[Article] Insuring a property protects against adverse possession (squatters rights)

Mrs OBumble

Just spotted this interesting case from late November - despite it being in the Journal.ie, I don't recall hearing about it.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/high-court-denies-squatters-rights-bus-ireann-worker-025115410.html

To cut a long story short, man lived in house for over 12 years without paying rent. But he didn't get squatters rights because the predecessor-in-title insured the place.

garhjw

He got what he deserved anyway.

I can't understand how the words "squatters" and "rights" go together.

The_Morrigan

garhjw wrote: »

He got what he deserved anyway.

I can't understand how the words "squatters" and "rights" go together.

Land and rights are a very touchy subject in historic & legal terms.

This isn't exactly a new concept our laws are based on the English land laws, which of course have ties to Roman laws. Our land law history (and the entire British colonies history) is full of instances of 'redistribution' by royal decree and a doctrine like adverse possession was at least some shining light if you could try get your land back legally.

You also have the 'finders keepers' and 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' phrases that are thrown about and they do have some historical basis in society.

garhjw

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Land and rights are a very touchy subject in historic & legal terms.

This isn't exactly a new concept our laws are based on the English land laws, which of course have ties to Roman laws. Our land law history (and the entire British colonies history) is full of instances of 'redistribution' by royal decree and a doctrine like adverse possession was at least some shining light if you could try get your land back legally.

You also have the 'finders keepers' and 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' phrases that are thrown about and they do have some historical basis in society.

I do understand the historical significance behind adverse possession and all that comes with it but in a modern society if you want land/property etc you should pay for it. (Or it is left to you in a will).

The_Morrigan

garhjw wrote: »

I do understand the historical significance behind adverse possession and all that comes with it but in a modern society if you want land/property etc you should pay for it. (Or it is left to you in a will).

Existing laws don't change because the current society deem them outdated, they change because of legal and constitutional challenges. This case is an example of that, the judge has considered the existence of valid insurance to be another element to be considered under the rules of adverse possession and the existing case law on the subject.

Victor

garhjw wrote: »

I can't understand how the words "squatters" and "rights" go together.

Otherwise, one potentially then ends up with the situation of land lying idle.

Of course, the squatters / users should be required to pay rates, LPT, etc.

braddun

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/the-legal-maze-of-squatters-rights-laid-bare-26872250.html