisand's notice for quite some time.

In Texas if you have someone living on a property without a contract and not paying rent for six months then that becomes the de facto rent and they gain squatters rights. I've had people who were down on their luck live with me and I always made them sign a contract. The rent may not have been much ($10/mo) but it was something. I also don't let them stay for more than six months. Unfortunately one of them refused to leave until I slipped an intent to evict notice under her door.

"I see the problem with property left over a decade, but a week?"

Until the courts decide to evict you do not have the right to impede their access. The courts have to decide what happened (hey, the guy who called the cops may be lying) and what is the appropriate remedy. Unfortunately this takes time. Months if you are lucky.

Personally, if you have property you are not using then get rid of it. Sell it to someone who will use it.

Even if there is no yard to take care of, there may be storm damage, roof leaks, insects or rodents, broken windows, broken pipes - all sorts of things than can go wrong and must be taken care of. What kind of property owners would never visit the property to take care of it? For thirteen years??

My in-laws own a house they haven't seen in roughly 10 years. My BIL went by a few years ago and, sure enough, the place has been vandalized to hell and back and is now being occupied by squatters.

I always thought this was INSANE, but then we went to their home country this year and they took me on a tour of the several homes they collectively technically own in that country but are unoccupied/in ruins/being lived in by squatters. Over there, if you want to move (but can't sell), you just ... leave. And squatters take it and work the land. So, when they wanted to sell their first U.S. home (which they'd already paid off) during the recession (and couldn't), they just shrugged and moved on, bought their American-Dream McMansion and left the starter home to rot.

One question I've never been able to get answered: If one of the squatters living in an unoccupied house were to get hurt, can they sue the owners?

One question I've never been able to get answered: If one of the squatters living in an unoccupied house were to get hurt, can they sue the owners?

sofar at July 21, 2017 8:35 AM

Wrong question. Anyone can sue you on the most tenuous of reasons. Is it a "winnable suit" is the real question.

Give me the facts about how the injury occured and whether it was due to either the negligence of the property owner or possibly a strict liability hazzard, and what state it occured in, and I will get back to you on the possible answers.

Too many people expect the law to be like math, with one correct answer when in reality it depends on many things other than the fact pattern including how believable a lot of liars are, and whether the paperwork with the claim was filed correctly.

This is why you want to hire a good experienced attorney if you are being sued or suing. For routine matters like wills, deed transfers, and other paperwork issues the legal profession has been replaced by computers, and state statutes.

Going to court is a whole new ballgame.

For issues such as multi million dollar contracts, personal injury, patent and trademark, employment law, insurance law, tax law and constitutional issues, they have not.

When you need an attorney get a good one. No one wants to pay some recently minted law school grad to to educate himself about your issue at your expense.

Wrong question. Anyone can sue you on the most tenuous of reasons. Is it a "winnable suit" is the real question.

I could have sworn I typed in "can they sue the owners and win." Oops. Dad's an attorney, I should know better.

I'm sure people with 0 risk-aversion probably wouldn't even weigh getting sued as a factor anyway.

But if you have a sec, let's just say the scenario that plays out in my personal risk-averse nightmares happens: A branch from the diseased, giant tree in the back yard falls on a squatter while squatter is hanging out on the back porch. Squatter loses use of his legs permanently.

State of Texas, in this scenario.

Eh, a 2 decade absentee landlord isnt keeping up the property. The neighbors ought to have some redress. He wasnt even paying the fees for the upkeep of the exterior. There are good arguments against squatters rights, but hes not it.

But if you have a sec, let's just say the scenario that plays out in my personal risk-averse nightmares happens: A branch from the diseased, giant tree in the back yard falls on a squatter while squatter is hanging out on the back porch. Squatter loses use of his legs permanently.

sofar at July 21, 2017 10:50 AM
Natural hazzard law is pretty well developed.

In most states I think that would be treated as an act of God. However there are exceptions. If the state or city had an ordinance requring the removal of dead trees as as hazard which the owner had been cited for, (and you can prove he received the citation) you might have a chance.

But proving shit like this on an abandoned property is a high hill to climb.

And natural hazards like ice and tree branches are often assumption of risk problems.

In general the law isnt going to make a distinction between a squatter and any other trespasser. The squatter doesnt acquire more rights under tort law by being there a long time.

And the general answer is, yes, tresspassers have sued property owners for injuries incurred on the property and won.

However if the squatter had been there long enough to actually be the implied owner than he may have assumed the risk as well.

A case might be more clear cut if an owner had left an old refrigerator on the property, or knew the property was being used as a dumping ground and failed to do anything about it.
A dangerous unsealed mine opeing, an empty or full swimming pool or an uncovered well also might generate property owner liability in case of an injury to anyone, not just someone in adverse possession.

As far as it being in Texas, I have no motive to read through all their statutes and case law on negligence claims by trespassers, but my guess is the State of Texas, being part of the western school of thought would be an assumption of risk state for natural hazards.

"Law on adverse possession varies from state to state. We're stricter in New York than in many states. The squatter must have lived openly in the property for at least ten years without interruption. Moreover, in 2008 we added an amendment to require that the squatter must have a reasonable basis for the belief that he has legal rights to ownership of the property."

By far the most common occurance of things like this are not dishonest real estate brokers but shody survey work, and mistaken legal descriptions of property.

90 percent of adverse posession is a landowner accidentally builds a garage or some other outbuiding that encroaches on the neighbors property. No one notices until years later when another survey is done prior to sale of either property.
Usually this is handled by an easement.
But in case of a multi million dollar structure some equity is going to change hands,

Hence the requirement by New York of a belief by the adverse possessor that he has a legal right to the property in dispute,

It cuts out the squatter fraud method of acquiring property that exists in some other states.

I actually read of a bizarre case involving an unscrupulous real estate broker a while back, but I'm sure you're right that shoddy survey work and lousy property descriptions are much more common. Indeed, I know someone who had the outbuilding situation -- a friend, not a client.

The important thing is, as you note, it pretty much eliminates the squatter fraud way of obtaining property. Anyone who acquires property in this way will not only have been sitting on it for a very long time, but also will have had a good reason to think he had a legal right to do so. That seems reasonable to me.

Isab: fascinating comments; thank you for taking the time.

The only taking ownership I have really heard of is the "paying 5 years of taxes" From my childhood I remember hearing of it twice. One on an then empty lot a few blocks from us. It was in the newspapers as I recall Elderly person B inherited when person A died, but nothing was done with and when B died and C inherited it they found B had lost the property--- C was suing the lawyer who handled the original inheritance. The other was our neighbor... someone tried to take the house out from under her but was caught in 4 years. At least then you didn't even need position.

I am OK with that.

The tenants and squatter rights seem to be ridicules.

Back in the height of the downturn an acquaintance took his family on vacation for a week. His neighbor calls him while he his on a lay-over says people are living in the house. A group had broken in...found a utility bill and paid it and changed the name to theirs. It took him nearly over year to get them kicked out. It costs him a lot legal fees in addition to renting a place for his family during that whole time. He was awarded money but of course the squatters had none so that didn't help. Apparently the utility thing makes it much more difficult.

Back in the height of the downturn an acquaintance took his family on vacation for a week. His neighbor calls him while he his on a lay-over says people are living in the house. A group had broken in...found a utility bill and paid it and changed the name to theirs. It took him nearly over year to get them kicked out. It costs him a lot legal fees in addition to renting a place for his family during that whole time. He was awarded money but of course the squatters had none so that didn't help. Apparently the utility thing makes it much more difficult.

The Former Banker at July 21, 2017 9:08 PM

The question to be asked is under what law code would this not be criminal breaking and entering and fraud?
If someone did this in Wyoming they would be arrested.

Isab Says:

"Too many people expect the law to be like math, with one correct answer when in reality it depends on many things"

I appreciate all that you are saying with regard to legal matters... but I do want to point out that math doesn't work this way either.

The solution to a math problem will also depend upon a variety of factors and assumptions/axioms.

The picture of math as this incredibly rigid structure that only admits one possible solution or interpretation is just a convenient fiction established during early childhood education.

Sometimes for example 2+2 will equal 4 (base 10) and other times it will equal 11 (base 3). Now one could potentially argue in this case that either way the solution represents the same quantity so they are in some sense identical solutions.

However, we also have a similar situation for more fundamental questions, such as do lines that are initially parallel ever cross?

In euclidean geometry the answer is no... in other perfectly consistent mathematical geometries the answer is yes.

We also have the same issue with the summation of infinite series... in conventional mathematics the sum of all of positive integers diverges and tends toward infinity... in other branches of mathematics the sum of all the positive integers equals -12.

Ultimately my point is that solutions in mathematics are also highly dependent upon a multitude of axioms and internally consistent choices. The rigid interpretation that each math question has 1 and only 1 correct solution is an illusion created by the assumption that the axioms and choices are fixed and unalterable.

Minor correction... it should be -1/12, not -12. The overall point still stands :)

The question to be asked is under what
law code would this not be criminal
breaking and entering and fraud?

Isab at July 22, 2017 7:05 AM

I can't imagine that wouldn't be the case in any jurisdiction.

And wouldn't the homeowners have deeds, property tax records, other bills, etc. etc. demonstrating their ownership? I can't understand why this took a year to resolve. All the fraudsters did was pay a single utility bill? And the homeowners were only on vacation for a week?

Could be a crazy judge with an ax to grind. Or there could have been some minor point of law the squatters brought up. In Texas it is illegal for most property owners (banks are excluded) to evict a single mother with a sick child. So if you rent to a single mother and she has a friend who is a doctor who is willing to write down that one of her kids are sick they can squat and not pay rent till the kid becomes an adult. Mind while this is going on the property owner who is not getting paid still has to maintain the property.
This actually happened to a relative of mine. His only solution was to hand the keys over to the bank in exchange for wiping out the mortgage. The bank was then allowed to evict her. Even more hilarious is after all of this the lady actually asked my uncle for a reference when she was looking for a new place to stay.

"Could be a crazy judge with an ax to grind. Or there could have been some minor point of law the squatters brought up"

Or it could be that your friend is feeding you a complete line of bullshit to cover up the fact that he actually either rented this house to the people or gave them permission to move in in the first place. (Possibly as house sitters)

Utility companies don't change the name on a bill without a lease or the owners written authorization.

So this either happened in the distant past or the facts were not as *your friend* reported them.

A lot of people are extremely creative storytellers, especially when the real story makes them look like a gold plated idiot.

Agree. Something pretty major is missing from this story.

To change utilities to my name I have never had to do more than call up and ask them to.

They weren't claiming to own the place, just that they were legally tenants or something like that. Of course they would be happy to move on for the right price. A common scam at the time--- he probably should have just paid the money.

What I was told was not all that different from stories in the news paper.

What I remember being told is he called the police which show and see no obvious signs of crime (e.g. broken glass) so they won't do anything but refer to some sort of hearing...that is about 3 weeks out...at that hearing it is decided that a full hearing will be needed...it appears like they do intend to live there, show signs of taking responsibility for the place...responsible for the utilities, etc...everybody is to maintain status quo and any evictions are on hold until the court date which is ~8 months out (he did show me a print out of that). My acquaintance wins the trial-- they have 30 days to leave. But they file a BS appeal which puts things on hold until the appeal is heard -- another 3 months. Court says appeal is BS -- 30 days to vacate. After 30 days then you have to get the police to actually physically evict them. Which they don't like to do (per tv news) so that takes quite awhile.

Could it all be a story -- I suppose.

Could it all be a story -- I suppose.

The Former Banker at July 22, 2017 12:01 PM

While there are no doubt squatter scams that work, the vast majority rely on gaining legal entry. And then overstaying your
permission.

States that have too many protections for renters and squatters will allow the civil legal system to exhaust the owners resources beyond what they are losing on the property in question. Victories are often pyrrhic unless you have a criminal fraud charge that will stick.

The only way I see this working with a breaking and entering is if the homeowners themselves have such a sketchy background that they are unwilling to file charges because of fear of dealing with law enforcement.

If you have ever read a newspaper article about something you personally witnessed you might soon realize why these articles need to be approached with skepticism.

Every week Amy posts some link to an article that seems outrageous until people come along and point out what the journalist looking for a sensational story strategically left out.

Locking up your condo and not checking on it for ten years or so is a bit like leaving your valuables in a rented locker, not paying the rent, and expecting them to still be there ten years later.

Good luck with that.....

"Utility companies don't change the name on a bill without a lease or the owners written authorization."

Bull Isab. I had a friend living with me for a while. He moved out and got an apartment. So the electric company shut my power off. I got things worked out after a day without electricity but his name isn't on the deed. His name wasn't on the electric bill. He was quite clear he was trying to start a new service and not move an old one. I certainly never gave written authorization. Heck, the first I knew there was an issue was when they shut the power off.

@Isab thanks for your response to my question. Helpful and interesting stuff.

Heck, the first I knew there was an issue was when they shut the power off.

Ben at July 22, 2017 4:09 PM

You dont say when this happend.

One if the reasons to go to law school is you learn when you change the facts in a hypothetical, it doesnt rebut the original assertion very well.

Someone at the power company screwed up. Nothing new here. But shutting off your power accidentally when your old old roomate moved is entirely different from changing the name on the bill.
It generally requires a hefty deposit and proof of a lease.
If you are smart you wont get any bills delivered to your house. Identity theft for fraud purposes is growing.

We had our central mailboxes targeted several years back. Fortunately we had already picked up the mail. Some of our neighbors weren't so fortunate.

I think Gail is saying what I am. There are a few facts in the Former Bankers story that don't pass the smell test.

No Isab. In Texas they don't require proof of a lease. My situation with my power getting shut off happened 5 years ago. But I've never had to provide proof of a lease. They don't check public records or ask your landlord either. You can get service turned on as long as you know what the address is. As long as you don't have a terrible credit rating you don't have to provide a deposit either.

Incidentally what do you consider 'hefty' for a deposit? I think if you are under 500 you have to pay a deposit of ~$100.

I do agree that Banker is missing a few details. But the key thing is that to the cops it looked like the people living there belonged there. No sign of forced entry. They probably had a key. Pictures of them were on the wall. I assume they didn't have a record of breaking and entering when the cops ran their names through their database. With a few things like that you can make a breaking and entering look like a tenant dispute. The cops don't know the owners. They can't tell if they actually rented the place out and are lying about it. So it goes to the courts and that takes time.

As for why you almost never see this happening? Like most crimes it is really stupid. What benefit is there? You get to live somewhere rent free for a month or two. Then the courts come down on you with a hammer. But I agree with you that the court timelines Banker quoted means the courts treated this like a landlord-tenant dispute. If it was squatters they wouldn't have given the 30 days to evict. At least not here. It would have been trespass and they would have been arrested at the courthouse. I only objected to the utility thing. Down here it is really easy to fake that out.

I am absolutely on Team Isab on this one -- a few things in the story don't pass the smell test.

The fraudsters setting out a few photos of themselves on the mantelpiece isn't going to outweigh the fact that the neighbors and numerous records will all attest to the real owners. The fraudsters won't have any proof that the ownership transferred to them -- even assuming they managed to get a utility to switch over to their name (in a week they did all this?!)

What, they just *gave* their property away for $0 and without any documentation, and then blithely went off on vacation -- only to come back and change their minds?

The real owners would have a flotilla of evidence to demonstrate this was a fraud, and it would not take a year to prove it.

You don't have to prove ownership Gail. You have to prove rentership. There is nothing more than a contract between two people in a rental agreement. As for neighbors, I haven't talked to mine in months. I usually find out when one of them is selling because of a sign in their yard or the big truck shows up and hauls all their stuff away. It is hot outside. No one in the south knows their neighbors unless your kids play together.

For the record I bet Isab is right that the owners rented their place out to someone while they were on vacation and then the renters refused to leave after the owners got back. The fact that the courts tried to evict instead of just arresting is telling for me.

I know a guy who rents houses for a living down here. He only checks up on the vacant ones every month or two. A yard service does the mowing. When he was checking up on a vacant property he noticed that someone had moved in. He called the cops and the guy had keys to the house (he changed the locks), he had a rental agreement (not with my friend), he clearly had moved in and had his possessions everywhere. To the cops this looked like a case of a lying property owner trying to illegally evict a tenant. So the case gets handed over to the courts and of course the cops tell everyone to not change anything. Keep the status quo. A few months later the trial date comes up and the guy's story starts to fall apart. He never paid any rent to my friend or anyone else so it wasn't like he got defrauded by someone else. Instead it looked like the guy lost his job, lost his home, and went a little crazy. Found a vacant house and moved in. Cops arrested the guy there at the court house. Probably took him off to the local loony bin. Who knows. But I can't blame the cops. For everything they had access to it looked like the guy was the legitimate renter. Sending it off to the courts to figure out was the right decision.

sigh. You do know you're arguing with two lawyers, right?

According to Banker's friend's story, the fraudsters weren't after proving rentership. They were trying to take adverse possession of the house. According to him, they did so on the basis of a single utility bill.

Assume for a moment they succeeded in switching over the utility bill (in a mere week while someone was on vacation? And they moved in? My, they moved fast). That's just not nearly enough to make it take a year for the real owners to demonstrate their ownership. Real owners would easily be able to show records demonstrating their ownership.

If the fraudsters had merely been trying to demonstrate they were renting the house, they still have a problem. They'd be unable to show a lease signed by the owners and records of rent payments to them.

What Isab posited, and I concur, is that there is more to this story than banker's friend said. A good explanation might be that owners really DID legitimately rent their house to the fraudsters, but then wanted to kick them out. That indeed could take a year, depending on circumstances.

But the "they broke in, found a utility bill, switched names, and tried to steal the house, all in a single week, and it took a year to get them out" story just is too full of holes.

sigh. As I clarified before, they were claiming something like they were renting the place.... really I am pretty sure it was the common at that time scam just to get the home owner to pay them off to leave.

To my understanding, it was very much as Gail suggested in court... what contract? etc. But that is once the court gets around to the case. Then there is an appeal which is rejected as utter BS...once it is looked at. That year is basically waiting on the court to get around to the case since it civil.

As Banker pointed out his case wasn't about adverse possession. Neither was mine with the crazy guy. In Banker's case it looks like they had an agreement with the land owners but refused to vacate at the end of the agreement. Otherwise it wouldn't be treated as an eviction by the courts. The point was to harass the owner into paying them some money to go away. There the process is the punishment and all the crooks suffer is eviction which would have happened anyways. Which is why it is very risky to rent your home out to strangers for a week or two.

As for getting the utilities changed, if you know ahead of time when to change them you just schedule that with the utility company beforehand. Another indicator that his friend had an agreement with the crooks.

In my case adverse possession also wasn't the objective. You have a tragic crazy guy. In this situation he had far more time (months) to set thing up. But the courts didn't evict. Instead they arrested.

Isab is 100% correct that gaining legal entry and overstaying is a huge part of successful squatter scams. There is a huge difference between being evicted and getting arrested.

I also disagree with Amy on the original story at the top. While I don't like squatters if you abandon your property for decades I have little sympathy when you lose that property. At the very least the local taxing authority should have taken the property for failure to pay taxes. If you aren't going to use a property then sell it to someone who will.

"By far the most common occurance of things like this are not dishonest real estate brokers but shody survey work, and mistaken legal descriptions of property."

This. My wife used to work in real estate in Alabama, and the law on adverse possession is much like what Gail described concerning New York law. It must occur continuously for a period of time, and the person doing it must have a reasonable belief that they are the proper owners. It's usually used to fix cases where a property has not been surveyed for decades, and then a survey discovers that the previous survey was in error. It's also used for cases where old titles described property boundaries using geographic landmarks which have since moved or disappeared.

And: when one of the property owners involved is a government, its powers take precedence over adverse possession. A horror story: In a neighborhood where we used to live, a house was build and had been occupied for about five years. The city somehow discovered that the utilities easements for the property had been incorrectly platted, and after a new survey, it was discovered that one end of the house was two feet into a side-yard easement. The property owners tried to get a variance from the city, but were refused. They had to hire a house moving company to pick up the house and move it over two feet, plus build a new foundation and redo all of the utility connections.

I'm sorry -- I missed your second clarifying post, Banker. Since the thread was about adverse possession, I read your first in that context.

That said -- I still think there are facts missing. No one knows better than I do that cases can drag on. But here we have a criminal charge -- breaking and entering -- and demonstrating that there's no rental agreement or rental payments being made should be fairly straightforward.

Just having a deadbeat tenant -- one who moves in legitimately, but then doesn't pay or overstays -- can drag on. But here, the lack of rental agreement and the criminal charge -- that should push it along much more quickly.

I agree with you there Gail. I can't believe in Banker's case that they didn't have some sort of agreement.