Quote:
Originally Posted by welch-time
First of all let me begin by saying I'm just talking about this stuff from a non-legal, beer drinking, fun loving conversational point of view. BUT I think the whole concept of "Adverse Possession" is theft via trespassing, pure and simple.
It's up to the purchaser to make sure the property in question is everything the seller says it is. If you buy property without getting a current survey, nobody else is responsible for any encroachments, not the real estate agency, not the title insurance company, nobody except the man in the mirror. If you try to blame it on some other entity, I call BS.
(and I'm not implying captT820 did any of these things)
|
From a similar bar stool non-accusatory perspective--the reason that adverse possession laws exist is to encourage owners to use and take care of their land. You might imagine a whole much of cases in more populated settings with larger tracts of land where this would be sensible policy, or at least debatable. But unless you believe that small island land owners should be meticulously policing their boundaries, this situation is not consistent with the spirit of the law. So as I reach for another shot, I'm thinking the judge is going to work hard to find against adverse possession. He's probably gonna think it may be the law, but it's BS...