No Trespassing Signs

[dpg]

I've always heard (and been of the impression) if their not signed and dated they do not have to be honored. Fact / Fiction?? Edit...Probably doesn't matter but I'm not talking about somebodies yard and home I'm more interested in huge tracks of land for say hunting.

[winnipiseogee]

I've always heard (and been of the impression) if their not signed and dated they do not have to be honored. Fact / Fiction?? Edit...Probably doesn't matter but I'm not talking about somebodies yard and home I'm more interested in huge tracks of land for say hunting.

Not sure about signed and dated but it wouldn't surprise me at all. When I looked at doing it on one of my properties the rules were crazy. They had to have a very specific spacing and location or it wasn't valid. So... If one fell down people were welcome to trespass. At that point I decided it just wasn't worth it.

[Irrigation Guy]

Specific distance apart, owner name and telephone number.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

[Rusty]

I've always heard (and been of the impression) if their not signed and dated they do not have to be honored. Fact / Fiction?? Edit...Probably doesn't matter but I'm not talking about somebodies yard and home I'm more interested in huge tracks of land for say hunting.

When I see "No Trespassing Signs", to me that means the owner of that land doesn't want me on his land. Therefore I honor his request whether he has posted it per the NH RSA or just has a simple sign.

He owns the land, he dictates who he wants on it...IMHO that is.

[jrc]

State law

635:4 Prescribed Manner of Posting. – A person may post his land to prohibit criminal trespass and physical activities by posting signs of durable material with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing'', printed with block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and with the name and address of the owner or lessee of such land. Such signs shall be posted not more than 100 yards apart on all sides and shall also be posted at gates, bars and commonly used entrances. This section shall not prevent any owner from adding to the language required by this section.


Don't forget you can still be trespassing, even if the signs are not posted as described. The signs only make it a "secured premises" and up it to a misdemeanor.

635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,500 to the value of the property of another.
III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, "secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders

[birchhaven]

if you trespass long enough it is your land according to what might be the most ridiculous law I have ever heard of, adverse possession.

[P-3 Guy]

if you trespass long enough it is your land according to what might be the most ridiculous law I have ever heard of, adverse possession.

Not quite. A lot more has to be done in order to satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession.

[tis]

Not quite. A lot more has to be done in order to satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession.


THat is what my attorney has told me, but could you explain it for us?

[Bear Island South]

if you trespass long enough it is your land according to what might be the most ridiculous law I have ever heard of, adverse possession.

Adverse possession is more than just trespassing, its a process that has requirements to possess the land. A trespasser must openly occupy the property exclusively and use it as if it were his own.

If you trespass for 20 years openly and the owner of the property fails to recognize what is happening then they deserve to lose the land being possessed. It happens more than you would think.

Basic requirements for adverse possession
Adverse possession requires at a minimum five basic conditions:
• Open and notorious use of the property – The disseisor's use of the property is so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim. It must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person.
• Continuous use of the property – The disseisor must, for statute of limitations purposes, hold that property continuously for the entire limitations period, and use it as a true owner would for that time.
• Exclusive use of the property – The disseisor holds the land to the exclusion of the true owner. If, for example, the disseisor builds a barn on the owner's property, and the owner then uses the barn, the disseisor cannot claim exclusive use.
• Actual possession of the property – The disseisor must physically use the land as a property owner would, in accordance with the type of property, location, and uses. Merely walking or hunting on land does not establish actual possession.
• Non-permissive, hostile or adverse use of the property – The disseisor entered or used the land without permission. Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not hostile.

[P-3 Guy]

THat is what my attorney has told me, but could you explain it for us?

Generally:

-The use of the land by the adverse possessor must be open and notorious; that is, it must be done so that the legal owner is reasonably aware of what is going on.

-The adverse possessor must make continuous use of the property for the required length of time, which in New Hampshire is 20 years.

-The adverse possessor must make exclusive use of the property, which means that if the legal owner of the land uses the property in a manner befitting the legal owner, there can be no adverse possession.

-The adverse possessor must have actual possession of the property by performing some type of productive activity on it, other than simply walking or hunting.

-The adverse possessor must use the land without the permission of the legal owner.

Take a look at the wikipedia entry on the subject, from which I shamelessly plagiarized.

Edited to add: I see that Bear Island South can google wikipedia even quicker than I can (although I didn't cut and paste).

[VitaBene]

Basically, your neighbor can use, maintain and cut grass on a piece or all of your property for 50 years and as long as you cut it every 19 years or so (or use it in some way), they cannot come close to adverse possession.

[8gv]

It's theft. Plain and simple. So I pay to buy the land and pay the yearly taxes but John Doe can squat on it and take it away? THEFT!

Why in hell would the rights of squatters supersede those of the holder of a legal deed?

What if I decided to set up on some state or federal land? Do you suppose I could claim adverse possession?:(

[MAXUM]

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

[P-3 Guy]

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

Would you let a squatter occupy and improve your land for 20 years without either

a) giving him permission to do so, or

b) having him evicted?

I didn't think so.

The law of adverse possession should only come into play in very, very limited circumstances.

For those who care to spend a minute doing internet research, the rationale behind the law of adverse possession can be easily found and understood.

[Bear Island South]

Why in hell would the rights of squatters supersede those of the holder of a legal deed?

What if I decided to set up on some state or federal land? Do you suppose I could claim adverse possession?:(

I agree with you, it is not right but the courts have decided differently, you give up your rights if you let someone take over and occupy your property.

Also, the law is very clear that one can not adversely possess land that is owned by the government, states or municipalities.

[Bear Island South]

I can't believe that is legal. I agree with 8gv, that's just plain theft.

In Massachusetts you can have your land decreed by the Land Court, once your land is recognized by the court there can be no adverse claims against it.
I believe there are only 2 states that have the Land Court process.

[Slickcraft]

This is a archaic common law going back to Henry I days.

In actuality I have never heard of a case being successfully won in recent history here in NH.

However it is a big deal on the test to get a real estate license.:D

I would not get too worked up about this.

[RLW]

This is a little off topic of hanging signs on ones property, but back in the 60s I use to have a garden on my next door farmers land (with his permission) and at that time in MA one only had to be using said land for 7 consecutive years . I would have to go without planting for the year 6 into the 7th so I wouldn't be using his land for the 7 years in a roll as that was the rule. If you used it at least 7 years in a row and you have proof that you did, you could take that property without anyone saying a word. Now what type of a person would do that to and individual that had let you use it for nothing over the years???:)

[wifi]

Yes, that's called squatters rights. My family (generations ago) lost the family farm due to this... ugggghhhh Loooonnngggg lawsuit and we lost.

Guess it pays to know how to get around common sense, eh.... eeerrrr...

[P-3 Guy]

This is a little off topic of hanging signs on ones property, but back in the 60s I use to have a garden on my next door farmers land (with his permission) and at that time in MA one only had to be using said land for 7 consecutive years . I would have to go without planting for the year 6 into the 7th so I wouldn't be using his land for the 7 years in a roll as that was the rule. If you used it at least 7 years in a row and you have proof that you did, you could take that property without anyone saying a word. Now what type of a person would do that to and individual that had let you use it for nothing over the years???:)

It sounds like someone was a bit confused about the requirements for stating a claim for adverse possession. If you were using your neighbors land with his permission, no matter for how many years, there could not have been a legitimate claim of adverse possession. And, a claim for adverse possession does not become final "without anyone saying a word." A quiet title action must be taken in which a court decides who has legal title to the property.

[8gv]

Would you let a squatter occupy and improve your land for 20 years without either

a) giving him permission to do so, or

b) having him evicted?

I didn't think so.

The law of adverse possession should only come into play in very, very limited circumstances.

For those who care to spend a minute doing internet research, the rationale behind the law of adverse possession can be easily found and understood.

So if I live in CA and own a wood lot in NH and pay my taxes, why am I burdened to visit the wood lot to chase off the squatters?

[P-3 Guy]

So if I live in CA and own a wood lot in NH and pay my taxes, why am I burdened to visit the wood lot to chase off the squatters?

If you don't have any reasonable notice that there are squatters on your land, then there is no adverse possession. If you have such reasonable notice, then contact the local PD or Sheriff's office and ask that they evict the squatters. Easy.

[ApS]

This is a archaic common law going back to Henry I days.

In actuality I have never heard of a case being successfully won in recent history here in NH.

However it is a big deal on the test to get a real estate license.:D

I would not get too worked up about this.
Under Adverse Possession rules in New Hampshire, a neighbor may have lost a property corner after 20 years, this article by a Nashua law firm may have different ideas:

"...As the record owner, one action you may consider taking is to while you are trying to resolve the boundary issues with your neighbor, provide written notice to the neighbor you are temporarily giving the neighbor permission to use the disputed property, thereby cutting off any continuing time period going towards 20 years of 'adverse' possession..."
http://www.nashualaw.com/resources/Legal-Articles/legal-article-archive/Real-Estate/Record_Title_Does_Not_Always_Establish_Ownership_o f_Real_Estate_in_New_Hampshire.aspx

[MAXUM]

I'm just shaking my head at this whole thing, unbelievable!

So let me pose two examples. Hypothetical of course for the sake of discussion.

First example, I own a piece of property with a house on it. I have a friend or family member that I allow to stay there for whatever reason, maybe they are bums and can't afford to live anywhere else, in other words being a nice guy. I don't charge them rent or make any kind of "formal" lease agreement, just allow them to stay there, as a result they make it their home. 20 years passes, are you meaning to tell me they can then take me to court and attempt this process and claim ownership of the property? Seems to me under law this would be possible.

In a second example, let's say I have a neighbor that is encroaching on my property boundary, and for the sake of argument, I have a large parcel of property and it's not cramping my style so I just decide to be a nice guy and let it slide. 20 years goes by does that give my neighbor the ability to take a piece of my property? Again seems plausible.

In both cases it seems to me that if I am keeping the property taxes current, that in and of itself should prove ample evidence that I have sufficient interest in the property shouldn't it?

[birchhaven]

Wow I am sorry to the origanal poster, I stirred up a hornets nest.

Yes this law is ridiculousness, I have never actually met anyone in person that thinks it is a good law. So I am surprised that a few people on here think it is okay, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. God bless the internet.

What has been pointed out here for ways of breaking the 20 year stretch or other ways of not letting happen are all well and good except for one major flaw. You have to prove it in court. So for starts having to fight to keep your land in court is ridiculous even if you win. Also, If you find yourself heading to court with your neighbor over this chances are they are not a morally sounds person (IMHO) and will lie and it will be your word against theirs and chances are unbeknownst to you they probably have been building a case against you for years.

Having to even go to court over this is crazy, this as American right.

[P-3 Guy]

First example, I own a piece of property with a house on it. I have a friend or family member that I allow to stay there for whatever reason, maybe they are bums and can't afford to live anywhere else, in other words being a nice guy. I don't charge them rent or make any kind of "formal" lease agreement, just allow them to stay there, as a result they make it their home. 20 years passes, are you meaning to tell me they can then take me to court and attempt this process and claim ownership of the property? Seems to me under law this would be possible.

In this example you have given your explicit permission for use of your property, so adverse possession does not apply.

In a second example, let's say I have a neighbor that is encroaching on my property boundary, and for the sake of argument, I have a large parcel of property and it's not cramping my style so I just decide to be a nice guy and let it slide. 20 years goes by does that give my neighbor the ability to take a piece of my property? Again seems plausible.

Your neighbor might have a case here for adverse possession, depending on other factors that you don't address in your example. What kind of encroachment? Are you using the same piece of land at the same time? There are very easy ways to proactively defeat a prospective claim of adverse possession. In your second example, simply send your neighbor a letter acknowledging his use of your property, and give him permission to do so until further notice.

[P-3 Guy]

Wow I am sorry to the origanal poster, I stirred up a hornets nest.

Yes this law is ridiculousness, I have never actually met anyone in person that thinks it is a good law. So I am surprised that a few people on here think it is okay, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. God bless the internet.

What has been pointed out here for ways of breaking the 20 year stretch or other ways of not letting happen are all well and good except for one major flaw. You have to prove it in court. So for starts having to fight to keep your land in court is ridiculous even if you win. Also, If you find yourself heading to court with your neighbor over this chances are they are not a morally sounds person (IMHO) and will lie and it will be your word against theirs and chances are unbeknownst to you they probably have been building a case against you for years.

Having to even go to court over this is crazy, this as American right.

Who here has said that the law of adverse possession is OK? If you are talking about me, what I have tried to do is to explain the common law. I have pointed out that a quick internet search will provide answers on why the law was originally conceived. Too many people read stuff on the internet, fail to check the facts for themselves, and get their knickers all in a wad. As others have pointed out, adverse possession is a very rarely used part of the common law, and modern courts are extremely likely to cast dubious eyes on any party that brings such a claim.

The landowner doesn't have to prove anything; the burden of proof is on the party trying to claim title under adverse possession. Yes, having to defend a claim of adverse possession would suck, but people get sued all the time, and unfortunately sometimes it's over trivial or baseless claims. If it happens to you (highly unlikely), when you win, ask the court to impose sanctions on the other party and to reimburse you for your costs.

[Bear Islander]

I know of a case that proves adverse possession can be a good thing. Friends of mine own a house on a peninsular going out into a small pond. They have a long twisting driveway along the water going from the road to their home. After living there for almost 30 years their neighbor suddenly informs them that a recent survey shows that a short stretch of the driveway is on the neighbors land.

The neighbors tell them they will block the driveway in 30 days and by the way, would you like to sell us your home?

Naturally my friends were VERY upset and sought counsel. What the neighbor was doing was tantamount to extortion but hey, it was their land. And what good is a home when you can't use your driveway.

After my friends filed a quiet tittle lawsuit claiming adverse possession, the neighbors agreed to sell my friends an easement for a reasonable price.

Sometimes a law like this allows the legal system to do what is really the right thing.

[BroadHopper]

Basically anyone can trespass on your property and to a point even when trespassing signs are posted. I should know as the family owns thousands of acres in various parcels throughout the state. Taking someone to court for trespassing is just as hard as taking someone to small claims court.

If you can prove the trespasser has done harm to the property then you have a great case to bring to court. If someone in a 4x4 left a track in the woods, someone litter the property, or camped out and left a mess, it is malacious use of the property. The court has a hard line on trespasser's responsibility. So if I should trespass on property not my own, I would treat the property with utmost respect.

[jrc]

I'd have to agree with Broadhopper on the practicality of enforcing trespassing laws. I've had several signs torn up, and all of them ignored at one point or another. The police are not going to walk around the woods looking for someone crossing property lines.

Remember, as I read it, crossing onto private property is not a crime, to make it a crime you have to know you are not supposed to be there.

[Belmont Resident]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who ignores trespassing signs weather they include the owners name or any additional info or not is a fool.
If I have signs up it means I do not want you there. Just because the letter of the law requires a name & number doesn't negate the fact that you are not welcome on that piece of land.
Someone taking it upon themselves to cross a posted sign is exactly why more and more landowners are shutting their land down for recreational access.
I would never go on a posted piece of property weather it had all the info on the sign or not. If I really wanted to contact the landowner it is very easy to find out who they are.

[tis]

I know of a case that proves adverse possession can be a good thing. Friends of mine own a house on a peninsular going out into a small pond. They have a long twisting driveway along the water going from the road to their home. After living there for almost 30 years their neighbor suddenly informs them that a recent survey shows that a short stretch of the driveway is on the neighbors land.

The neighbors tell them they will block the driveway in 30 days and by the way, would you like to sell us your home?

Naturally my friends were VERY upset and sought counsel. What the neighbor was doing was tantamount to extortion but hey, it was their land. And what good is a home when you can't use your driveway.

After my friends filed a quiet tittle lawsuit claiming adverse possession, the neighbors agreed to sell my friends an easement for a reasonable price.

Sometimes a law like this allows the legal system to do what is really the right thing.

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

[Rusty]

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

If it isn't in your deed that someone can use your property to get to their property then they aren't allowed to use it. However... if they have been using your property to access their land for a certain period of time then rights to a property can sometimes be established by regular use of the property.

I don't know about: "You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH". Do you have the law that states that?

[P-3 Guy]

I don't think the neighbors could have blocked them anyway. You cannot landlock a piece of land in NH. Two neighbors have a right of way through our property and even though we would never want to, I don't think we can block them out.

Do your neighbors have recorded easements? That may be a key difference between your situation and the case that Bear Islander mentioned.

[Belmont Resident]

I'd have to agree with Broadhopper on the practicality of enforcing trespassing laws. I've had several signs torn up, and all of them ignored at one point or another. The police are not going to walk around the woods looking for someone crossing property lines.

Remember, as I read it, crossing onto private property is not a crime, to make it a crime you have to know you are not supposed to be there.

OK but wouldn't the presence of 'NO TRESPASSING" signs cover the your not suppose to be there part?

Broadhopper if the 4X4 went through your lands and it contained wetlands that they went through it would be prosecutable by the F&G. Going through wetlands in any type of OHRV or 4X4 I believe is a crime.
When I've call the F&G about the 4x4 trucks and jeeps trashing the snowmobile trails here in Belmont they always told me if they can catch them playing in wetlands is when they really have a case.

[tis]

Do your neighbors have recorded easements? That may be a key difference between your situation and the case that Bear Islander mentioned.


I think they are deeded easements. But I still heard somewhere that you cannot landlock a piece of property in NH that has always been used. I do not know for sure if that is right.

[BroadHopper]

I do know there are tons of restriction regarding wetlands. Most of the family properties are 'sand pits'. The only way we can even touch wet lands is with permission from the DES and Army Corps of Engineers. The main thing is to 'catch the trespassers in the act'. Evidence such as a photo of the culprits on the premises is often times all you need.

If I am walking through someone's property, I usually avoid wetlands unless there is an obvious path through the area. Four wheeling or dirt biking through wetlands is a no no. Even if your neighbor is four wheeling through wet lands he owns, you can report it. The state will come out and investigate.

[Rusty]

I think they are deeded easements. But I still heard somewhere that you cannot landlock a piece of property in NH that has always been used. I do not know for sure if that is right.

It really doesn't matter because Town Zoning Boards won't allow anyone to build on a lot that has no frontage on any class of highway and no frontage on any roadway approved by the planning board or other board prior to platting jurisdiction. Many land locked property owners have gone to the ZBA and have not received a variance in the matter. You can have a deeded easement but you still can't build without the Towns ZBA approval (which you won't get).

[tis]

It really doesn't matter because Town Zoning Boards won't allow anyone to build on a lot that has no frontage on any class of highway and no frontage on any roadway approved by the planning board or other board prior to platting jurisdiction. Many land locked property owners have gone to the ZBA and have not received a variance in the matter. You can have a deeded easement but you still can't build without the Towns ZBA approval (which you won't get).

You are right, I assume you are thinking about the recent case in Wolfeboro. (Eastman) But didn't they end up getting their variance?

[Rusty]

You are right, I assume you are thinking about the recent case in Wolfeboro. (Eastman) But didn't they end up getting their variance?

The "Eastman" case went to the Superior Court and I believe they got their approval with conditions.
The Eastman's met certain thresholds to satisfy the RSA pertaining to the case. I don't even know where to start with explaining how this case was resolved.

[Kamper]

The property owner does not have to be aware there is a squatter. The squatter has to make their occupancy, or usage, obvious to the world. getting mail and utility service, paying taxes, and making improvements meet that requirement. There are probably other details that would do it also.

I myself think these laws are obosolete and should be repealed. The rational was to prevent land from going fallow and falling off the tax rolls.

[P-3 Guy]

The property owner does not have to be aware there is a squatter.

Generally, that is not correct. Under most interpretations of the law of adverse possession, the legal owner of the property must have reasonable notice that his property is being used by another in order for a claim to stand.

[BroadHopper]

Generally, that is not correct. Under most interpretations of the law of adverse possession, the legal owner of the property must have reasonable notice that his property is being used by another in order for a claim to stand.

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

[P-3 Guy]

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

[dpg]

Yike sorry folks for asking my original question!!!:eek: Now this thread has me thinking because I own a small lot in Suissevale that I don't do a thing with. Haven't even walked the lot for maybe 10 years. Maybe I should to be sure nobody has cleaned it out or anything. :D

[Bear Island South]

Yike sorry folks for asking my original question!!!:eek: Now this thread has me thinking because I own a small lot in Suissevale that I don't do a thing with. Haven't even walked the lot for maybe 10 years. Maybe I should to be sure nobody has cleaned it out or anything. :D

I recommend for anyone who owns land large or small, walk your property lines at least once a year. If you don't know where your lines are you should probably think about getting it surveyed.

[Rusty]

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

There is a movement that is taking place where squatters are taking over foreclosed homes. It's hard to say what will eventually happen with this movement because the banks can't sell them and they don't want to spend any money fighting the squatters.

It is on the news today:

><embed name="msnbc1c3406" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50160132&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">

[BroadHopper]

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

or adverse possessions and you should get tons of articles like this one.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/02/local/la-me-loft-squatter-20121202

You will notice that most have court battles with squatters thinking the owner is broke and hopefully drop the case because of lawyer fees.

[Rusty]

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

I don't think anyone is saying the courts have allowed this to happen, it's just that the banks have given up trying to sell them (in a lot of cases) and don't want to fight the squatters in a court of law because of the cost and time involved.

[BroadHopper]

There are many empty homes because of the economy. Some were foreclosed and no buyers. There is even a development of new homes that was abandoned on the west coast. Many banks and owners welcome squatters because if the homes are not air conditioned mold and mildew will destroy the value. I was told of this by a broker in the Tampa area.

[P-3 Guy]

or adverse possessions and you should get tons of articles like this one.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/02/local/la-me-loft-squatter-20121202

You will notice that most have court battles with squatters thinking the owner is broke and hopefully drop the case because of lawyer fees.

That's an interesting story, but no person (except a scammer pretending he was an agent for the legal owner), and certainly no court, "allowed" Mr. Glover to occupy Mr. Cote's loft.

If you find a situation where a court, after a contested hearing, adjudicated a quiet title action in favor of the adverse possessor, let me know.

[P-3 Guy]

I don't think anyone is saying the courts have allowed this to happen, it's just that the banks have given up trying to sell them (in a lot of cases) and don't want to fight the squatters in a court of law because of the cost and time involved.

Broadhopper asked, "how come squatters were allowed to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

I'm guessing he doesn't mean that the homeowners returning from business trips or vacations allowed the squatters to stay, so the obvious inference is that a court allowed this. Broadhopper, if I've got that wrong, please correct me. Anyway, if a legal owner does give permission for a squatter to stay, one of the necessary elements for adverse possession is missing.

[BroadHopper]

You think once a homeowner finds someone squatting on his or her property, you should be able to call police to have them remove. In the cases I read, this does not happen and the squatters remain on the property until the court makes a decision. At times it takes months. It is not fair for the homeowner to incur legal expenses and rent another property until the squatters are evicted. Too many people are taking advantage of this.

[P-3 Guy]

You think once a homeowner finds someone squatting on his or her property, you should be able to call police to have them remove. In the cases I read, this does not happen and the squatters remain on the property until the court makes a decision. At times it takes months. It is not fair for the homeowner to incur legal expenses and rent another property until the squatters are evicted. Too many people are taking advantage of this.

That's technically what happened to Mr. Cote in the L.A. Times article that you linked to, but he wasn't living in the property that was taken over by the squatting Mr. Glovger; for all intenets and purposes Mr. Cote had given up the property to the lender in anticipation of a foreclosure action, which for whatever reason was not initiated. In a situation like this, it's understandable why the police would be reluctant to take action and instead defer to the legal process.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find any examples where a homeowner returns home after a brief absence (for instance, after a vacation or business trip), finds a squatter in residence, and the police fail to take immediate action (if necessary).

[BroadHopper]

House for sale and the police did not kick squatters out.

http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywestneat/2012101648_danny13.html

In this case a home owner cannot remove a squatter by force. The owner left the house because of a defective boiler. She was force to live with the squatter?????

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/woman-forced-live-squatter-detroit-home-170128148.html

I'm just saying cases are not hard to find. There was a 20/20 article about Mexican illegals squatting in the Southwest and because of legal complications they are not evicted very easily. If need be I can dig them up.

This is all the more reason why I strongly urge to hire a caretaker to check on your seasonal property often. It is common on the Lake to find someone living in a cabin during the winter months and move out before the home owner arrives in the spring.

[P-3 Guy]

House for sale and the police did not kick squatters out.

http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywestneat/2012101648_danny13.html

In this case a home owner cannot remove a squatter by force. The owner left the house because of a defective boiler. She was force to live with the squatter?????

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/woman-forced-live-squatter-detroit-home-170128148.html

I'm just saying cases are not hard to find. There was a 20/20 article about Mexican illegals squatting in the Southwest and because of legal complications they are not evicted very easily. If need be I can dig them up.

Right. In both of these cases, the residence had been vacant for an extended period of time.

"The 8,000-square-foot mansion was dark and in foreclosure for years."

"Heidi Peterson could not believe what was in her Detroit home when she returned after being away for a year."

In the second case, the squatter had been a former tenant who still had personal belongings at the property.

This is not the same as squatters being "allowed" to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business (or) vacation."

The point that I'm trying to make is that people hear these "stories" about squatting (which really isn't adverse possession), many of which are lacking important details, and they get spooled up. Yes, there's a legal process to evict squatters. Yes, it often takes time. But nobody should be concerned about going on a business trip or vacation for a week and then coming home to find squatters in their house, with the local police shrugging their shoulders and saying, "sorry, you need to file a lawsuit to get your house back."

This is all the more reason why I strongly urge to hire a caretaker to check on your seasonal property often. It is common on the Lake to find someone living in a cabin during the winter months and move out before the home owner arrives in the spring.

What do you mean by "common"? Once or twice a season? More often than that? Really?

[BroadHopper]

Actually it had happen at my family cottage and to a neighbor. There was even a case in Tuftonboro last winter, the squatters not only stayed at the summer residence for months, they stole electronics and furniture when they left! The police told the owner that there should be a 'Neighborhood Watch'. How can you have a neighborhood watch when the neighbors are gone for the winter????????

Ever since, he set up a security alarm and he is paying me to keep an eye out on the property. The police does not want the responsibilty to check on seasonal homes. the owner says, 'What the heck do you do in the winter?'.

You don't see these things in police blogs, but if you ask an officer, he will say it is common.

[Bear Island South]

Here's a different approach to property owners and property disputes.
Check out the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/sarah-childs-allowed-to-flip-middle-finger_n_2341194.html

[Rusty]

Here's a different approach to property owners and property disputes.
Check out the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/sarah-childs-allowed-to-flip-middle-finger_n_2341194.html

Very Childish. :D

[DEJ]

Rusty, the message/word you were trying to post is childish. We know what you meant though. :D