|
Is poo poo posting in a thread an attempt at adverse possession of the thread?
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Only if the thread has gold fringe on the posts
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
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. It'll attract termites/bugs/critters (who then will have easy access to your garage), trap moisture against the structure, and generally be a fire hazard since, surprise, firewood burns rather well. And yes, it'll also reduce access to your house for maintenance purposes, so when you DO want to paint/whatever it'll be a PITA. short answer no, don't let someone stack their firewood next to your garage. Also because it's not their property, but that's almost a secondary concern.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
I need to see each sides respective business cards before I can take a side in this law fight
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:with land you dont need contracts similar to other everyday scenarios. you can still contract land usage rights tho, so whether you needed a contract or not when the battle of hastings occurred is irrelevant
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
I’ll sell you an NFT of the Bayeux Tapestry which legally means you own the Battle of Hastings
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I’ll sell you an NFT of the Bayeux Tapestry which legally means you own the Battle of Hastings
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Oh trust me, she’s already seen it
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I was hoping you'd respect my decision not to be a pendantic goon sir this is a legal thread
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I was hoping you'd respect my decision not to be a pendantic goon No, we're lawyers, we don't respect that poo poo of other lawyers. Be loving pedantic
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 09:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:We're not legally allowed to give you tax advice, or legal advice on how to handle your specific situation.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:It'll attract termites/bugs/critters (who then will have easy access to your garage), trap moisture against the structure, and generally be a fire hazard since, surprise, firewood burns rather well. And yes, it'll also reduce access to your house for maintenance purposes, so when you DO want to paint/whatever it'll be a PITA. If he gives permission, they can't adverse possess it. But can he revoke the permission later and evict the woodpile or can they claim squatters rights? Pretend he is a hypothetical person in a similar situation to that described and not the OP, who has received no legal advice nor created joinder.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I’ll sell you an NFT of the Bayeux Tapestry which legally means you own the Battle of Hastings 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
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. the problem here sounds like a proof problem. assume the fact you explicitly gave permission can defeat an adverse possession claim. five/ten/twenty years pass and they bring an adverse possession claim. how are you going to prove you gave them permission?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
It’s an evidence issue not a proof issue. The standard of proof is normally preponderance of evidence which is - with any semblance of good persuasive skills from your lawyer - not a problem The distinction between evidence and proof is another one of those tricky areas Edit The standard of proof normally in these kinds of cases o should say euphronius fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the problem here sounds like a proof problem. Give them an NTF of your permission.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
The real answer is that adverse possession is common law and thus *slightly* different in every state due to things like (as above) how different judges have interpreted "hostile" And the even realer answer is "how does the judge personally feel about your client, because this poo poo has wiggle room"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Following that post and adding : Adverse possession has been codified in most states asfaict. I don’t have a 50 state comparison law article at my finger tips Those codification are more or less based on the restatement of property law which is then based on common law and what some lawyers in Philadelphia thought at the time Land developers on the USA obviously hated the English common law version of adverse possession and it neutered by their legislatures euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Florida only requires 7 years.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Florida only requires 7 years. If you’ve paid all back taxes and filed an “I claim adverse possession” tax return with the property appraiser.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The real answer is that adverse possession is common law and thus *slightly* different in every state due to things like (as above) how different judges have interpreted "hostile" I bet most states, like Texas, have made it statutory gently caress beaten by the counter revolutionary
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? Because we're continuously openly notoriously hostile. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 21:31 on May 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? It is a terror topic from 1L and we are all imprinted
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
It's up there with the rule against perpetuities
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Semi-seriously because RAP, adverse possession and recordation disputes are ALWAYS going to be tested in the property questions on our bar exams and so they're continuously pounded into our heads and we hate them for that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
You forgot the rule in Shelley’s case When the ancestor by any gift or conveyance takes an estate of freehold, and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited either mediately or immediately to his heirs in fee simple or in fee tail; that always in such cases, 'the heirs' are words of limitation of the estate, not words of purchase.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
So I'm not a lawyer. What's a perpetuity? Why is there a rule against them?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
The law is not fond of things that restrict use of property. The rule basically prohibits people who are long dead from controlling how their descents use inherited property.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:So I'm not a lawyer. What's a perpetuity? Why is there a rule against them? You make a will that says: - Some lands go to 2nd son Henry & his descendants - Later, if Thomas dies without children while Henry is still alive & Henry inherits the earldom (instead of Thomas's hypothetical children), those lands get taken from Henry and go to 3rd son Charles instead Court basically decided that they do not want to be involved in dealing with that kind of mess and made a rule that you can't put conditions on property that trigger long after you are dead. Henry got to keep all the stuff + the earldom Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
So, the rule against Elizabeth Bennet having to marry rich because of the entailment on Longbourn?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Basically. There were apparently some specific legal wiggles you could do back then that let you set up a Pride and Prejudice i.e. - Mr. Bennet is a life tenant on the estate but has no other rights and can't sell it or split it - On his death, Mr. Bennet's male children inherit it. If there are no male children, Mr. Collins inherits it was legal at the time
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:You are an English Earl in the 1600s. You have several children, your eldest son Thomas is insane. i mean this is the more complex stuff that dances on the edge of the rule against perpetuities and you have to carefully work out the answer for the bar exam the more intuitive thing for someone just wanting to understand it is: lots of people think their wishes are Very Important. imagine you are a baron in 1650, and you are in a long line of barons - each of whom, as a baron, thought their wishes were Very Important and added them as conditions to inherit the estate. do you really want to need to care that your great-great-great grandfather said anyone who met an irishman and didn't kill him immediately would be disinherited, your great-great grandfather believed anyone who married anyone but a blonde wasn't manly enough to inherit, that someone way back when stuck on a clause that the oldest son MUST inherit even though your oldest son is a stupid jackass who tried to have you murdered once and you'd rather stuff in a monastery and leave everything to the smarter second-born? basically, it's just a way to clean up the dead hand of the past: you can put conditions on your inheritance, but they've got to be limited to people who are reasonably temporally linked to you instead of for ten generations. basically, everything your will tries to do with property has to be complete no later than during the life of an heir to someone alive today (this is not the exact way it's phrased but it's reasonably close for a non-lawyer trying to get the idea) evilweasel fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:basically, everything your will tries to do with property has to be complete no later than during the life of an heir to someone alive today (this is not the exact way it's phrased but it's reasonably close for a non-lawyer trying to get the idea) “Upon the death of the last relative of Queen Elizabeth II who was alive at the time of my death” is statistically about as long as you could control the trigger.”
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i mean this is the more complex stuff that dances on the edge of the rule against perpetuities and you have to carefully work out the answer for the bar exam Since this is basically how you play Crusader Kings can't you just forge a claim on your own land, invade yourself, then be free and clear by rite of conquest? ulmont posted:“Upon the death of the last relative of Queen Elizabeth II who was alive at the time of my death” is statistically about as long as you could control the trigger. Amusing that you don't tie this to the queen herself, or it would be as immortal as she is.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i mean this is the more complex stuff that dances on the edge of the rule against perpetuities and you have to carefully work out the answer for the bar exam Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham posted:The Duke of Norfolk's Case: Or, the Doctrine of Perpetuities fully set forth and explain'd. Being the Learned Arguments and Opinions of the Right Honourable the Earl of Nottingham, late Lord High Chancellor of England . . . . Together with the Final Decretal Order of the House of Peers on the behalf of the Honourable Charles Howard esq. Printed Anno Domini. 1688. Sadly, later law has made it more complicated. Also the UK national archives hasn't scanned it so there isn't a nice image of their copy of the folio
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? I didn't have to do a bar exam so that's not it for me, I just think the idea of "you decide that land is yours and you use it for long enough, then it becomes yours" is really cool and pretty much unique in the legal landscape. One Weird Trick but it's actually real and a thing people can actually do. The fact that it's vanishingly rare in this day and age just makes it cooler when it does happen.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:I didn't have to do a bar exam so that's not it for me, I just think the idea of "you decide that land is yours and you use it for long enough, then it becomes yours" is really cool and pretty much unique in the legal landscape. One Weird Trick but it's actually real and a thing people can actually do. The fact that it's vanishingly rare in this day and age just makes it cooler when it does happen. It's not that rare and norwegian realestate law is full of different variants on that poo poo. Including a right of ancient/historical usucaption wherein aboriginal peoples have a claim to certain areas due to usage over hundreds of years that is not extinguised by regular usucaption. The Supreme Court presedence that establishes this is as recent as twenty years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? Because it's like the most "yes, but, if..." thing in the law
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why do lawyers have such a hard-on for talking about adverse possession? We all want your poo poo and using the law to take your poo poo is why we became lawyers and then we learned it was more paper pushing and herding cats.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 20:36
|
|