|
Wait who owns the cart? Me?
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Wait who owns the cart? Me? you think you do, but eminent domain says it actually still belongs to the grocery store, you just have a transferrable/sellable limited set of cart-pushing rights, which get tricky when your cart and someone else's cart start to interfere with each other, plus the grocery store was stolen from native americans and the cart is made from the blood of exploited minorities also if the cops see you sitting down on the sidewalk near a cart that means it's OK to shoot you
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:you think you do, but eminent domain says it actually still belongs to the grocery store, you just have a transferrable/sellable limited set of cart-pushing rights, which get tricky when your cart and someone else's cart start to interfere with each other, plus the grocery store was stolen from native americans and the cart is made from the blood of exploited minorities Yeah but what if I push the cart around for 20 years and nobody else touches it is it my cart?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
You’d have to improve the cart too And shout “this is my cart !” At least once a year
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You’d have to improve the cart too Adverse possession is my favorite weird legal thing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
What about the powered scooter carts? Do transportation law now apply?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
Ok but if there's bread on both sides of some meat inside the cart
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Ah, but in Britain they call them 'trolleys'
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
And would you say that's a problem?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 12:11
|
|
|
I guess that depends on how many people you run over
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:I guess that depends on how many people you run over You need to make a distinction between carts, trolleys, and Ford Mustangs.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Adverse possession is my favorite weird legal thing. Adverse possession is actually pretty intuitive, in context. Say farmer brown builds his fence about a foot onto his neighbor's property. He has trespassed, but after two years the statute of limitations runs and he can no longer sue for damages. However the neighbor still owns that foot under the deed records. After 35 years go by, the neighbor has literally never mentioned it and Farmer Brown's grandson goes to sell Brown's land. At some point, the chain of title on properties need their own Statute of Limitations, where after a certain period of time, people can be assured that whoever has acted as if they own property is the legal owner, and any lawsuit to recover possession of that property will be time barred. So "adverse possession" is just a statute of limitations against people saying, "No, actually, I own that land over there." Organza Quiz posted:Now explain fiduciary duty! You go to the grocery store for me, you're obligated to shop on my behalf. You are supposed to get the groceries I need, in your best judgment, and not supposed to get groceries for yourself if they were the groceries I needed. You're also supposed to tell me what groceries you got. If you violate these responsibilities, I can sue you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
I dont think your example satisfies common law adverse possession. The hostile possession element gets wonky euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So "adverse possession" is just a statute of limitations against people saying, "No, actually, I own that land over there." Is Adverse Possession the legally codified form of Manifest Destiny?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Is Adverse Possession the legally codified form of Manifest Destiny? no that is just right of conquest. To the extent the USA didnt buy the land directly.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Civil law recognizes that similarity between adverse possession and statutes of limitation—they’re both called prescription. Acquisitive prescription = adverse possession Liberative prescription = statute of limitation
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I dont think your example satisfies common law adverse possession. how is me fencing in part of your property so only I can access it not hostile, i have literally erected a barrier to prevent you from using your land and its hard to imagine a more clear infringement on your landowner rights
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:how is me fencing in part of your property so only I can access it not hostile, i have literally erected a barrier to prevent you from using your land and its hard to imagine a more clear infringement on your landowner rights Yeah you are reading the issues wrong. Thats a common problem when lay people try and interpret law jargon thought everyday definitions of words. As I mentioned take a dive into hostile possession for the nuances it can get into.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Since we're talking about adverse possession... Theres like a 2 foot strip of land next to my garage that is my property, my neighbors built a concrete strip on it and planned to put wood there and then asked me if I wanted to paint my garage or anything before they stacked wood there and I was like well that's my property you put that concrete strip on. I don't really care if they keep wood there, the piece of land is not accessible to me at all really, it's totally inexplicable they way the garage was originally built but, If I let them stack wood on that concrete do I risk losing that piece of my property?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Since we're talking about adverse possession... Theres like a 2 foot strip of land next to my garage that is my property, my neighbors built a concrete strip on it and planned to put wood there and then asked me if I wanted to paint my garage or anything before they stacked wood there and I was like well that's my property you put that concrete strip on. Not addressing your situation but generally giving someone a license to do something on the land in question defeats the hostile ownership element discussed above. If you are concerned you need to hire a local attorney to discuss it. I have no idea what your situation actually is.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Since we're talking about adverse possession... Theres like a 2 foot strip of land next to my garage that is my property, my neighbors built a concrete strip on it and planned to put wood there and then asked me if I wanted to paint my garage or anything before they stacked wood there and I was like well that's my property you put that concrete strip on. you could write a simple contract, both parties recognize this land belongs to you but you are allowing them to use the land for the storage of wood in exchange for consideration of one case of beer a year or some poo poo, sign it with witnesses as long as you get along with your neighbors should be fine, and if he ever tries to claim it just say look we both signed this agreement so we both knew it was my property
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah you are reading the issues wrong. Thats a common problem when lay people try and interpret law jargon thought everyday definitions of words. As I mentioned take a dive into hostile possession for the nuances it can get into. Lol drat
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
with land you dont need contracts similar to other everyday scenarios. Land law was invented 100s of years before contract law was invented in London law courts
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah you are reading the issues wrong. Thats a common problem when lay people try and interpret law jargon thought everyday definitions of words. As I mentioned take a dive into hostile possession for the nuances it can get into. Lmao - a white shoe bankruptcy lawyer is effectively a lay person when it comes to this stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I dont think your example satisfies common law adverse possession. Hostile just means "looks like Brown intends to treat that property as if they own it." so, yeah, building a fence enclosing that strip into your own land typically will satisfy a jury that you "intended to treat the property as if you owned it."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hostile just means "looks like Brown intends to treat that property as if they own it." so, yeah, building a fence enclosing that strip into your own land typically will satisfy a jury that you "intended to treat the property as if you owned it." not if the other party allows it as Ive been talking about above. Also lol at bringing an adverse possession case in front of a jury.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:not if the other party allows it as Ive been talking about above. Aren't you describing 'adverse' here?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
"Im building my fence on your land rear end in a top hat!!" "ok, sure whatever" Adverse possession defeated!!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:not if the other party allows it as Ive been talking about above. Yeah you are reading the issues wrong. Thats a common problem when non-real estate attorneys try and interpret law jargon thought everyday definitions of words. As I mentioned take a dive into the element of hostile possession for the nuances it can get into.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:not if the other party allows it as Ive been talking about above. the other party didn't allow it in the situation, so unless you're in one of those wonky states where a poorly educated judge misunderstood the hostile element to require you know you have no right to the land, fencing in someone else's property to your own is basically the definition of hostile "they did it, and i didn't object" doesn't count as allowing it for the purposes of the hostile element. you need to have given permission to do it, not failed to object (because the whole point of adverse possession is when you failed to object and nobody really noticed the error for years/decades) evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Ive considered your posts and am not persuaded.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ive considered your posts and am not persuaded. Me: "It is murder if you kill someone." You: "Actually, it is not." then, you, later: "BEcause its not murder if you don't kill them."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Me: "It is murder if you kill someone." You should know that not all homicides are murder. Come on now. I thought we were dealing from a position of mutual respect.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ive considered your posts and am not persuaded. I am, I'm really persuaded. Like, by a lot. Guess we two are a hung jury. Well in your case not all that hung.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You should know that not all homicides are murder. Come on now. I was hoping you'd respect my decision not to be a pendantic goon
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I dont think your example satisfies common law adverse possession. Another way to think of the "hostile" argument is "not permissive." Since nothing in blarzgh's hypo indicated that the fencing was permissive, and since it's an AP hypo, let's assume that it was "not permissive." Point to blarzgh. Point to you for smacking EW. point to EW for being my bankruptcy bro. judgment of death against Phil for being Phil.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
You know what's fun? Litigating the hostility element in a case involving adverse possession of a springing easement.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
I didn’t expect to open this thread and see such notorious posting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:You know what's fun? Litigating the hostility element in a case involving adverse possession of a springing easement. I know what's fun. Not litigating. Ever loving again.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I didn’t expect to open this thread and see such notorious posting. It's not very notarized. It has very little notoriety.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:57
|
|