Adverse Possession/Squatting by renters
A question arose in my mind this afternoon:
(In all cases let us assume that the occupation described meets the requirements of adverse possession and/or squatter rights.)
1. A trailer park has various renters. Some of the renters occupy beyond the lot they rent onto land not owned by the landlord nor rented by the renter. (The occupation obviously goes beyond the rented lot.)
2. Some of the rented lots are actually found to be wholly outside the boundary of the landlord's property. In this case the rent was paid for a lot wholly or partly outside of the landlord's property, but the occupation appears to the renter and landlord to be fully enclosed by the rented lot until the survey revealed differently.
In these cases, does anyone have squatting/adverse possession rights? Whom holds title to the occupied land?
Who is the adverse possessor? Who owns the occupied land?
(I am in Washington, but this example is not intended to refer to any actual set of facts or situation and so I invite people to apply their own state's laws. Please mention which state or country.)
land patents ceased in 1992ish, so I'm not absolutely certain, but fairly sure they ain't going to get any squatters homesteads unless they've been there since before then. At least on federal land anyway. I'm just showing my ignorance, so somebody school me please!
That quickly gets into the long list of items to be evaluated as meeting a specific state's statutes on the subject. I believe the adverse possession would require you own adjacent lands in most cases. The early cases generally arose from the rightful owner completely abandoning a parcel so someone else merely claims to own it and takes possession. Many original settlers abandoned their land for any one of a hundred reasons and never returned.
The landlord is the only one who could claim adverse possession because IMWO the tenants were acting at his direction, We also have to look at who owns the utilities that the mobile units are serviced by. In many jurisdictions a trailer is not considered a permanent structure.
Fortunately I don't practice law or give legal advice. When I look at a coin I only see heads or tails and don't advocate for either.
Adverse occupation by a tenant is the same as occupation by the landlord himself. I don't have access to chapter and verse on that right at hand, but I can get it, in time. So such occupation is simply adverse possession, and all the usual rules apply.