Squatters rights

Milk & Honey

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

Technically a court is not bound by the decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. If there is a series of compatible decisions of the co-ordinate court on the point it is unthinkable that a later court would depart from them. If the decision of the co-ordinate court is poorly reasoned and appears to be against the run of play of previous decisions then it may well be departed from.

Grolschevik

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.

As a complete aside, man, over 5,500 posts in a year has to be some sort of record...

chops018

Grolschevik wrote: »

As a complete aside, man, over 5,500 posts in a year has to be some sort of record...

Future Mod?

ezra_pound

Grolschevik wrote: »

As a complete aside, man, over 5,500 posts in a year has to be some sort of record...

I'd say large volume of boards.ie posts is just one of procrastastudy's many strategies to, well procrastinate studying.

Procrastastudy

chops018 wrote: »

Future Mod?

If we don't hear from Tom Young in a few days I think we can safely assume he's died laughing.

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'd say large volume of boards.ie posts is just one of procrastastudy's many strategies to, well procrastinate studying.

Spot on. Was on here for an hour this morning before my Land Law exam. Fecking thing was a nightmare. Crappy questions. S117 applications - I think Kearns J hates Law student - how do you get to (r) is setting out principles of one section of an act. An AP question (Thank for the help lads ). Was counting on the Use and Hybrid estates - no luck - had to waffle out an answer on restriction of ownership!

repsol

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.

Does that mean if I steal your car but I get it repaired and serviced,"improving it" that I can keep it ? Would it be an injustice if you showed up and reaped the benefit of all that work having done nothing yourself ? I think not:rolleyes:

Procrastastudy

repsol wrote: »

Does that mean if I steal your car but I get it repaired and serviced,"improving it" that I can keep it ? Would it be an injustice if you showed up and reaped the benefit of all that work having done nothing yourself ? I think not:rolleyes:

What if you remove an abandoned, unsafe, car from the middle of a housing estate that kids are playing around and eventually get the idea to do it up and use it - would it be fair twelve years later for someone to come along and take it off you?

Thanks for getting the thread back on track though - my bad for going OT.

repsol

Procrastastudy wrote: »

What if you remove an abandoned, unsafe, car from the middle of a housing estate that kids are playing around and eventually get the idea to do it up and use it - would it be fair twelve years later for someone to come along and take it off you?

Thanks for getting the thread back on track though - my bad for going OT.

I don't recall the OP stating the land in question to be unsafe.It sound like a rural field to me.

NoQuarter

Hey repsol, I think you could be the very man to change the whole law on this! I'm all for letting land rot all over the shop! To hell with keeping any value in it! HOORAH!

repsol

NoQuarter wrote: »

Hey repsol, I think you could be the very man to change the whole law on this! I'm all for letting land rot all over the shop! To hell with keeping any value in it! HOORAH!

If it belongs to someone else, why are you bothered about its value?
Lets call a spade a spade, keeping value in land is a smokescreen.This is about people trying to get something for nothing.

NoQuarter

No, they are getting nothing for nothing. If someone doesnt care enough about a piece of land to check on it only once in 12 years, then they dont really care about it making it "nothing" to them! Obviously.

The mechanism even gives the state 30 years to check on their land before someone can claim it. And 60 years for any place on the shore.

No matter what way you look at it, 12 years is a huge amount of time, much much more than enough time for ANYONE to make sure their land stays their own.

If they dont care to do so, why shouldnt someone else have it and make use of it? Dont get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from with regard to people having to work for what they own, and thats right, but there is enough of a safety net here to ensure no harm is unduly done and the result being that a piece of land genuinely does become more valuable.

valleyoftheunos

repsol wrote: »

Does that mean if I steal your car but I get it repaired and serviced,"improving it" that I can keep it ? Would it be an injustice if you showed up and reaped the benefit of all that work having done nothing yourself ? I think not:rolleyes:

No, if you steal my car you have stolen it and I'm entitled to it back no matter what.

Let me apply the actual principles of squatters rights (in relation to land) to the car example (to which they have no actual application) you've given and see how it works.

First of all no one has stolen anything, lets say that one day I park my car outside your house, I leave the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. I'm nowhere around and I never come back to check on the car. it sits there for a while and starts to rust.

You need a car but you don't have one so one day you decide feck it I'm going to use that car out there to go do the shopping, no one else is using it. Everyday you use it to go the shops and every day you leave it back exactly where I left it.

The car keeps rusting and eventually breaks down so you decide that its a good car and better to look after it than let it turn to rust and stop working. So you take it to a mechanic, keep it running and eventually restore it so its as good as new, better than the way I left it. Every day You leave it back exactly where I left it, if I want it I know exactly where to find it.

So eventually 12 years (12 YEARS!) later I turn up looking for my car, I was never bothered to look after it or even check if it was where I left it but now I decide I want it. I'm only expecting a pile of rust and bolts but there is a shiny perfect car!

Is it fair that I come and reclaim my car even though I abandoned it and let someone else look after it?

The law says no it is not fair and after 12 years I am not allowed reclaim it. That is all it is, the law has extinguished my rights to the car, no one has stolen anything. I could have turned up at any time and reclaimed my car (or land) and you the squatter would have been s**t out of luck, I could reclaim it and there would be nothing you could to do stop me.

Forget the idea that Squatting, or more accurately adverse possession, involves stealing land or is somehow easily done or is somehow injust, it is in fact a rule that has come about, over hundreds of years, to prevent injustice.

NoQuarter

Not to mention, you could pimp up their car with 20 inch alloys, body kits, tvs in the headrests etc etc but if you dont make those 12 years, tough luck! All your effort is lost!

Seems repsol would spend a fortune on petrol driving around looking for them!

chops018

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

No, if you steal my car you have stolen it and I'm entitled to it back no matter what.

Unless he stole your car and sold it to someone else and they were equity's darling :pac:

ThreeLineWhip

It is easy enough to get title to a car you find abandoned.

Procrastastudy

Incidentally a cuople of points

Some acedemic commentators do comment that the 'windfall' of AP is not proprtionate to the doctrines purpose - not found one that out and out condems it though.

There were similar doctrines in Roman and Brehon law.

Just some more food for thought.

maithanfear

So where is the fine line between stealing something and taking possession of something just as to becoming a squatter and not a trespasser?

valleyoftheunos

maithanfear wrote: »

So where is the fine line between stealing something and taking possession of something just as to becoming a squatter and not a trespasser?

You can't steal land. Entering someone else's land or taking possession of it without permission is trespass. it might seem finicky but they are two entirely different things.

NoQuarter

maithanfear wrote: »

So where is the fine line between stealing something and taking possession of something just as to becoming a squatter and not a trespasser?

Its a 12 year "fine line". You are only borrowing it for 12 years, if the owner asks for it back, its his.

maithanfear

NoQuarter wrote: »

Its a 12 year "fine line". You are only borrowing it for 12 years, if the owner asks for it back, its his.

So you could say Squatters Rights are a successful defence against trespass provided the 12 year limitation period has expired?

Procrastastudy

maithanfear wrote: »

So you could say Squatters Rights are a successful defence against trespass provided the 12 year limitation period has expired?

Not really they are separate concepts really. The squatter must possess the land and show animus possidendi - which entails intention and declaring that intention. So it's not as if I can just claim a bit of land that's been laying dormant for a number of years. I have to do things to it, fence it off, plant grass or some such other thing.

The other thing is title - which is a more universal concept. A squatter has second best title after that of the paper owner. So if you stray on to land that's being squatted on you're technically trespassing against the squatter (I think!). That concept actually works for personal property as well, which is why if you find something after a period of time you can claim it as your own.

Icepick

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!

hilarious obsession with land .. the process is legitimate and makes sense

NoQuarter

maithanfear wrote: »

So you could say Squatters Rights are a successful defence against trespass provided the 12 year limitation period has expired?

Actually I would have said yes.

Here is an example of just that: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-told-he-can-stay-in-nama-ghost-estate-home-2907066.html

Although I cannot for the life of me figure out how this happened without the 12 years being passed. The case might have developed by now so I wouldnt rely on the newspapers.

archer22

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

You can't steal land. Entering someone else's land or taking possession of it without permission is trespass. it might seem finicky but they are two entirely different things.

What I cant understand is how something that begins as as a crime ie trespass ends up with the state legalizing that crime after a certain time period.I cant see the logic of 12 years either..12 years is not very long,its easy to say go to the other side of the world to work and maybe not be back again for 20/25 years or so..it does not mean the property is abandoned but merely left until the owner is ready to retire and return to it.

Procrastastudy

archer22 wrote: »

What I cant understand is how something that begins as as a crime ie trespass ends up with the state legalizing that crime after a certain time period.I cant see the logic of 12 years either..12 years is not very long,its easy to say go to the other side of the world to work and maybe not be back again for 20/25 years or so..it does not mean the property is abandoned but merely left until the owner is ready to retire and return to it.

Okay imagine that large parts of the country are owned by people that live abroad. Rather than dispose of the land within a decade if the leaving the country they leave it there - unused. Imagine that the population can't afford to buy the remaining land because its so expensive. Imagine that the country can't grow enough food to feed itself.

If you prefer not to imagine pick up a history book.

archer22

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Okay imagine that large parts of the country are owned by people that live abroad. Rather than dispose of the land within a decade if the leaving the country they leave it there - unused. Imagine that the population can't afford to buy the remaining land because its so expensive. Imagine that the country can't grow enough food to feed itself.

If you prefer not to imagine pick up a history book.

This is 2013 and none of the points you make apply :rolleyes:.

Procrastastudy

archer22 wrote: »

This is 2013 and none of the points you make apply :rolleyes:.

Is that perhaps because we have the safe guards in place?

Look at prior to the crash? Look at now - with half the country leaving? You don't think its possible to get into a position where we could have significant issues?

AP has been around for literally thousands of years. The ECtHR have ruled it's not in breach of the ECHR. I'm simply trying to point out you are in the minority view. The Statute of Limitations sets out a number of limits to peruse an action are they also all unreasonable?

archer22

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Is that perhaps because we have the safe guards in place?

Look at prior to the crash? Look at now - with half the country leaving? You don't think its possible to get into a position where we could have significant issues?

AP has been around for literally thousands of years. The ECtHR have ruled it's not in breach of the ECHR. I'm simply trying to point out you are in the minority view. The Statute of Limitations sets out a number of limits to peruse an action are they also all unreasonable?

You are talking about the law..I am talking about RIGHT and WRONG which is not necessarily the same as the law..thats where the confusion is arising

CIARAN_BOYLE

archer22 wrote: »

What I cant understand is how something that begins as as a crime ie trespass ends up with the state legalizing that crime after a certain time period.I cant see the logic of 12 years either..12 years is not very long, its easy to say go to the other side of the world to work and maybe not be back again for 20/25 years or so..it does not mean the property is abandoned but merely left until the owner is ready to retire and return to it.

The thing is he doesn't have to return to the land. All he needs to do is contact someone and ask that they check on it for him.

Procrastastudy

archer22 wrote: »

You are talking about the law..I am talking about RIGHT and WRONG which is not necessarily the same as the law..thats where the confusion is arising

I think the confusion is arising due to the uninformed having an argument with the equally uninformed.