Couple loses land to squatter's rights law

[derf]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

Damn! I got some land in SC from my grandfather when he passed earlier in the year. I may need to take a trip down there soon. Taxes are only a few hundred a year so I figured I could just keep it and not worry about it.

but yeh that couple does deserve to at least be reimbursed for the taxes they paid.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

This is adverse possession and is different from homesteaders laws. I'm pretty sure most states still have laws allowing adverse possession.

My mistake on terminology. In checking it appears that, where homestead law used to be something that permitted settlement of untenanted land, it now involves putting a stop to forced sale in order to satisfy debts when one spouse dies. Interesting.

I was thinking about all of those open tracts of land in places like Montana and Arizona where old settlement laws may still be in force, that would see people losing land that might have been in their families for generations.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

My mistake on terminology. In checking it appears that, where homestead law used to be something that permitted settlement of untenanted land, it now involves putting a stop to forced sale in order to satisfy debts when one spouse dies. Interesting.

I was thinking about all of those open tracts of land in places like Montana and Arizona where old settlement laws may still be in force, that would see people losing land that might have been in their families for generations.

Homesteaders laws usually don't apply if the land is already privately owned. Adverse possession laws enable privately owned land to transfer, but require a longer "possession" period. The large tracts you speak of could transfer, but it would require someone continuously using a large portion of the land for a long time. Someone couldn't just come in, put a small shed in one corner to live in, and take the whole lot. It isn't particularly easy to take hundreds or thousands of acres.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Homesteaders laws usually don't apply if the land is already privately owned. Adverse possession laws enable privately owned land to transfer, but require a longer "possession" period. The large tracts you speak of could transfer, but it would require someone continuously using a large portion of the land for a long time. Someone couldn't just come in, put a small shed in one corner to live in, and take the whole lot. It isn't particularly easy to take hundreds or thousands of acres.

Actually if you do a search, as I stated it appears that the term "homesteader law" has been co-opted to now mean a group of laws that are intended to help a spouse retain ownership of a home, rather than it being foreclosed upon and sold off to satisfy debts, when the spouse who is the owner of record dies.

Certainly not but nice parcels along a river, for example, could start to be taken. It would piss me off no end to find out that the best sections of land that I owned had essentially been stolen by someone.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Actually if you do a search, as I stated it appears that the term "homesteader law" has been co-opted to now mean a group of laws that are intended to help a spouse retain ownership of a home, rather than it being foreclosed upon and sold off to satisfy debts, when the spouse who is the owner of record dies.

It is innacurate, but people definately use the term that way. The accurate term is (if I remember) a homestead exemption. There are all kinds of exemptions (tools, clothing, vehicle, etc.) and exemption ammounts depending on the state. It is the reason why OJ Simpson still has his house in Florida.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Certainly not but nice parcels along a river, for example, could start to be taken. It would piss me off no end to find out that the best sections of land that I owned had essentially been stolen by someone.

I agree, but the logic is if you can't take the affirmative step of checking that land once every 20 years, while someone else has done something beneficial with it for a long period of time, they deserve it more than you.

[Papa_Complex]

I would say that no one deserves the land more than the person who paid for it, and paid taxes on it. More than once I considered buying a parcel of land in New Brunswick, to build a little house and retire on eventually. I wouldn't be pleased if I got there and found out that someone had beat me to it, on my own land.

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

Squatter's law my ass. How about those stealing pricks back pay all the taxes.

and the value of the land

[Smittie61984]

Sounds like a time to bring back some old fashioned deul for the land.