Let neighbor use my brand new road

[Steve_Miller]

I'm no lawyer or a have any association with them other than giving them my money when having to use one, but isn't just about every court case decided by a judge? Aren't they the ones that ultimately decide who gets what? If a lawyer presents a case within the boundries of the laws, he is doing what is asked of him and very well paid I might add. Lawyers are like any profession, your just trying to get the most from what you are doing for a living. It's just that they try and manipulate the laws to the best of their advantage and a judge/jury decides how well they have done.

Steve

 

[DUMBDOG]

I'm no lawyer or a have any association with them other than giving them my money when having to use one, but isn't just about every court case decided by a judge? Aren't they the ones that ultimately decide who gets what? If a lawyer presents a case within the boundries of the laws, he is doing what is asked of him and very well paid I might add. Lawyers are like any profession, your just trying to get the most from what you are doing for a living. It's just that they try and manipulate the laws to the best of their advantage and a judge/jury decides how well they have done.

Steve

The judges come from the lawyers, some who want to do a good job and some who did not do that well as lawyers. Juries can be very fickle playing with some one else's money, when they see someone in need, as long as they are not personally paying, that person needs money for a perceived injury they get it.

 

[N80]

Again, many, if not most civil cases are resolved out of court. Mostly due to the costs involved with defending oneself. It is cheaper to give in than to acrue the cost of defending yourself even when clearly in the right. So no judge, no jury, no justice. You pay, they receive. End of story.

Want to balance it all out? Then let the plaintiff pay for the cost of the defense if he loses. Better yet, make the losing _attorney_ cover the winning attorney's fees. This would reform the whole system. Lawyers say that such schemes make it too hard for the little guy to sue. Well, if the attorneys are all about the little guy, and they are sure they have a legit case, then they ought to be willing to put their fee on the line. Why is it that in any case the only parties that aren't risking anything are the attorneys? And yes, I know they make the claim that if you lose as a defendant then you don't pay anything, but that is just because they know they can always get, at the very least, an out of court settlement to cover their costs. Otherwise they won't take case. Have a legit case with low potential awards? Will you find an attorney to take such a case on the same terms?

I'm sure people think I'm a lawyer basher, and I may be, but do the solutions or questions I've suggested above consist of bashing?

Regardless, any faith in our legal system went out the door when OJ walked. Justice is for the poor.

 

[stumpfield]

This just doesn't make any sense to me . Adverse possession, perscriptive easement and etc. Aren't they in direct contracdition with the common law. I thought stealing is against the law. So, if you intentionally steal someone else's property to use it just like if it were yours, you may be rewarded with the property???? Does this make any sense at all? How can one just take something doesn't belong to him and not violate any law? If that's the case, then who would want to buy land? Just setup camp on a piece of vacant land and claim it. There's a 50/50 chance you get to keep the property for free. If you are an attorney, you may even get pay take someone's property.

I wonder what does it take to get rid of stupid laws like this. Is there any valid reason to have such law?

 

[riptides]

This just doesn't make any sense to me . Adverse possession, perscriptive easement and etc. Aren't they in direct contracdition with the common law. I thought stealing is against the law. So, if you intentionally steal someone else's property to use it just like if it were yours, you may be rewarded with the property???? Does this make any sense at all? How can one just take something doesn't belong to him and not violate any law? If that's the case, then who would want to buy land? Just setup camp on a piece of vacant land and claim it. There's a 50/50 chance you get to keep the property for free. If you are an attorney, you may even get pay take someone's property.

I wonder what does it take to get rid of stupid laws like this. Is there any valid reason to have such law?

Now hold on there, adverse possession and an easement are two different things, plus adverse possession involves a whole lot more than just squatting on some land. It sounds like a loop-hole, it is not.

-Mike Z.

 

[Superduper]

This just doesn't make any sense to me . Adverse possession, perscriptive easement and etc. Aren't they in direct contracdition with the common law. I thought stealing is against the law. So, if you intentionally steal someone else's property to use it just like if it were yours, you may be rewarded with the property???? Does this make any sense at all? How can one just take something doesn't belong to him and not violate any law? If that's the case, then who would want to buy land? Just setup camp on a piece of vacant land and claim it. There's a 50/50 chance you get to keep the property for free. If you are an attorney, you may even get pay take someone's property.

I wonder what does it take to get rid of stupid laws like this. Is there any valid reason to have such law?

These laws aren't exactly contradictory nor stealing. Adverse possession by definition is one person staking a claim to land, paying the property taxes, and openly (publically) and continuously using such land for a very long period of time. The problem comes when the current owner ignores the presence of the adverse party and takes no action, and fails to pay the property taxes during that period. It is exactly this failure to take action halting the use, that constructively establishes the acceptance of the "new" occupant of the land. Wait a minute... doesn't that sound alot like what we have here? Open and public use of land by another party without action taken by the current owner establishing and giving witness to acceptance of this use? The only difference is that property taxes has not been ignored which makes this an easement situation, which is almost as bad.

These laws were established way back when the government wanted to encourage settlers. Staking a claim to land which was doing nothing was an intelligent method of encouraging settling and colonizing and use of the land. Of course, with settling and colonizing comes taxation. Not exactly a stupid law when implemented. Nowadays, adverse possession isn't nearly as common or easy as it would sound to be. One would likely have to be foolish for it to happen as the party taking possession would likely need to pay the property tax on that parcel for a prescribed period (as much as 20 years) before it can be taken adversely. Unless done in a deceptive manner, it is hard to see how one can own property and not expect to pay property tax for 20 years, all the while not noticing someone squatting on the property for that period of time. Now before someone goes off and presents 50 ways it can happen, l'll be the first to acknowledge that there is an exception to every rule.

The real danger today is in easements, either prescriptive or adversely. Sneaking a part of a persons property, especially if a very large one without clear defined boundaries is common and since it doesn't generally require the property tax qualifier, making it much easier to prevail in such claims.

 

[Superduper]

I'm not advocating violence, and in fact, if the lawyers keep us from killing each other over land disputes and shotgun weddings, well, I guess we'll have to give them some credit.

Sorry but I don't think I'm ready yet to credit lawyers for the forward progress of civilization and reduction in violence. In fact, if anything, lawyers probably contributed heavily to the decline of hospitality. I know of no such studies but I seriously doubt that the fear of being sued has replaced the fear of getting shot. Firearms aren't all that difficult to obtain and if someone really wanted to shoot someone, they could always do it. I believe that society's moral compass has evolved sufficiently that pulling the trigger on another soul is very very difficult. This is no longer the wild wild west. But of that moral compass is broken, things can go very wrong. In 1993, John Luigi Ferri, dissatisfied with the services of a San Francisco attorney stormed the highrise at 101 California St and shot up the law firm killing several 8 people and injuring 6 before committing suicide. It was a well publicized incident and one needs to wonder what grievance could the law firm have bestowed upon that shooter to cause him to "snap." But we are off topic so I'd better stop here.....

 

[Superduper]

............ Think about this senerio... you are thinking of purchasing the land, and the agent tells you that someone has been driving over the land for an unknown amount of time, and they might have a prescriptive easement on the land. Would you still buy that parcel knowing that you might not be able to use all of it?? I know that I wouldn't.

Dusty makes a good point. Here in California, disclosure is THE law. Everything that could materially affect the value of a property in any way must be disclosed to a potential buyer. If someone has been driving over the land on a continous basis for any serious length of time, I am of the opinion that this MUST be disclosed to a potential buyer which could have serious implications regarding the marketability of that property, even if an easement has not yet been established. The discouragement of potential buyers could therefore adversely affect the price you'll receive, presuming of course, that someday you'll want to sell your property.

 

[StevenPaul]

Wow! A lot of reading about a neighbor, a driveway, sharing, legalities, do's and don'ts, ideas and a whole slew of confusing information. So to add to all this, here's my 2 cents;

Ok, in case anybody hasn't noticed, we are living in a "life is a video" world. So in any decision you make, videotape it!!! Whether it be a visit to the lawyer, a conversation with you neighbor, a security camera on your driveway, or for whatever concerns you have for this problem. I have noticed that a lot of posts in here forget that you mentioned you have given your combination out to other "neighbors" in case of emergency, well, looks like to me you've answered your own question. Even in a case of emergency where someone actually needs to use your driveway for an exit, there's still a chance of an accident happening and the probabilities are most likely increased due to the "panic exit" versus "walk single file to the nearest exit". At least with a security camera you'll actaully know what really happened. Plus you might have yourself a $10,000 video provided it's funny enough. I also like the idea of a tollboth, maybe not a full fledged one, but maybe one like you see at airport/public parking, one of those "mechanical arms" that raise up as soon as you drop .50 in a bucket. Of course, during an emergency, they'll have to do the Dukes of Hazard bust through the gate thing and zip bang boom, ya got yourself a winning video! You can also use the money to go to a local charity or something. Plus, having a "big" security video on property sign will sometimes detur people from entering, apparently they've already had their 15 minutes of fame.

As for our property(25.5 acres), I currently have one semi cheezy camera set up, but have the hardware from a small grocery store that upgraded their system(minus the cameras) to enable us to video 24/7 with 8 cameras. Darn cameras are expensive plus the cable to run 8 cameras who knows where on the property. Having teen agers, we have a lot of teen agers come over from time to time and whe they see the video camera or if our kids tell them we have a video camera, I think it makes them think twice about doing stupid stuff. But again, in a video world, teen agers love to be videotaped!

Anyways, thats my .02 worth, don't know if it helped, but hopefully it didn't hurt.

Steve

 

[riptides]

.... Adverse possession by definition is one person staking a claim to land, paying the property taxes, and openly (publically) and continuously using such land for a very long period of time.

Adverse possession can be a good thing too. Especially if used to right the wrongs of poor surveys, unclear titles, clouded memories, or previous bargins done by deceased prior owners.

A tool, that can be used for both good and bad. It has its use.

-Mike Z.