Grandfathered squatter?

[Mgderf]

If you buy a property knowing full-well the adjacent property owner is, and intends to continue to be a major jerk, at least you'll know who got you into that mess.

See, this makes it even worse.
My uncle made an unsolicited offer, to me and my brothers, that he would purchase a piece of hunting property.
He asked that me and my brothers take over the property taxes and insurance. We would have immediate use, and our uncle said he would put our names on the deed so it would be ours when he goes.

I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I also don't want him spending good money on a bad property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Indiana’s Statutory Period for Adverse Possession

Every state has a slightly different statutory period for which a trespasser must occupy the land in order to claim title. Under Ind. Code Ann. § 32-23-1-1, the trespasser can bring a claim of adverse possession after ten years.
Example: Chandler and Monica are homeowners who live next to one another in Bloomington. Their back yards are one vast, connected expanse of grass, with no dividing fence or boundary between them. Chandler builds a shed that is actually on Monica’s side of the yard, covering about ten square feet of earth. Monica doesn’t say a word about it. Chander uses the shed as if it were on his own land. He does this for 11 years. Under the rubric described above, Chandler can probably establish that he “owns” the land on which he was encroaching. Monica could have stopped Chandler by asking, over those 11 years, that he remove his shed, or that he sign a rental agreement indicating the nature of his use and thereby acknowledging Monica's ownership. But Indiana courts won’t let Monica suddenly eject Chandler after failing to exercise her rights for more than a decade.

This example sounds a LOT like your well situation.

I find the last sentence interesting... Monica let it slide for 11 years, uncontested, hence why the courts wouldn't side with her. If someone else bought the land, would that time "reset?"

 

[csaws]

I find the last sentence interesting... Monica let it slide for 11 years, uncontested, hence why the courts wouldn't side with her. If someone else bought the land, would that time "reset?"

I was pondering the same point

Thanks for this post though. It will be on my mind as we pursue retirement land in Tennessee.

 

[Hoosier Carry]

Does this happen to be Jennings/Decatur county?

 

[Hkindiana]

I find the last sentence interesting... Monica let it slide for 11 years, uncontested, hence why the courts wouldn't side with her. If someone else bought the land, would that time "reset?"

I don't think it would "reset" with a sale, or Monica could simply sell the land to a family member in order to "get rid of the problem"

 

[Mgderf]

Does this happen to be Jennings/Decatur county?

No

 

[poppy]

I have not read each post but has someone checked the deed for the property that your uncle is considering purchasing? Check it and see if there is a legal easement allowing for the well.

 

[T.Lex]

Dear INGO,

I know the internet was built so people could be armchair lawyers on all sorts of topics. (Well, that's what DARPA wanted people to think.)

But this is not an area where there's a single case or law or rule or practice that decides the issue.

Adverse Possession is one of the few areas of law still remaining where caselaw from a century ago is still applicable. I have had the "opportunity" to investigate this topic over the years dealing with century old surveys, bad maps, worse deeds, and greedy people. The only real answer is that someone with money is going to have to step up and at least threaten litigation or actually file a lawsuit to sort it out. Poopy McNeighbor isn't going to give up what he thinks he has without a fight. And, even if he's forced to, that relationship will be radioactive forever, handed down from generation to generation like bad dental hygiene.

Best INGO advice to OP is to find a different property. Best real advice is to talk to a couple lawyers. The initial consultations should be free, or at most a couple hundred bucks. Consider it a due diligence fee that might help you avoid a 5 or 6 figure mistake.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dear INGO,

I know the internet was built so people could be armchair lawyers on all sorts of topics. (Well, that's what DARPA wanted people to think.)

But this is not an area where there's a single case or law or rule or practice that decides the issue.

Adverse Possession is one of the few areas of law still remaining where caselaw from a century ago is still applicable. I have had the "opportunity" to investigate this topic over the years dealing with century old surveys, bad maps, worse deeds, and greedy people. The only real answer is that someone with money is going to have to step up and at least threaten litigation or actually file a lawsuit to sort it out. Poopy McNeighbor isn't going to give up what he thinks he has without a fight. And, even if he's forced to, that relationship will be radioactive forever, handed down from generation to generation like bad dental hygiene.

Best INGO advice to OP is to find a different property. Best real advice is to talk to a couple lawyers. The initial consultations should be free, or at most a couple hundred bucks. Consider it a due diligence fee that might help you avoid a 5 or 6 figure mistake.

I buy a piece of property, and there a squatter occupying part of my land, refusing to more? Ha! Challenge accepted. I got enough backwoods and ghetto relatives that I end that nonsense, in a weekend, with a family reunion.

 

[Fargo]

I buy a piece of property, and there a squatter occupying part of my land, refusing to more? Ha! Challenge accepted. I got enough backwoods and ghetto relatives that I end that nonsense, in a weekend, with a family reunion.

Problem is, you may not have bought the land, title may have already passed to the squatter. All you bought was a bad title, it is his property now and you are the trespasser/squatter.

With the well being on the property for a long time, controlling law may be the law of 30-40 years ago, not the current property tax limited version.

T.Lex already gave the correct advice.

 

[spec4]

Run don't walk from this mess.

 

[indiucky]

Ha! Challenge accepted. I got enough backwoods and ghetto relatives that I end that nonsense, in a weekend, with a family reunion.

We may be related....

 

[IndyTom]

Indiana’s Statutory Period for Adverse Possession

Every state has a slightly different statutory period for which a trespasser must occupy the land in order to claim title. Under Ind. Code Ann. § 32-23-1-1, the trespasser can bring a claim of adverse possession after ten years.
Example: Chandler and Monica are homeowners who live next to one another in Bloomington. Their back yards are one vast, connected expanse of grass, with no dividing fence or boundary between them. Chandler builds a shed that is actually on Monica’s side of the yard, covering about ten square feet of earth. Monica doesn’t say a word about it. Chander uses the shed as if it were on his own land. He does this for 11 years. Under the rubric described above, Chandler can probably establish that he “owns” the land on which he was encroaching. Monica could have stopped Chandler by asking, over those 11 years, that he remove his shed, or that he sign a rental agreement indicating the nature of his use and thereby acknowledging Monica's ownership. But Indiana courts won’t let Monica suddenly eject Chandler after failing to exercise her rights for more than a decade.

This example sounds a LOT like your well situation.

Now that this seems to be sorted out, I have to know...are they still Friends?

 

[churchmouse]

I buy a piece of property, and there a squatter occupying part of my land, refusing to more? Ha! Challenge accepted. I got enough backwoods and ghetto relatives that I end that nonsense, in a weekend, with a family reunion.

Bingo.

Meet my cousins Larry Larry Larry and another cousin Larry.

 

[Hkindiana]

If you do get it, 55 acres is large enough to host a few full auto shoots, which might be noticed by the neighbor . . . . . .

 

[churchmouse]

If you do get it, 55 acres is large enough to host a few full auto shoots, which might be noticed by the neighbor . . . . . .

There are a few of us that would be open to a full on shoot and eat. Open carry style of course.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Could you guys buy 54 acres and leave that one as a buffer zone ?

Could you guys buy all 55 and be content leaving that one acre as a buffer zone ?

If not , don't buy it .

 

[seedubs1]

Yup. My mom documented and tended to a small piece of land right next to her house that was, at the time, owned by her slum lord neighbor. After 11 years, it was legally her land. He wasn't very happy when he found that out. Wouldn't have mattered if he'd have sold his lot, she legally owned a small part of that lot, and it was hers to do as she pleased. He could sell his portion of the lot, but not hers.

OP, cross your T's and dot your I's before buying. Make sure you're buying what you think you're buying.

Problem is, you may not have bought the land, title may have already passed to the squatter. All you bought was a bad title, it is his property now and you are the trespasser/squatter.

With the well being on the property for a long time, controlling law may be the law of 30-40 years ago, not the current property tax limited version.

T.Lex already gave the correct advice.

 

[CHCRandy]

Yup. My mom documented and tended to a small piece of land right next to her house that was, at the time, owned by her slum lord neighbor. After 11 years, it was legally her land. He wasn't very happy when he found that out. Wouldn't have mattered if he'd have sold his lot, she legally owned a small part of that lot, and it was hers to do as she pleased. He could sell his portion of the lot, but not hers.

OP, cross your T's and dot your I's before buying. Make sure you're buying what you think you're buying.

IANAL.....but you are straight up right. I have seen more than one person maintain anothers property then take possession on the 11th year. Just seen it done with an alley. 2 neighbors lived back to back with a non active alley behind them. My buddy maintained the alley for 10 years then took possession. I am sure there has to be some limitations. I don't think they can just maintain and take another mans land....without other mitigating factors.

I would take T.Lex advice if you really want the property.

 

[citizenkane]

Sounds like a giant mess and likely not worth the trouble unless the hassle is priced into the offer.
I really fail to understand what the purpose of these laws were other than legalizing and legitimizing theft. Who thought it would be a good idea to give squatters rights?


Just be glad that you found this out ahead of time.