Re:A $330,000 home for $16? Texas adverse possession law
by dctoedt on Saturday July 16, 2011 @05:12PM
(#2771828)
> must possess the property continuously, in actuality, open and notoriously and exclusively.
That's pretty much the law everywhere in the U.S. (save perhaps Louisiana, which has a system rooted in Napoleonic law and not English common law). The mnemonic is ONCHA - open, notorious, continuous, hostile, and adverse.
> can you beat an adverse possession claim simply by giving the squatter permission?
I don't recall any cases off the top of my head. I doubt that an owner could unilaterally transform hostile possession into non-hostile possession; it'd be too tempting for the owner to try to fabricate backdated evidence of consent.
(Your question brought to mind a line from Henry Fielding, which my torts professor used to illustrate how consent is sometimes a defense: He in a few minutes ravished this fair creature, or at least would have ravished her, if she had not, by a timely compliance, prevented him. [3])
That's pretty much the law everywhere in the U.S. (save perhaps Louisiana, which has a system rooted in Napoleonic law and not English common law). The mnemonic is ONCHA - open, notorious, continuous, hostile, and adverse.
> can you beat an adverse possession claim simply by giving the squatter permission?
I don't recall any cases off the top of my head. I doubt that an owner could unilaterally transform hostile possession into non-hostile possession; it'd be too tempting for the owner to try to fabricate backdated evidence of consent.
(Your question brought to mind a line from Henry Fielding, which my torts professor used to illustrate how consent is sometimes a defense: He in a few minutes ravished this fair creature, or at least would have ravished her, if she had not, by a timely compliance, prevented him. [3])
[3] http://quotationsbook.com/quote/35415/