Nobody's celebrating anything VG. I have 3 opinions on it tho.
On #1 &2. There is apparently a chance the original owner gave the person permission. So maybe the piece of shit is the kids who inherited and refused to honor his father’s decision
I've already said in two posts I am not arguing if the law exists. I think it shouldn't exist.
Not arguing and do not need an education on the law. I get it and fully understand it. Nothing changes those 3 opinions I have.
Depending on your particular state there are things they can reasonably do. Routine posting can work. Paying a person once every 20 (or whatever) years to check for squatters and inform them of that status, check to see if others have created a tax parcel that overlaps (this is online in most states). Etc.
Pretty hard to argue the definition of productive use of land when the federal government dishes out millions of dollars to landowners in the CRP program to literally *not* do anything to their land.
Google strawman
I say the law shouldn't exist.
They are different laws by different governments for different policy purposes, so using one to attack the other is by definition a strawman fallacy.
And a person you have never met, whose circumstances you don’t know, and who properly prevailed under routine law is not magically a piece of shit because you have a questionable opinion of property law. We can all see that too.
Would you go build or squat on land that is not yours? Furthermore if you did would you be proud of yourself if you were awarded the land because of this law?
I would do by the book. And maybe she did have permission, we don’t know. But going from, I don’t know or I wouldn’t do it, is a long way from shitbag. Maybe best we not so routinely dehumanize others. Especially those we don’t know.
Permission is not the same as taking the land from someone. Whether she had Permission or not. Accepting the land from the courts makes you a not so good human in my opinion. We disagree on that and that is 100% fine.
In Utah, all you have to do to overcome adverse possession is to give permission. If the possession is not hostile, it can't be adverse. Property rights attorneys teach that all the time, just text or email the user saying it's okay if they use your land so you have record of it. It is also wise to mention that you'll let them know if they need to cease.
If you are still referring to the OP, what makes you think it was squatter's rights? Because the Fox News headline says so? Did you even read the article you posted?
In MN there can be no adverse possession claim against state land or adverse possession of federal land via MN law. But there is a federal adverse possession provision (43 U.S. Code § 1068) that does allow for a similar outcome under certain circumstances. In general adverse possession requires continuous and adverse "possession and control" by the claimant, so just throwing up a chicken coop wouldn't get it done. Fencing it, posting it, and yelling at "trespassers" consistently for 20 years would do it. And 19.9 years in, it all evaporates if the govt points out that you are on govt land. Adverse possession isn't that easy to maintain.
