legal right to land after 12 years?

JohnOnion

Hello there

I have joined this forum in the hope that I can get some info about the right to land in Ireland. Apologies for leaping straight in with a legal question rather than getting to know the boards and boarders first but I am having difficulty finding the info just by googliing and hoped someone here might be in the know.

We have allowed a neighbour to use our land for grazing for a number of years but now wonder if there may be any situation where he could claim the land as his own? We are in the process of setting up a more formal rental agreement for a nominal yearly rent but have heard he may believe he has some rights to the land after 12 years. Are these 'squatters's rights' and does this right exist in Ireland?

Many thanks in advance

223vmax

In order for them to make the claim they have to notify the legal owner of the land of their intention to take legal posession/ownership. If you legally own the land and take issue with them taking it then they can't succeed in taking it and you are safe. However it would be prudent to draw up some sort of document stating your current agreement.

In the case of not knowing who owns it then they are obliged to take actions to find the owner like place newspaper adds.

Who has maintained the land e.g paid for fencing etc?

JohnOnion

thank you for the reply.

We have only allowed him to have grazing rights but I am asking about the fencing as I realise this may have some bearing on the issue.

Apart from Adverse possession (squatter's rights) is there any other law under which he could claim rights?

It is good to know that he must inform us of his intention. We will be informing him of our intention to start collecting rent and making it legal.

223vmax

He is there under the contract you set out - even though its a verbal and you are not collecting a fee it is still a contract. Only problem with verbal contracts is proving the agreement you have, so its better to have it in writing.

I wouldn't worry. If they were to start proceedings to take adverse possession they would have to provide the court with the legal owners name and address and issue them (you in this case) a written notice indicating their intention to take possession. Since they know the owner, you would have to recieve the letter and ignore it for them to have any small chance of getting it to court. Then they have to prove they have followed certain procedures in finding the owners amongst other things.

Kosseegan

JohnOnion wrote: »

Hello there

I have joined this forum in the hope that I can get some info about the right to land in Ireland. Apologies for leaping straight in with a legal question rather than getting to know the boards and boarders first but I am having difficulty finding the info just by googliing and hoped someone here might be in the know.

We have allowed a neighbour to use our land for grazing for a number of years but now wonder if there may be any situation where he could claim the land as his own? We are in the process of setting up a more formal rental agreement for a nominal yearly rent but have heard he may believe he has some rights to the land after 12 years. Are these 'squatters's rights' and does this right exist in Ireland?

Many thanks in advance

Adverse possession is a very complicated area of law and you will not find any helpful information through Google. You need to see a solicitor. If your neighbour thinks he is acquiring rights you need to get some properly worded solicitors letters out to him setting out the basis on which he has been allowed on your land.
Whether he si right or wrong is irrelevant at this stage. Some of the most bitter and expensive court battles have been over land where one person
was completely in the wrong.

NoQuarter

223vmax wrote: »

He is there under the contract you set out - even though its a verbal and you are not collecting a fee it is still a contract.

I cant make out any consideration here so be careful with that advice!

nuac

You say a number of years - if ti ias 12 or even 6 years you may have problems.

with respect to 223y the "squatter" on the l ands doesnt have to notify the registered owner until he seeks registratin in Land Registry.

Get advice from a solicitor. As Kossegan says disputes re possession of land can be bitter - and expensive

Predalien

There is no need for you to see a solicitor over this, adverse possession is not that complicated, but is incredibly difficult to establish. In your situation as long as he hasn't been there 12 years already he has no claim, even if he has he has simply been using the land to graze animals, if he did establish a right under adverse possession it would be a right to continue doing this, he would not acquire title to the land.

As long as you assert your right to the land, which you are going to do by agreeing a simple contract for him to graze animals then this will be more than sufficient to negate any potential future claim. Going to a solicitor would be a waste of money in this particular instance.

223vmax

+1

223vmax

Predalien wrote: »

There is no need for you to see a solicitor over this, adverse possession is not that complicated, but is incredibly difficult to establish. In your situation as long as he hasn't been there 12 years already he has no claim, even if he has he has simply been using the land to graze animals, if he did establish a right under adverse possession it would be a right to continue doing this, he would not acquire title to the land.

As long as you assert your right to the land, which you are going to do by agreeing a simple contract for him to graze animals then this will be more than sufficient to negate any potential future claim. Going to a solicitor would be a waste of money in this particular instance.

+1

Jo King

Predalien wrote: »

There is no need for you to see a solicitor over this, adverse possession is not that complicated, but is incredibly difficult to establish. In your situation as long as he hasn't been there 12 years already he has no claim, even if he has he has simply been using the land to graze animals, if he did establish a right under adverse possession it would be a right to continue doing this, he would not acquire title to the land.

As long as you assert your right to the land, which you are going to do by agreeing a simple contract for him to graze animals then this will be more than sufficient to negate any potential future claim. Going to a solicitor would be a waste of money in this particular instance.

This is extremely dangerous advice from someone who obviously does not know much about it. A right to graze animals cannot be acquired by way of adverse possession. If it was possible to acquire such a right, it would be by prescription.
Adverse possession is far from simple. Look at the Pat Kenny case with his neighbour. It is not important that the neighbour may not have a sustainable claim. He thinks he has. People who think they have a right to land become obsessed. It is crucial that steps are taken now to nip the whole thing in the bud. When these thing hit a courtroom there is nothing but allegation and counter allegation.
One or two properly worded letters from a solicitor now may save enormous hassle and expense in the future.

nuac

"adverse possession not that complicated" ( Predalien ) Good luck with that

nuac

Double post

Predalien

Jo King wrote: »

This is extremely dangerous advice from someone who obviously does not know much about it. A right to graze animals cannot be acquired by way of adverse possession. If it was possible to acquire such a right, it would be by prescription.
Adverse possession is far from simple. Look at the Pat Kenny case with his neighbour. It is not important that the neighbour may not have a sustainable claim. He thinks he has. People who think they have a right to land become obsessed. It is crucial that steps are taken now to nip the whole thing in the bud. When these thing hit a courtroom there is nothing but allegation and counter allegation.
One or two properly worded letters from a solicitor now may save enormous hassle and expense in the future.

That's completely correct, but the OP is worried that the person in question may seek to acquire title to the land by grazing animals there, presently the person cannot even acquire an easement to graze animals (as the grazing is taking place by permission) so there is absolutely no need for the OP to worry about losing title to the land, and certainly no need to waste money on a solicitor when it is a situation that can be protected against very easily.

Predalien

nuac wrote: »

"adverse possession not that complicated" ( Predalien ) Good luck with that

In my opinion it isn't, is there anything in particular that you consider makes it complicated?

jblack

OP - anybody who has knowledge of AP and the complexities involved would not post any advice here.

You can be sure that any competent solicitor who values their PII premium knows better than to post specific advice about a complex area with potentially enormous liability attached.

Predalien

jblack wrote: »

OP - anybody who has knowledge of AP and the complexities involved would not post any advice here.

You can be sure that any competent solicitor who values their PII premium knows better than to post specific advice about a complex area with potentially enormous liability attached.

Except in the OP's situation it's very simple, and the OP is already guarding themselves against any future problems by making a simple contract in relation to the grazing. A solicitor's letter at this stage is completely unnecessary.

jblack

We have no information as to how long the other party has been on the land, to what extent the owner has been excluded from it, or any information on any agreement between the two parties.

It would not be unreasonable to assume that if the farmer thinks he has gained rights under AP, he may deny the existence of any licence for profit a prendre or agistment and claim he has been exclusively using the land to the exclusion of the landowner.

As mentioned by a few reliable boardsies; a complex area, especially where the full facts, or indeed only one side's take, are known.

nuac

Predalien wrote: »

In my opinion it isn't, is there anything in particular that you consider makes it complicated?

Predalien

Between legal studies, apprenticeship, and practice I now have over 50 years experience of legal problems in the West of Ireland, including many adverse possession situations. I am still on a learning curve. When it comes to land in these parts, matters are rarely simple.

If you are studying law, or practising it, I wish you all the best. One learns something new every day. Keep an open mind, and remember the Irish proverb "Ní mar síltear bítear"

Predalien

The cases are often complicated. The law is not. It's important not to confuse the two. In the OP's example where is the intention to possess to the exclusion of the landowner? As soon as the OP attempts to formalise the arrangement there will be very clear proof that they are asserting their title, and such action will stop time running in the other persons favour, so if they haven't been there 12 years already where is the issue?

jblack

Predalien wrote: »

so if they haven't been there 12 years already where is the issue?

what if he already has?

Milk & Honey

Predalien wrote: »

Except in the OP's situation it's very simple, and the OP is already guarding themselves against any future problems by making a simple contract in relation to the grazing. A solicitor's letter at this stage is completely unnecessary.

You think its very simple. You, however do not know much about it.
Have you ever been involved in a land dispute case?
Who is going to write the simple contract?
What if this simple contract makes things worse?
There will be evidential issues. Matters need to be established as fact now in a manner which will hold up in the event of future litigation.

Predalien

jblack wrote: »

what if he already has?

Then perhaps it gets slightly more complicated, but the OP suggests the person has been hinting that he believes he will obtain rights after 12 years, which suggests that he hasn't been grazing the animals that length, so the OP is in position to stop time running in favour by formalising the arrangement. Plus, grazing animals does not suggest an intention to possess to the exclusion of the owner, particularly where the landowner has given permission for the grazing to occur, so even if 12 years have passed there is nothing to suggest adverse possession.

Predalien

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You think its very simple. You, however do not know much about it.
Have you ever been involved in a land dispute case?
Who is going to write the simple contract?
What if this simple contract makes things worse?
There will be evidential issues. Matters need to be established as fact now in a manner which will hold up in the event of future litigation.

Even evidence of an attempt by the OP to formalise the arrangement is sufficient to stop time running in favour of the potential adverse possessor, and the contract need not be more than just agreeing to allow the grazing to continue in exchange for a nominal amount. There is no possible way a contract to formalise such an arrangement could make things worse.

jblack

Predalien wrote: »

and the contract need not be more than just agreeing to allow the grazing to continue in exchange for a nominal amount. There is no possible way a contract to formalise such an arrangement could make things worse.

So would you allow this informal agreement to exist for more than 1 year?

Predalien

jblack wrote: »

So would you allow this informal agreement to exist for more than 1 year?

If I didn't mind someone grazing their animals on my land, sure, I'd be careful to make some use of the land myself though. I wouldn't just ignore my land.

Milk & Honey

Predalien wrote: »

The cases are often complicated. The law is not. It's important not to confuse the two. In the OP's example where is the intention to possess to the exclusion of the landowner?

The law is complicated. There are conflicting authorities. Cases become complicated when there are issues of fact in dispute. This individual thinks he is acquiring rights. He has every intention of dispossessing the owner if he can.
There is trouble coming. Forewarned is forearmed. The o/p should prepare carefully.

223vmax

I have experience of adverse posession and have succeeded in acquiring land in this manner.

Key points :
Is the person grazing land with permission? If they are not and it is unchallenged for 12 years then that adds a little to their case. In the OP case the other party is there as per contract.

Has the person serviced the land and paid for any maintenance on the land as if it were their own for a period of 12 months e.g fencing/water? If yes adds more weight.

Once you get to this point and start legal procedings it gets a bit tricky but I think that because the OP has someone grazing with his/her permission then there is no threat of them taking the land by adverse possession. Thats is good advise and probably why predalien is saying that seeing a solicitor in this case is a waste of money. I agree.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

I wouldn't bother going to see a solicitor to be honest.

There doesn't need to be any contract, I saw someone brought up the issue of consideration earlier.
If you intend to allow him to continue using the field without him paying rent, you simply need to write out the details of the agreement between you and get him to sign it. Make sure the land is identifiable in the agreement, don't make it ambiguous, such as 'my field in Co. Kerry', make it more like 'my field of 4 acres on Cork Road, co. Kerry'
Once you can prove that he is there with your permission and you are allowing him use of the field (rent or no rent paid) he cannot claim adverse possession.
Also, a written acknowledgement from him that the field belongs to you (such as the agreement described) will stop him from claiming AP for another 12 years of him being there without your permission.

If you intend to charge rent there is no issue of adverse possession at all.

If he has already been there 12 years and you have no proof of you giving him permission then you might be in a spot of bother and it is definitely a good idea to see a solicitor as soon as possible.

Also, as for this:

jblack wrote: »

OP - anybody who has knowledge of AP and the complexities involved would not post any advice here.

You can be sure that any competent solicitor who values their PII premium knows better than to post specific advice about a complex area with potentially enormous liability attached.

Most members on this site are relatively anonymous. The site would much more likely face legal action than the poster, whose identity would be hard to ascertain.

jblack

As I've already drawn attention to, the specifics of the OP's situation are too vague to offer the definitive advice being given here.

And as for being anonymous, I know this not to be the case.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

As far as I'm aware ISPs are only obliged to give out the details of their customers when a Garda requests it, and that would only happen in connection with a criminal case. Boards wouldn't really be able to get my name off my ISP.
Unless you're silly enough to put your name/address etc. on this site you're away with it.

I'd agree that things said on here should be taken with a pinch of salt but there are people on this board who are either barristers/solicitors (I can't figure out which) who have given what could be called advice on some matters.

jblack

Braylee Dry Necklace wrote: »

As far as I'm aware ISPs are only obliged to give out the details of their customers when a Garda requests it, and that would only happen in connection with a criminal case. Boards wouldn't really be able to get my name off my ISP.
Unless you're silly enough to put your name/address etc. on this site you're away with it.

I'd agree that things said on here should be taken with a pinch of salt but there are people on this board who are either barristers/solicitors (I can't figure out which) who have given what could be called advice on some matters.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, although liability for land/property issues are dangerous territory. I reckon a someone with a familiarity of AP and professional negligence would tread very carefully.

Just FYI:
There is a large case in front of the SMDF at the moment due to alleged negligent advice about accrued rights. Not AP but not completely foreign to the topic discussed herein.

Also -
There was a thread a good while back in the legal forum where two posters were arguing about how difficult it was to trace an IP address. It was pretty entertaining as one of the posters said he could trace the other no problem, the other guy called his bluff and sure enough there was a subsequent contrite post saying that yeah the guy was able to tell a lot of specific info. If I find it I will link it.

As far as I can remember some guy was given the bullet from Anglo for allegedly posting "humorous" information about an Irish singer on Wikipedia.