Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › Adverse Possession/Squatting by renters
Adverse Possession/Squatting by renters
Posted by dmyhill on May 4, 2021 at 10:52 pmA 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.)
steve-brosemer replied 2 years, 10 months ago 14 Members · 32 Replies- 32 Replies
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.
- Posted by: @norman-oklahoma
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.
Adverse question: if there is a tenant, that implies permission was granted to be there. Isn’t that the first defense of adverse possession, lack of permission, then constant occupation?
Who gave the permission?
Certain states have squatters rights that do not demand owning adjacent property…
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.28.085
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.The landlord? Tenant is indicated by permission via contract. Other wise they’re squatters.
Well, the permission is for a specific parcel of land. In the first example above, the land is owned by the landlord, and the encroachment is on other land. (I think in that case, the occupier/renter MIGHT have a claim.) In WA, they would likely have to build a structure on it.
The second case where the landlord is renting property outside of his actual deeded parcel, that seems to be classic adverse possession by the landlord, as he is treating it as his own.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.Understood.
As I have lived a few times in a trailer park, the only thing that was owned was the trailer and the stuff inside and in the shed. The ‘ space’ isn’t a parcel and wouldn’t be able to be occupied in other than agreed upon in the validation of the contract stipulations.
Landlord using the other parcel not owned would seem to be the only candidate in my scenario and I can appreciate how this could really get messy and wrapped up in legal fees….yikes!
In this exercise the title holder didn’t give permission. Therefore it can’t be used as a defense against a claim of adverse possession. IMWO.
my presumption is the landlord is title holder. Not landlord aka property management who wouldn’t necessarily be title holder.
I’m hoping all of you guys/gals reading are enjoying how stupid I must sound. It’s easy to go out on hypothetical limbs. It’s a great way to learn!
I believe that the fact that the occupant was under the impression he was leasing his space is enough evidence to exclude the land from being adversely possessed.
And if it went to litigation there’s a good chance the actual titled owner would be due compensation that the lessor had collected over the years….plus interest…plus damages…plus attorney fees.
my humble $0.02
Interesting question. I can’t imagine a landlord could lose his property to his own tenant, so I’d be surprised to learn an adjoiner didn’t fall under the same sort of exception.
But yeah, I really have no idea. I’m sure some of the pros will inform us. ????
The occupant thought he was renting that area, so was not in control of it and has no claim.
The owner of the trailer park was treating it as his own and under his control by renting it out, so if he meets all the other requirements of the particular state he probably has a case.
.I love the terminology they use: adverse possession can arise from the open, notorious and hostile occupation of ones property 🙂 It also has to be continuous for the statutory period, which I’ve seen as little as 7 years, but seems more like 11 or 20 are more common; and notorious doesn’t necessarily mean that the owner knew about it, just that he should have if he were an average land owner – even if it was just that all the neighbors knew about it (as might now be in your hypothetical case).
And hostile isn’t confrontational, but that it’s in use in a way that only the owner would have rights to, like living on it of farming it.
One inexpensive way to prevent ripening of this unwritten right without getting into an eviction issue is for the land owner to write a letter stating something as simple as “I’m fine with you guys using that little piece of my property by the <thingywiththeweirdtree> for <fillintheblank> for as long as you want or until wifey decides she wants to put up that ostrich pen there. I’m hoping she’s already forgotten about that, though.” That would, even without any response, take the “hostility” out of it. The one claiming adverse possession by law has to prove that he’d met all the legal points in court by a ‘preponderance of evidence’ in order to get it to change title.
I think your theoretical land owner should take a walkabout on his property if he hasn’t for a few years.
ddI see a lot of close looks at the fact pattern. Did anyone think to check the survey?
Tenants have no rights to the land, they simply represent open and notorious, continuous, and hostile use. Landowner has a case for AP. If I were an attorney, I would suggest that the landlord just keep-on keeping on. Let the adjoiner push the issue.
There was a fellow near Berlin, NH who owned a gravel parking lot that was being used by hikers to access some public hiking trails. Every five years or so, he would have his wife take a photograph with him holding the Berlin Sun newspaper next to a bold lettered sign declaring, “I own this land and give permission to the public to use it.”
As mentioned above, a certified letter providing permission is another cheap way to prevent AP.
There is an element to AP that seems hard for some to digest because in practice it seems favor bad actors. If you can’t, won’t, or don’t make the time to know what you own, don’t be shocked when others take advantage of your apathy. Get a survey!
The state of Kansas has a bizarre “under a belief of ownership” clause in their adverse possession law, along with “knowingly adverse”! KSA 60-503 (1964). Kinda of a oxymoron huh?
Log in to reply.