No Trespassing Signs

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by birchhaven

if you trespass long enough it is your land according to what might be the most ridiculous law I have ever heard of, adverse possession.

Not quite. A lot more has to be done in order to satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Not quite. A lot more has to be done in order to satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession.

THat is what my attorney has told me, but could you explain it for us?

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by tis

THat is what my attorney has told me, but could you explain it for us?

Generally:

-The use of the land by the adverse possessor must be open and notorious; that is, it must be done so that the legal owner is reasonably aware of what is going on.

-The adverse possessor must make continuous use of the property for the required length of time, which in New Hampshire is 20 years.

-The adverse possessor must make exclusive use of the property, which means that if the legal owner of the land uses the property in a manner befitting the legal owner, there can be no adverse possession.

-The adverse possessor must have actual possession of the property by performing some type of productive activity on it, other than simply walking or hunting.

-The adverse possessor must use the land without the permission of the legal owner.

Take a look at the wikipedia entry on the subject, from which I shamelessly plagiarized.

Edited to add: I see that Bear Island South can google wikipedia even quicker than I can (although I didn't cut and paste).

[VitaBene]

Basically, your neighbor can use, maintain and cut grass on a piece or all of your property for 50 years and as long as you cut it every 19 years or so (or use it in some way), they cannot come close to adverse possession.

[8gv]

It's theft. Plain and simple. So I pay to buy the land and pay the yearly taxes but John Doe can squat on it and take it away? THEFT!

Why in hell would the rights of squatters supersede those of the holder of a legal deed?

What if I decided to set up on some state or federal land? Do you suppose I could claim adverse possession?

[MAXUM]

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

Would you let a squatter occupy and improve your land for 20 years without either

a) giving him permission to do so, or

b) having him evicted?

I didn't think so.

The law of adverse possession should only come into play in very, very limited circumstances.

For those who care to spend a minute doing internet research, the rationale behind the law of adverse possession can be easily found and understood.

[8gv]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Would you let a squatter occupy and improve your land for 20 years without either

a) giving him permission to do so, or

b) having him evicted?

I didn't think so.

The law of adverse possession should only come into play in very, very limited circumstances.

For those who care to spend a minute doing internet research, the rationale behind the law of adverse possession can be easily found and understood.

So if I live in CA and own a wood lot in NH and pay my taxes, why am I burdened to visit the wood lot to chase off the squatters?

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by 8gv

So if I live in CA and own a wood lot in NH and pay my taxes, why am I burdened to visit the wood lot to chase off the squatters?

If you don't have any reasonable notice that there are squatters on your land, then there is no adverse possession. If you have such reasonable notice, then contact the local PD or Sheriff's office and ask that they evict the squatters. Easy.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

In Massachusetts you can have your land decreed by the Land Court, once your land is recognized by the court there can be no adverse claims against it.
I believe there are only 2 states that have the Land Court process.

[Slickcraft]

This is a archaic common law going back to Henry I days.

In actuality I have never heard of a case being successfully won in recent history here in NH.

However it is a big deal on the test to get a real estate license.

I would not get too worked up about this.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

This is a archaic common law going back to Henry I days.

In actuality I have never heard of a case being successfully won in recent history here in NH.

However it is a big deal on the test to get a real estate license.

I would not get too worked up about this.

Under Adverse Possession rules in New Hampshire, a neighbor may have lost a property corner after 20 years, this article by a Nashua law firm may have different ideas:

"...As the record owner, one action you may consider taking is to while you are trying to resolve the boundary issues with your neighbor, provide written notice to the neighbor you are temporarily giving the neighbor permission to use the disputed property, thereby cutting off any continuing time period going towards 20 years of 'adverse' possession..."
http://www.nashualaw.com/resources/L...Hampshire.aspx

[MAXUM]

I'm just shaking my head at this whole thing, unbelievable!

So let me pose two examples. Hypothetical of course for the sake of discussion.

First example, I own a piece of property with a house on it. I have a friend or family member that I allow to stay there for whatever reason, maybe they are bums and can't afford to live anywhere else, in other words being a nice guy. I don't charge them rent or make any kind of "formal" lease agreement, just allow them to stay there, as a result they make it their home. 20 years passes, are you meaning to tell me they can then take me to court and attempt this process and claim ownership of the property? Seems to me under law this would be possible.

In a second example, let's say I have a neighbor that is encroaching on my property boundary, and for the sake of argument, I have a large parcel of property and it's not cramping my style so I just decide to be a nice guy and let it slide. 20 years goes by does that give my neighbor the ability to take a piece of my property? Again seems plausible.

In both cases it seems to me that if I am keeping the property taxes current, that in and of itself should prove ample evidence that I have sufficient interest in the property shouldn't it?

[birchhaven]

Wow I am sorry to the origanal poster, I stirred up a hornets nest.

Yes this law is ridiculousness, I have never actually met anyone in person that thinks it is a good law. So I am surprised that a few people on here think it is okay, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. God bless the internet.

What has been pointed out here for ways of breaking the 20 year stretch or other ways of not letting happen are all well and good except for one major flaw. You have to prove it in court. So for starts having to fight to keep your land in court is ridiculous even if you win. Also, If you find yourself heading to court with your neighbor over this chances are they are not a morally sounds person (IMHO) and will lie and it will be your word against theirs and chances are unbeknownst to you they probably have been building a case against you for years.

Having to even go to court over this is crazy, this as American right.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by birchhaven

Wow I am sorry to the origanal poster, I stirred up a hornets nest.

Yes this law is ridiculousness, I have never actually met anyone in person that thinks it is a good law. So I am surprised that a few people on here think it is okay, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. God bless the internet.

What has been pointed out here for ways of breaking the 20 year stretch or other ways of not letting happen are all well and good except for one major flaw. You have to prove it in court. So for starts having to fight to keep your land in court is ridiculous even if you win. Also, If you find yourself heading to court with your neighbor over this chances are they are not a morally sounds person (IMHO) and will lie and it will be your word against theirs and chances are unbeknownst to you they probably have been building a case against you for years.

Having to even go to court over this is crazy, this as American right.

Who here has said that the law of adverse possession is OK? If you are talking about me, what I have tried to do is to explain the common law. I have pointed out that a quick internet search will provide answers on why the law was originally conceived. Too many people read stuff on the internet, fail to check the facts for themselves, and get their knickers all in a wad. As others have pointed out, adverse possession is a very rarely used part of the common law, and modern courts are extremely likely to cast dubious eyes on any party that brings such a claim.

The landowner doesn't have to prove anything; the burden of proof is on the party trying to claim title under adverse possession. Yes, having to defend a claim of adverse possession would suck, but people get sued all the time, and unfortunately sometimes it's over trivial or baseless claims. If it happens to you (highly unlikely), when you win, ask the court to impose sanctions on the other party and to reimburse you for your costs.

[Bear Islander]

I know of a case that proves adverse possession can be a good thing. Friends of mine own a house on a peninsular going out into a small pond. They have a long twisting driveway along the water going from the road to their home. After living there for almost 30 years their neighbor suddenly informs them that a recent survey shows that a short stretch of the driveway is on the neighbors land.

The neighbors tell them they will block the driveway in 30 days and by the way, would you like to sell us your home?

Naturally my friends were VERY upset and sought counsel. What the neighbor was doing was tantamount to extortion but hey, it was their land. And what good is a home when you can't use your driveway.

After my friends filed a quiet tittle lawsuit claiming adverse possession, the neighbors agreed to sell my friends an easement for a reasonable price.

Sometimes a law like this allows the legal system to do what is really the right thing.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I know of a case that proves adverse possession can be a good thing. Friends of mine own a house on a peninsular going out into a small pond. They have a long twisting driveway along the water going from the road to their home. After living there for almost 30 years their neighbor suddenly informs them that a recent survey shows that a short stretch of the driveway is on the neighbors land.

The neighbors tell them they will block the driveway in 30 days and by the way, would you like to sell us your home?

Naturally my friends were VERY upset and sought counsel. What the neighbor was doing was tantamount to extortion but hey, it was their land. And what good is a home when you can't use your driveway.

After my friends filed a quiet tittle lawsuit claiming adverse possession, the neighbors agreed to sell my friends an easement for a reasonable price.

Sometimes a law like this allows the legal system to do what is really the right thing.

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

If it isn't in your deed that someone can use your property to get to their property then they aren't allowed to use it. However... if they have been using your property to access their land for a certain period of time then rights to a property can sometimes be established by regular use of the property.

I don't know about: "You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH". Do you have the law that states that?

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

Do your neighbors have recorded easements? That may be a key difference between your situation and the case that Bear Islander mentioned.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Do your neighbors have recorded easements? That may be a key difference between your situation and the case that Bear Islander mentioned.

I think they are deeded easements. But I still heard somewhere that you cannot landlock a piece of property in NH that has always been used. I do not know for sure if that is right.

[BroadHopper]

I do know there are tons of restriction regarding wetlands. Most of the family properties are 'sand pits'. The only way we can even touch wet lands is with permission from the DES and Army Corps of Engineers. The main thing is to 'catch the trespassers in the act'. Evidence such as a photo of the culprits on the premises is often times all you need.

If I am walking through someone's property, I usually avoid wetlands unless there is an obvious path through the area. Four wheeling or dirt biking through wetlands is a no no. Even if your neighbor is four wheeling through wet lands he owns, you can report it. The state will come out and investigate.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

I think they are deeded easements. But I still heard somewhere that you cannot landlock a piece of property in NH that has always been used. I do not know for sure if that is right.

It really doesn't matter because Town Zoning Boards won't allow anyone to build on a lot that has no frontage on any class of highway and no frontage on any roadway approved by the planning board or other board prior to platting jurisdiction. Many land locked property owners have gone to the ZBA and have not received a variance in the matter. You can have a deeded easement but you still can't build without the Towns ZBA approval (which you won't get).

[BroadHopper]

Basically anyone can trespass on your property and to a point even when trespassing signs are posted. I should know as the family owns thousands of acres in various parcels throughout the state. Taking someone to court for trespassing is just as hard as taking someone to small claims court.

If you can prove the trespasser has done harm to the property then you have a great case to bring to court. If someone in a 4x4 left a track in the woods, someone litter the property, or camped out and left a mess, it is malacious use of the property. The court has a hard line on trespasser's responsibility. So if I should trespass on property not my own, I would treat the property with utmost respect.

[jrc]

I'd have to agree with Broadhopper on the practicality of enforcing trespassing laws. I've had several signs torn up, and all of them ignored at one point or another. The police are not going to walk around the woods looking for someone crossing property lines.

Remember, as I read it, crossing onto private property is not a crime, to make it a crime you have to know you are not supposed to be there.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'd have to agree with Broadhopper on the practicality of enforcing trespassing laws. I've had several signs torn up, and all of them ignored at one point or another. The police are not going to walk around the woods looking for someone crossing property lines.

Remember, as I read it, crossing onto private property is not a crime, to make it a crime you have to know you are not supposed to be there.

OK but wouldn't the presence of 'NO TRESPASSING" signs cover the your not suppose to be there part?

Broadhopper if the 4X4 went through your lands and it contained wetlands that they went through it would be prosecutable by the F&G. Going through wetlands in any type of OHRV or 4X4 I believe is a crime.
When I've call the F&G about the 4x4 trucks and jeeps trashing the snowmobile trails here in Belmont they always told me if they can catch them playing in wetlands is when they really have a case.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

First example, I own a piece of property with a house on it. I have a friend or family member that I allow to stay there for whatever reason, maybe they are bums and can't afford to live anywhere else, in other words being a nice guy. I don't charge them rent or make any kind of "formal" lease agreement, just allow them to stay there, as a result they make it their home. 20 years passes, are you meaning to tell me they can then take me to court and attempt this process and claim ownership of the property? Seems to me under law this would be possible.

In this example you have given your explicit permission for use of your property, so adverse possession does not apply.

In a second example, let's say I have a neighbor that is encroaching on my property boundary, and for the sake of argument, I have a large parcel of property and it's not cramping my style so I just decide to be a nice guy and let it slide. 20 years goes by does that give my neighbor the ability to take a piece of my property? Again seems plausible.

Your neighbor might have a case here for adverse possession, depending on other factors that you don't address in your example. What kind of encroachment? Are you using the same piece of land at the same time? There are very easy ways to proactively defeat a prospective claim of adverse possession. In your second example, simply send your neighbor a letter acknowledging his use of your property, and give him permission to do so until further notice.

[RLW]

This is a little off topic of hanging signs on ones property, but back in the 60s I use to have a garden on my next door farmers land (with his permission) and at that time in MA one only had to be using said land for 7 consecutive years . I would have to go without planting for the year 6 into the 7th so I wouldn't be using his land for the 7 years in a roll as that was the rule. If you used it at least 7 years in a row and you have proof that you did, you could take that property without anyone saying a word. Now what type of a person would do that to and individual that had let you use it for nothing over the years???

[wifi]

Yes, that's called squatters rights. My family (generations ago) lost the family farm due to this... ugggghhhh Loooonnngggg lawsuit and we lost.

Guess it pays to know how to get around common sense, eh.... eeerrrr...

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by RLW

This is a little off topic of hanging signs on ones property, but back in the 60s I use to have a garden on my next door farmers land (with his permission) and at that time in MA one only had to be using said land for 7 consecutive years . I would have to go without planting for the year 6 into the 7th so I wouldn't be using his land for the 7 years in a roll as that was the rule. If you used it at least 7 years in a row and you have proof that you did, you could take that property without anyone saying a word. Now what type of a person would do that to and individual that had let you use it for nothing over the years???

It sounds like someone was a bit confused about the requirements for stating a claim for adverse possession. If you were using your neighbors land with his permission, no matter for how many years, there could not have been a legitimate claim of adverse possession. And, a claim for adverse possession does not become final "without anyone saying a word." A quiet title action must be taken in which a court decides who has legal title to the property.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Why in hell would the rights of squatters supersede those of the holder of a legal deed?

What if I decided to set up on some state or federal land? Do you suppose I could claim adverse possession?

I agree with you, it is not right but the courts have decided differently, you give up your rights if you let someone take over and occupy your property.

Also, the law is very clear that one can not adversely possess land that is owned by the government, states or municipalities.