Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Making claim to unregistered land

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    It's a public message board.
    Perhaps you are on here as a qualified Senior Counsel giving advice for free, but others can also post opinions even if they aren't qualified barristers
    It is a discussion forum. Posting an opinion based on some kind of research is one thing. Posting an "opinion" specifically stating that it is from an unqualified person with absolutely no reference to any publicly available materials or sources is another. If you make an assertion you should be able to back it up in some form. It wouldn't matter what qualifications you purported to have if you could point to some source for your proposition.
    Donald Trump wrote: »


    And am I wrong to say that he can't claim for adverse possession after only owning it for one year? What is your free legal expert option on the matter?
    A person who owns something doesn't have to claim adverse possession. Try again.


  • Options
    #33
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,372 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It is a discussion forum. Posting an opinion based on some kind of research is one thing. Posting an "opinion" specifically stating that it is from an unqualified person with absolutely no reference to any publicly available materials or sources is another. If you make an assertion you should be able to back it up in some form. It wouldn't matter what qualifications you purported to have if you could point to some source for your proposition.

    A person who owns something doesn't have to claim adverse possession. Try again.




    People posting on a message board should read the details.


    A person bought a house. It turns out that part of it is built on land they don't own. It is however owned by the poster


    When then don't own it, it tends to mean, and I understand that this may be nuanced for some, that they don't own it.


    raymick wrote: »
    Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
    He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back


    Try again.


  • Options
    #34
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    People posting on a message board should read the details.
    I recommend you try it sometime
    Donald Trump wrote: »
    A person bought a house. It turns out that part of it is built on land they don't own. It is however owned by the poster



    In case you missed it, that is the point of the thread. There is a dispute about ownership. It would come down to whthere one person can block the other's paper title.


  • Options
    #35
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,372 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    I recommend you try it sometime


    In case you missed it, that is the point of the thread. There is a dispute about ownership. It would come down to whthere one person can block the other's paper title.




    Ah, I see the problem. You are mixing up the OP with the person I was responding to - who made it perfectly clear that at least part of the house (they are referring to) is built on their land



    With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice if you are a solicitor.


    If you had done a little less sneering then maybe you wouldn't be being called out on you lack of attention to detail


  • Options
    #36
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Ah, I see the problem. You are mixing up the OP with the person I was responding to - who made it perfectly clear that at least part of the house (they are referring to) is built on their land
    I am not mixing you up. Your analysis of the situation is defective. The o/p has a piece of paper saying he owns some land but he is not in possession of that land. the issue is whether or not he has a remedy.
    Donald Trump wrote: »

    With all due respect, I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice if you are a solicitor.

    Donald Trump wrote: »
    If you had done a little less sneering then maybe you wouldn't be being called out on you lack of attention to detail
    I didn't miss any detail. Your analysis of the situation is defective. You have put forward propositions of law with no sources and you plainly don't understand the issues. Not content with that you launch personal attacks as nif you have some understaning of the situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    topdecko
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭topdecko


    OK can you get back on point here. These threads are fascinating in terms of the legal machinations involved for us lay people.
    As regards the second scenario where someone has build a house on the land and sold it on - this then becomes part of the contract for sale.
    Surely its a simple solution in that the new owner needs to pay the person for the land that was taken otherwise the house has been built illegally and thus could be knocked down. I assume the courts would always find in favour of the actual landowner in this regard.
    Seems a crazy to my mind to apply for adverse possession in this scenario as it is not a derelict piece of unused land unlike OP.


  • Options
    #38
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    topdecko wrote: »
    O


    Surely its a simple solution in that the new owner needs to pay the person for the land that was taken otherwise the house has been built illegally and thus could be knocked down.
    Why would the new owner pay anything if the the defence of adverse possession is available.
    topdecko wrote: »

    I assume the courts would always find in favour of the actual landowner in this regard.
    The courts follow the law. A person can, on paper own land, but may be unable to enforce their ownership due to lapes of time.
    In any event who is the actual landowner?
    topdecko wrote: »
    O
    Seems a crazy to my mind to apply for adverse possession in this scenario as it is not a derelict piece of unused land unlike OP.[/QUOTE]

    It doesn't matter whether or not it is derelict. Sleep on your rights and you canh lose them.


  • Options
    #39
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I'd get a court order before I started knocking down part of somebody's house. Just saying..

    Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?


  • Options
    #40
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,372 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    I am not mixing you up. Your analysis of the situation is defective. The o/p has a piece of paper saying he owns some land but he is not in possession of that land. the issue is whether or not he has a remedy.





    I didn't miss any detail. Your analysis of the situation is defective. You have put forward propositions of law with no sources and you plainly don't understand the issues. Not content with that you launch personal attacks as nif you have some understaning of the situation.




    I think you are still confused.


    If you are actually a solicitor and not a mere worthless "layman" then you might want to consider asking for a refund on some of your educational fees.


    The post I answered was asking if a person could apply for adverse possession one year after taking possession of a property. I only opined that I wouldn't think that they could. You appear to think they can. You are again sneering at me for lack of sources, but have put forward no basis for your contention, and one can only presume that you plucked it out of somewhere the sun don't shine.


    Go on then, give us your source that a person can claim adverse possession after one year? Either that or keep quiet.


    What good is your interpretation? :pac:



    Edit: Just to remind you, this is the post which contains the question that I responded to, and that you subsequently issued your condescending sneery response to.
    raymick wrote: »
    Some of my land was taken by my neighbour and he built some of his house on it
    He promised to sort it but he abandoned the property it was then been processed by the bank to repossess it, when I found out I informed the bank, the council and land registry they all said the same thing it wasn’t their problem to get legal representation. so I got my solicitor to inform the auctioneer and the boundary problem was put in the contract for sale. The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land and we entered into talks, now he has decided that he wants to go for adverse possession, can he after only one year. Can I go for my land back


  • Options
    #41
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?

    The lack of planning permission is not a licence to knock down a building erected by somebody else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I think you are still confused.


    If you are actually a solicitor and not a mere worthless "layman" then you might want to consider asking for a refund on some of your educational fees.


    The post I answered was asking if a person could apply for adverse possession one year after taking possession of a property. I only opined that I wouldn't think that they could. You appear to think they can. You are again sneering at me for lack of sources, but have put forward no basis for your contention, and one can only presume that you plucked it out of somewhere the sun don't shine.


    Go on then, give us your source that a person can claim adverse possession after one year? Either that or keep quiet.


    What good is your interpretation? :pac:



    Edit: Just to remind you, this is the post which contains the question that I responded to, and that you subsequently issued your condescending sneery response to.
    Below is a link which deals with your question.
    It shows 3 things.
    1. Your proposition is nonsense
    2. You did no research before posting.
    3. You are so convinced of your own infallibility that when challenged about a source you resort to abuse and double down your nonsensical proposition.


    https://www.prai.ie/adverse-possession-title-by-adverse-possession-to-registered-land/


  • Options
    #43
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,420 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    Just to change the example slightly - if A has built a sperate, stand-alone structure that had not received planning (like a shed or a prefab office) completely on B's land, would B be on surer footing for going and knocking it down? Or could B be still liable for damages to A's contents in the shed/office during the demolition?
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The lack of planning permission is not a licence to knock down a building erected by somebody else.
    The lack of planning permission is not the issue, though. The issue is that the structure has been erected on B's land, and B owns the land.

    Lets assume that the structure is not mobile or transportable; it's fixed to the land.

    Structures fixed to the land form part of the land and, if B owns the land, then B
    owns the structure. A has, selflessly and at his own expense, enhanced teh value of B's land by erecting a handsome structure on it. How generous. So on one view, yeah, it's B's structure; he can demolish it if he wants. (Or, if it really doesn enhance the value of the land, he can apply for retention permission.)

    But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

    EVen assumign that B owns the land, the other point, of course, is that the erection of the structure didn't happen in isolation; it's part of a more extensive trespass. A is using the land and, presumably, using the structure. And you're expected to behave reasonably when dealing with a trespasser. You always start by asking him to leave - which in this case means asking A to stop using the land, to vacate it, and to take his structure down and remove the remains. EVen if matters escalate from there to a point where you decide you will take down the structure yourself, A will have - because you will give him - and opportunity to remove stuff that belongs to him. And, if he doesn't take that opportunity, you will remove it, store it and tell A where he can collect it, rather than simply knocking the building down on top of it.


  • Options
    #44
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,626 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

    Would "B" not need some form of planning permission to delete the building that "A" built on his land.
    raymick wrote: »
    The new owner agreed that some of his house was indeed built on my land

    Also (according to the OP) the building is seem to only partially built in his land, how you that impact your theory that "B" might own the building.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 596 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    What good is a laymans interpretation?

    As good as you’ll get on a forum where legal advice is not permitted. Can you put your handbag away, you’ll only cause yourself an injury…


  • Options
    #46
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,215 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As good as you’ll get on a forum where legal advice is not permitted. Can you put your handbag away, you’ll only cause yourself an injury…

    A lot better can be done. Most lay people can read and look up points instead of taking things out of their ass.


  • Options
    #47
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,573 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The lack of planning permission is not the issue, though. The issue is that the structure has been erected on B's land, and B owns the land.

    Lets assume that the structure is not mobile or transportable; it's fixed to the land.

    Structures fixed to the land form part of the land and, if B owns the land, then B
    owns the structure. A has, selflessly and at his own expense, enhanced teh value of B's land by erecting a handsome structure on it. How generous. So on one view, yeah, it's B's structure; he can demolish it if he wants. (Or, if it really doesn enhance the value of the land, he can apply for retention permission.)

    But of course there's almost certainly going to be a dispute about whether B does own the land, so B should think twice before demolishing that structure ahead of getting a court to agree with him that, yes, he does own the land.

    EVen assumign that B owns the land, the other point, of course, is that the erection of the structure didn't happen in isolation; it's part of a more extensive trespass. A is using the land and, presumably, using the structure. And you're expected to behave reasonably when dealing with a trespasser. You always start by asking him to leave - which in this case means asking A to stop using the land, to vacate it, and to take his structure down and remove the remains. EVen if matters escalate from there to a point where you decide you will take down the structure yourself, A will have - because you will give him - and opportunity to remove stuff that belongs to him. And, if he doesn't take that opportunity, you will remove it, store it and tell A where he can collect it, rather than simply knocking the building down on top of it.

    Thanks for your informative posts Peregrinus, it makes for interesting reading.

    Some others on here who appear to have some legal knowledge might consider using that knowledge in a similarly helpful manner instead of attempting to prove how "clever" they are.


  • Options
    #48
    Notascoobydoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭Notascoobydoo


    I live on the edge of a housing estate built in 90s... 3 housing estates since been built around me leaving a piece of nó man's land next to my house. Council says they have no interest in it and are just care takers, no registered owner so we think it must belong to original building company who have been liquidation 20 years. Land is of no use to anyone unless you are a teenager and want to hide while you drink... There's no access except for ours so we want to build a wall and take it into our garden to secure it and stop anti social behaviour. The council had offered to sell if they owned but we now know they don't. Any advice


  • Options
    #49
    SouthWesterly
    Registered Users Posts: 6,708 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    Notascoobydoo wrote: »
    I live on the edge of a housing estate built in 90s... 3 housing estates since been built around me leaving a piece of nó man's land next to my house. Council says they have no interest in it and are just care takers, no registered owner so we think it must belong to original building company who have been liquidation 20 years. Land is of no use to anyone unless you are a teenager and want to hide while you drink... There's no access except for ours so we want to build a wall and take it into our garden to secure it and stop anti social behaviour. The council had offered to sell if they owned but we now know they don't. Any advice

    Had a laneway at the back of my house which residents had gated before I moved in 30 years ago. The neighbours behind took in the bit behind their house into their yard and we did the same.

    When selling we regularised the extra 60 sq feet incorporating it into our boundary and sold the house.


Advertisement