I have a signed lease with a (good) neighbor who plants corn on a 27 acre parcel that I own. I do get a 1099 from this neighbor every year. He has leased this land (on a renewable yearly basis) for the past 20+ years. I have 2 (other) neighbors whose back yards butt up against this 27 acre parcel. They are each putting in claims of Adverse Possession on 15 feet of my property (part of the 27 acre parcel) claiming that they have been mowing this 15 feet for the past 15 years. They say that this 15 feet didn't have corn on it so it wasn't being farmed. The neighbor who does lease the land can't farm or grow corn on EVERY SQUARE INCH since he needs access and turn around space for his tractor and equipment.

Can they claim this land even though I have been leasing the ENTIRE surveyed parcel to someone else?

Thanks for any information!!!

Q: Can they claim this land even though I have been leasing the ENTIRE surveyed parcel to someone else?

A: Yes, they can claim it, but based solely on the facts you posted, I'd say they had a pretty poor case.

I agree, mowing lawn with really no other act of possession is not enough to substantiate a claim of adverse possession.

If it was I would start counting the number of times I mow my neighbors lawn.

Unfortunately everyone has a right to file a claim no matter how frivolous.

To perhaps give you a better understanding of the concept of Adverse Possession, we have a section dedicated to the topic on our website.

Steve @ www.buyingahouseandsavingmoney.com

[QUOTE=steve50;876426]I agree, mowing lawn with really no other act of possession is not enough to substantiate a claim of adverse possession.

Steve, apparently, it seems, in NY mowing the lawn is sufficient for adverse poss.

I'm not so sure about that - look at previous posts from your area regarding Adverse Possession. I understand that the state legislature is clamping down on claims of adverse possession.

Steve @ www.buyingahouseandsavingmoney.com

They might win the right to do only the specific action (mowing).

My neighbor who is going to claim adverse possession filed a building permit in 2001 to build a 3-car garage in his back yard. when he did this, he signed his building permit that states he CERTIFIES the information enclosed is accurate. One of the things he submitted was a survey of HIS property showing a drawing of his proposed new garage. This survey shows his/my property line with an arrow showing that he is going to build his garage 12 feet from MY property line. (This is the required zoning setback where we live.) By signing and submitting this paperwork, isn't he admitting that he knows where my property line is and where he states his property line is and wouldn't this dis-allow his adverse possession claim?

Here is another question. The neighbor completed tha garage 6 years ago. But, He never had any of the inspections performed. Foundation, rough framing, electrical (he installed 220 service), or the final inspection to receive his COO for occupation. In addition, the setback is 12 feet and he indicated on his CERTIFIED signed permit application he was going to build 12 feet from my property line. Well guess what, he build the building 10 1/2 feet from my line and his roof overhang is 8 feet from my property. So, can I request the building inspector to perform all of the inspections? Also, can I ask the building inspector to dis-allow his permit since he broke the setback distance and have him order the neighbor to move his garage and foundation back away from my property?

Thanks for reading and responding

Knowlege of where the property line isn't doesn't nullify his claim. He wouldn't be trying to claim it if he thought he already owned it.

You can try contacting the building inspector. What he/she can do depends on the local ordinances. It could cause him some grief, but I doubt it will weight into the adverse possession claim.

-Tim

Steve50,
In your recent reply to this latest case of adverse possession (kgustin) you say that the "state legislature is clamping down on claims of adverse possession".

I hope the recent guests to this site who, like me, have been sued for adverse possesssion, are aware of this. I have heard they are considering that the statutory time is going to be changed to 20 years from 10 years and there will be more specific terms and facts on the use of land that have to be met to make a claim.

Please can you give more details of when this will be happening. Several new cases, just on this web site alone, are truly alarming and if the victims could organize to accelerate this process we could do everyone a service.

For those of us caught in this unjust, costly and time consuming law this law needs to taken off the books or radically amended. It is being exploited by nasty neighbors to steal an extra few feet of nice property.Unfortunately it seems many of them win just by attrition.

MargieD

Good News!
Apparently Sen. Little is doing something. But, this new law will only be for new actions, not pending ones (looks like that to me anyway).



S05364 Summary:
BILL NO S05364

SAME AS Same as A 7878

SPONSOR

COSPNSR

MLTSPNSR

Amd SS501, 511 & 521, RPAP

Provides that the statute of limitation for an adverse possession proceeding
which is not based on a written instrument shall be 20 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S05364 Actions:
BILL NO S05364

04/25/2007 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S05364 Votes:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S05364 Memo:

Did I read this correctly? The Sen. Little bill was amended to to keep the adverse possesion law at 10 years, ...my god, what are they thinking??:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Senator Little's bill passed the NY state Assembly and Senate last week. The good news is that if claimant has "knowledge" that land is not theirs this will defeat a claim of adverse possession. This was a major issue in the Przybylo case. But they renegged on the extending vesting period to 20 years. What were they thinking is right.
Apparently one member of the Judiciary Committe had a personal interest in keeping it at 10 years!!!!:

So for all of us who visit this site and have been sued by a neighbor to steal land we still have work to do.
Please write to Senator Little's office or call your local state member.
Senator Little
518 455 2811 (Albany office).

'just checked the NYS Legislature website, the Sen. Little bill was sent to the governor. It should just be a matter of weeks before it's signed into law. We'll see if it makes any difference??? They made a subtle change, maybe it will have far reaching results/implications? One can only hope!! I'm going to speak with my attorney, to see if there's anyway we can go for a dismissal on a some technicality, to make our 'friendly' neighbors have to start from scratch under the new law. :D :confused: :D

Ess Kay,

Hopefully Gov. Spitzer will sign New Adverse Possession Bill in next 2 weeks.
Several victims of law have requested to be present at signing. Question to Labor Law Forum:Even though new law is not retroactive is there any way we could use the revised law to have out case dismissed? EssKay talks about a technicality.
If knowledge of true owner of land defeats the claim can the fact that neighbor requested a survey during vesting period be used as proof that they new the land was not hers.
We were sued (8 months ago) for .02 acres in a residential subdivision with small lots. In Bill of Particulars nasty neighbor is laying her claim on basis of planting trees which is false. Which brings me back to one of my original questions to form: what standard of evidence is needed to proove claim.

Thank you

MargieD

Margie:
I emailed my attorney regarding this new law. He is alerting the judge that a change (in the law) :( may be imminent. He also told me that the judge is bound by the law in effect on the day of the decision, so there may be some hope that this change also affects 'pending' cases. I'm not personally holding out too much hope that this will have a large impact on my case, but any step in the 'right' direction certainly helps. You never know, this subtle change may a large impact on future cases. In New Jersey, the law is 60 years. I'd like to see some change along those lines.:( :mad: :(
Regards

Kidding me! :eek: :eek: :eek: The Gov. vetoed this bill, my god! What's going on in this world? Why do the politicians love this law so much. It's blatently obvious to any sane person you speak to, that it's un-American! This law has a place where there's abandoned property, to restore it to the tax rolls, that I understand. But to allow your 'friendly neighbors' to steal your property when the lines are clearly drawn and tax is already being paid, makes no sense, am I missing something?? What about the elderly lady who isn't able to walk her property, is it up for grabs? What about the working poor, this law just allows the Rich and powerful to prey on the poor and elderly. The only protection against this law is to get your property staked out every 10 years. Which, by the way is not cheap. I have over an acre of wooded property, it cost over $1400 to stake-out. 10 years is not even the working life of a cheap wooden stockade fence. This law should be at least 20years, more like 60 years, like New Jersey and pay taxes like California. My only hope is that Gov. Spitzer vetoed this law because he wants the change to be more restrictive, a stronger bill, like the one Sen. Little originally wrote. Once again, another 'roller-coaster' of emotions.:mad: :mad: :mad:
I think an e-mail to Sean Hannity is in order.:cool:

STATUS:
S5364-A LITTLE
Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law
TITLE....Provides that title pursuant to adverse possession shall be defeated if the claimant has knowledge that another person is the title owner of the property

04/25/07 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
05/22/07 1ST REPORT CAL.1307
05/29/07 2ND REPORT CAL.
05/30/07 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
06/14/07 AMENDED ON THIRD READING 5364A
06/19/07 PASSED SENATE
06/19/07 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
06/19/07 referred to judiciary
06/20/07 substituted for a9156
06/20/07 ordered to third reading rules cal.530
06/20/07 passed assembly
06/20/07 returned to senate
08/16/07 DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR
08/28/07 VETOED MEMO.153

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Members of this forum,
Please call your local state representative and find out why the bill was vetoed. It may be for a good reason, to make it even stronger. But we the people should know!
Assemblywomen Saywood is head of Judiciary Committee
Senator Little 518 455 2811 brought bill to floor.
Govenor's fax: 518 486 4466

Margie D

I read this Gov's Veto message, it's almost incoherent, make s no sense! If you want to reduce to the amount of litigation, then make the law stronger, make it 20 years or 60 years. All these cases would go away. I bet NJ has very few adverse Poss. cases. The Gov. seems to portray the one whose stealing the property as the victim and the one whose property is being stolen as the villian?? What's wrong with this picture. The property's the Property line!! How can any one dispute that?

This bill could have significant adverse consequences for New York property owners. The addition of a "knowledge" element to the statute of limitations would likely result in extensive litigation of virtually every adverse possession claim, and thus would undermine the certainty that the statute of limitations was established to provide. The protections against future litigation that a statute of limitations affords will be unavailable for this class of title claims, which could also impact the availability and cost of title insurance.

EssKay,
These are my sentiments entirely. The Veto message was unintelligable. And these people are running our state?
There were additional postings about the veto on another site:
http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/new_york_real_estate_lawyers_blog

I think we should just try to have a law like New Jersey. Simple goal.
Margie D

Margie:
I emailed my attorney regarding this new law. He is alerting the judge that a change (in the law) :( may be imminent. He also told me that the judge is bound by the law in effect on the day of the decision, so there may be some hope that this change also affects 'pending' cases. I'm not personally holding out too much hope that this will have a large impact on my case, but any step in the 'right' direction certainly helps. You never know, this subtle change may a large impact on future cases. In New Jersey, the law is 60 years. I'd like to see some change along those lines.:( :mad: :(
Regards
The 60 year statute of limitations in New Jersey is only for woodlands. All other is 20 years.

The New York State Bar Assoc has established a task force on Adverse Possession to advise State Assembly on strengthening law.
New York State needs to be on a par with Massachussetts and other new England States.
A 20 year vesting period, no tacking and more rigorous standards of evidence to support plaintiff's claims are some of the revisions needed
Please write to Assemblwoman Sayward, head of the judiciary committee,to advocate for this;

saywart@ assembly.state.ny.us

Office phone:518 792 4546

'had a small victory today in my case, 'my friendly neighbor' had their motion for a summary judgement denied today, I guess it's not going to be such a 'slam-dunk' for them, like they originaly presumed. The bad news was that our counter motion for a summary judgement was denied also. This was a small victory in the sense that it wasn't a defeat! :o :) :o

Congratulations,
Any samll victory with this law is great.
Please write to the following person about your case
Karl B. Holtzschue
Chairman, NYS Bar Association, Real Property Division
Via e-mail to: kbholt@gmail.com
The more cases he hears about the better. he is heading a task force at the NYS Bar Association on adverse possession and is very receptive to hearing about unjust cases.
Remind me again, what is the alleged basis of the claim your neighbor is making.
My neighbor has become increasingly vitriolic as time proceeds and she realizes I am not going to give up easily. We saw the "evidence" for the first time last week. (This took 9 months and $7000 in legal fees). The evidence was a few photos of various people standing in front of trees, taken within the last year and not even close to claimed area. It is farcical what people think they can get away with Unfortunately many do as they just have more time and money to spend on lawyers.
Please write to Mr Holtzshue.
MargieD