property line dispute

[Ron Scott]

I've encountered a few such cases over the years. Some required removal of the dwelling from the property, some were settled by land exchange or purchase, and in some a lifetime permit was given.

One that we discovered through a survey a couple years ago where a new home was "knowingly" built on the neighboring property where we were planning a timber harvest is still in court. I don't know how it will turn out since it appears to have been more than an innocent trepass case.

We have not moved ahead with any of the timber harvest yet.

[SwampDonkey]

Here's an article on squatter's rights in Canada.

http://www.wwlia.org/ca-re13.htm

[Furby]

You've got me thinking now SD! ;)

[Dan_Shade]

I'll bet you can't squat land away from the government!

[Furby]

DanG it Dan, that was the plan!
But if they can squat your land with a military base, why can't you squat their land ??? ;D

[SwampDonkey]

Over the years I have known personally 3 that I can think of, off the top of my head. Most landowners just let them dwell there because they are down on their luck, poor, ignorant (education and intellect wise), disabled or old and they aren't hurting anything anyway.

[SwampDonkey]

Dan, I think you're right. Seems I read the government convicts and/or evicts squatters. But, the reasons may not be what you think. For instance here in NB the Crown land owned by the province is controlled by license holders for timber, maple sugar bushes, camps and such. Basically the government wants the taxes and the licenses want total control. I mean you can't even cut firewood with a permit where you want, you are told where you can cut and that is part of someone's management plan.

[Sprucegum]

Interesting link SD, I think I'll move my outhouse over to the neighbor's land. I use it regularly  ;)  ;D

[Furby]

So, is all crown land controlled by timber license holders?

[SwampDonkey]

Timber licenses, sugar bush leases and camps. Mostly timber licenses. DNR staff have been twindling  in numbers since the 60's. Basically the timber companies police themselves and DNR spot checks for compliance. Now with certification in effect, there are 3rd party audits as well. Now within that are sublicensees, firewood permits and sugar bush thinnings, but it follows someones Management Plan. In other words, that volume cut is part of an Annual Allowable Cut for a timber license holder.As a NB citizen and woodlot owner, I have no say in how it's managed. According to the Crown Land Lease package you send to apply for a parcel of crown land, "Only timber licenses have the right to cut timber on Crown Land". You have to have a cutting permit to clear a camp site or any site, then all the environmental, insurances and boundary line survey costs on top, then the annual tax. :

[Ron Scott]

No, "squatter's rights" are recognized on U.S. government lands.

Depending upon the circumstance, a permit may be issued for a period of time, but when the time is up, "off you go".

There is a current case her now where the National Park Service issued an elderly lady a 25 year permit on her home site when they condemed the land she was on for the National Park. Her time is now up and she is being moved off her property. The case is getting a lot of media coverage since the woman now more elderly refuses to move.

[Black_Bear]

Cantcutter:

That deal sounds like highway robbery. We cut a lot of beautiful hardwood in that area in the 90s and me and some friends have a camp in Wheelock near the PineBerry farm. We have shot many a deer in the Sheffield/Wheelock area. I'll be in the town clerk's office in a couple of weeks and may have to look that property up. Good for him!

[just_sawing]

My grandfather let the neighboro put a fence over about 30 feet so his cattle could have water and it would not wash. Fast forward Grandfather passes away the kids know the deal but there kids sell there dise telling the new owners the fence is the line. The new neighboros build a pond and barn on out land. The court gives it to them even though the deed says the line is in the center of the creek. they got ten acres by the time the full fence was ran.

[Black_Bear]

Just_Sawing: I would say that the court found for the neighbor on the grounds of "equitable estoppel".

Briefly described it means that your family had a chance to assert their true rights (find the true line), but because they didn't within a certain time period they are bound to the agreement (telling the neighbor the fence is the line) by their subsequent silence, or inaction.

Unwritten agreements can come back to haunt a less than diligent land surveyor, and as you have found out, landowners. That is why we interview all adjoiners and send letters asking them to come forward with any documents or agreements that may not be in the public records. If they lie to us then we are protected professionally because we did our due diligence.

I've dealt with a lot of family lots over the years and most of the family members state that "it doesn't matter, that's my family member and he/she would never do anything to harm me or my rights". I tell them that is fine for now, but I also explain to them that times change and it may not always be a family member who owns the next lot over. Document all agreements; this at least puts the public on notice and the court may not be able to use estoppel as a ruling.

Ed 

[LeeB]

Anybody familiar with Arkansas law on this subject? I may have a fence problem to deal with myself.

[bitternut]

Here is a link that will get you some info for your state. Adverse possession is why I had my land surveyed and keep the property line well marked.

http://www.lawchek.net/resources/forms/que/advposs.htm

[Ron Scott]

That's the best "front end" investment that one can make on their property.