Squatters rights

archer22

ccopti wrote: »

Thanks. the land has been used by ourselves for approx the last 16 years. The owner emigrated and never returned.

How did you start using it in the first place?...was it a case of saw him heading off with his suitcase and started the JCB up and opened a gap.Or did you have permission from him to go in there originally.Would it not be decent to at least try and find him..maybe there is some reason he has been unable to return so far..illness or maybe even serving a prison sentence.I doubt he has just forgotten about it.

ThreeLineWhip

Alls fair in love and land grabbing.

Procrastastudy

archer22 wrote: »

How did you start using it in the first place?...was it a case of saw him heading off with his suitcase and started the JCB up and opened a gap.Or did you have permission from him to go in there originally.Would it not be decent to at least try and find him..maybe there is some reason he has been unable to return so far..illness or maybe even serving a prison sentence.I doubt he has just forgotten about it.

Seeking permission and trying top find him; all would defeat AP. However if the owner was under some disability I *THINK* that would stop the clock. I;d welcome conformation/correction of that point.

Wile E. Coyote

NoQuarter wrote: »

Sure who is going to try track down someone in a foreign country to make an offer for land. Outrageous.

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?

If the owner wanted to hang onto the land, they could have leased it to the OP for a euro a year and still keep it. They didnt, they just left.

Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

Procrastastudy

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?



Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

Neither of the scenarios you've mentioned above would give rise to AP. AP is nuanced in such a away to do what it's designed to do. Quiet title and make sure that land keeps it value. There was a really good example here a few weeks back were someone has fenced off a bit of land next too their house that was being used for dumping or something of that nature. If no one comes looking for that land for the next 12 years why shouldn't someone be entitled to it? (Although to be fair IIRC it was owned by NAMA so might be 30 years - no one seems to know the answer to that no even people that have wrotten books on NAMA.)

valleyoftheunos

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Someone who has been using it, presumably with permission seeing as the OP know's who the true owner is?

If the OP had/has permission to use the Land they will not be able to claim AP/Squatters Rights

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Maybe the owner didn't want to lease it out but was happy for the OP to continue using the land until he returned not thinking he'd get stabbed in the back for his good deed.

Again if he knew and was happy to let them use it that's permission and they won't be able to claim the land.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I've no problem with AP but there should be some effort put into finding out and notifying the true owner first.

There is no onus on a squatter to go looking for an owner (in fact if they wen't looking they would lose their claim), it isn't theft or a land grab, AP/Squatters Rights don't work that way. If someone has been using your land for 12 years (12 YEARS!) you lose the right to reclaim your land and they get the rights to it.

giant_midget

Op - In my eyes you are a pos, the land is not yours. I really hope you don't end up with it. You have to work for things in life, not go looking for information on "squatters rights" ..houses are cheap now, go buy one!

valleyoftheunos

giant_midget wrote: »

Op - In my eyes you are a pos, the land is not yours. I really hope you don't end up with it. You have to work for things in life, not go looking for information on "squatters rights" ..houses are cheap now, go buy one!

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

giant_midget

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

Procrastastudy

giant_midget wrote: »

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

I love this. You want to open a history book and find out what happens when a load of people buy up/have all thr land, bugger off and leave it with no investment.

giant_midget

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I love this. You want to open a history book and find out what happens when a load of people buy up/have all thr land, bugger off and leave it with no investment.

Yes i would be interested in seeing this, could you send me on a link to a history book i can look in?

Honey-ec

giant_midget wrote: »

Yes i would be interested in seeing this, could you send me on a link to a history book i can look in?

Doesn't even need to be a history book - read "The Grapes of Wrath", it describes pretty much exactly the scenario Procrastastudy was describing.

Procrastastudy

I thinking more of tenant farmers (Ironically who would not qualify for AP) in Ireland and massive swaths of the country owned by absentee English Landowners.

Its not hard to see in Modern Ireland why AP is still needed. If you're living next to abandoned land that is being used for dumping/drug addicts/prostitution or even kids just making a nuisance of themselves, and you fence it off and look after it - why should someone be able to come back and take it back off of you after not so much as 'looking over the hedge' for twelve years.

It's not as if AP hasn't been looked at in great detail by the Courts, not just here and in England but also the ECtHR have held that it does not violate Art 1 Protocol 1.

NoQuarter

giant_midget wrote: »

Noone asked the OP to do any work on the land, I'm sure the Owner of the land that paid money for the land would be gratefull to the OP for the maintenance of the land that he never asked to be done...what is wrong with us Irish, we always seem to want something for nothing...:rolleyes:

That land is presumably worth a lot more because of the OP now than what it would be had the OP not moved in.

archer22

Looks to me like a ridiculous system..loads of houses now left vacant as their owners have gone to Australia to work (including my next door neighbours).So many might yet return to find someone else 'owns' their home if they dont keep track of the calender.Actually I acquired a few acres of rough land next to my own 10 years ago,that a family that had left the area about 20 years earlier owned...I acquired it the old fashioned way by tracking them down and giving them money for it....oddly enough that felt like the right thing to do :cool:.

JonEBGud

Not everyone who claims squatters rights gets what they want.
See what happened to Pat Kenny in Dalkey a few years ago.
He didn't get it and it cost him a fortune for his efforts.

valleyoftheunos

archer22 wrote: »

Looks to me like a ridiculous system..loads of houses now left vacant as their owners have gone to Australia to work (including my next door neighbours).So many might yet return to find someone else 'owns' their home if they dont keep track of the calender.Actually I acquired a few acres of rough land next to my own 10 years ago,that a family that had left the area about 20 years earlier owned...I acquired it the old fashioned way by tracking them down and giving them money for it....oddly enough that felt like the right thing to do :cool:.

Its far from a system, its merely a rule of law.

Its also very easy to prevent happening, if your neighbour got someone to check up on the house just once in those 12 years and protest if they found someone squatting the squatters would be unsuccessful in their claim. Actually claiming a property by adverse possession aka squatters rights is Long, difficult, highly uncertain and very rare, which is of course the way it should be. You are incorrect if you think it is just a matter of moving into a vacant house.

Wile E. Coyote

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Total hogwash, OP has spent 16 years working on the land and improving it, it would be an injustice if the owner were to return from America and reap the benefit of all that work having done nothing himself.

The op didn't do this work out of the goodness of his heart. He did it because it suited him and he benefited from it. The improvements don't necessarily benefit the actual owner as we don't know what his plans for the land are.

chops018

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The op didn't do this work out of the goodness of his heart. He did it because it suited him and he benefited from it. The improvements don't necessarily benefit the actual owner as we don't know what his plans for the land are.

The owner's future plans are irrelevant. The test for animus possidendi used to be that the possessor had to do something inconsistent with the future intentions of the owner, but that was scrapped and now all that has to be proved it that he intends to possess the land to the exclusion of all others.

ezra_pound

chops018 wrote: »

The owner's future plans are irrelevant. The test for animus possidendi used to be that the possessor had to do something inconsistent with the future intentions of the owner, but that was scrapped and now all that has to be proved it that he intends to possess the land to the exclusion of all others.

It hasn't been scrapped. It is sometimes applied and sometimes not deemed relevant depending on the case/ judge.

Procrastastudy

ezra_pound wrote: »

It hasn't been scrapped. It is sometimes applied and sometimes not deemed relevant depending on the case/ judge.

There was confusion, actually purely because of delay in publishing a case, but the current judicial position is you don;t have to show a use inconsistent with the paper owner's future use. See Feehan v Leamy cited above. I'm more than happy to be corrected I'm sure it will garner me an extra mark on Monday if I can cite a more up-to date authority

chops018

ezra_pound wrote: »

It hasn't been scrapped. It is sometimes applied and sometimes not deemed relevant depending on the case/ judge.

What recent case law has followed the strict requirement set down by Leigh .v. Jack (abolished in England in Buckinghamshire .v. Moran), Leigh was adopted here in Cork Corp .v. Lynch, but was scrapped in Durack Man .v. Considine.

All cases after this have followed Durack: Feehan .v. Leamy, and Dunne .v. Irish Rail.

So point me in the direction of any SC case that has gone with the Leigh principle post Dunne? I'll gladly apologise if I'm wrong.

Procrastastudy

Can I just say a massive Thank you to the OP and all posters, even the whining ones. Normally when I'm hanging around boards meant to be revising I'm wasting time. This thread on the other hand has been a great study aid.

chops018

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Can I just say a massive Thank you to the OP and all posters, even the whining ones. Normally when I'm hanging around boards meant to be revising I'm wasting time. This thread on the other hand has been a great study aid.

Yeah it's good when threads like this come along, especially for something like AP that has seen a lot of development and confusion.

ezra_pound

chops018 wrote: »

What recent case law has followed the strict requirement set down by Leigh .v. Jack (abolished in England in Buckinghamshire .v. Moran), Leigh was adopted here in Cork Corp .v. Lynch, but was scrapped in Durack Man .v. Considine.

All cases after this have followed Durack: Feehan .v. Leamy, and Dunne .v. Irish Rail.

So point me in the direction of any SC case that has gone with the Leigh principle post Dunne? I'll gladly apologise if I'm wrong.

My understanding is that there has never been a supreme court decision regarding this matter and untill then then the high cort could apply that principal or not. Am I wrong?

chops018

ezra_pound wrote: »

My understanding is that there has never been a supreme court decision regarding this matter and untill then then the high cort could apply that principal or not. Am I wrong?

You are correct. But I can't see the SC going back to the Leigh principle, AP is hard enough to prove as it is, it was virtually impossible under Leigh. With England abolishing it under Buckinghamshire .v. Moran it is very likely that the SC would follow suit, as they usually do.

ezra_pound

chops018 wrote: »

You are correct. But I can't see the SC going back to the Leigh principle, AP is hard enough to prove as it is, it was virtually impossible under Leigh. With England abolishing it under Buckinghamshire .v. Moran it is very likely that the SC would follow suit, as they usually do.

Maybe. If it even ever goes to the sc. Do you not think it's reasonable to believe that the hc could still apply it?

Procrastastudy

ezra_pound wrote: »

Maybe. If it even ever goes to the sc. Do you not think it's reasonable to believe that the hc could still apply it?

While the SC may overrule Feehan (doubtful) the HC can't under stare decisis. The only reason there was confusion was a publishing blip (if you can believe it!).

ezra_pound

Procrastastudy wrote: »

While the SC may overrule Feehan (doubtful) the HC can't under stare decisis. The only reason there was confusion was a publishing blip (if you can believe it!).

I thought that under stare decisis a hc judge can still apply the law contrary to another hc judge's decision.

Procrastastudy

ezra_pound wrote: »

I thought that under stare decisis a hc judge can still apply the law contrary to another hc judge's decision.

Not as far as I'm aware, they would have to distinguish the previous case for some reason. I am more than open to correction on that point however.