On 31 Oct, 01:45, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Don Aitken wrote:
wrote:

I know someone who has purchased a house. The seller said that
they have been looking after one of the sheds adjoining a communal
yard even though he knows it actually belongs to his neighbour. He
signed an affidavit saying he had looked after the shed for the
past 5 years and then said if the purchaser were to continue using
the shed for the next 7 years then providing he isn't challenged
and is quite open about using it then the shed becomes his by law.

It is correct to the extent that a title in course of acquisition
by adverse possession is a right over property which can be bought
and sold like any other. Strictly speaking, though, it should have
been included in the conveyance, and it could easily be argued
that the failure to do so is inconsistent with a claim to
ownership. "Using" or "looking after" is not enough; the adverse
possessor must treat the property in all respects as his own.

In addition it seems to me that saying "looking after" implies that the
owner knew about and consented to the arrangement. If that were the
case, there would be no adverse possession.

Stu

I used the wrong words in "looking after". The seller had treated the
shed as if it were his own without challenge although he had full
knowledge that in fact it is included in the title deeds of his
neighbour. The new owner is aware of the situation and has taken the
matter a stage further by altering the shed and treating it as if he
owned it too. After 7 years he will add the sworn affidavit of the
previous owners 5 years and then intends to have a possessory title of
the shed. Interestingly, this would then necessitate the current
'rightful' owner - the person with the title on paper now - to have to
amend their deeds.

It all seems a little murky, as I understand the laws regarding
adverse possession are there to tidy up land matters, especially where
ownership is not clear, but in this case the shed is clearly shown on
the neighbour's deeds.

The word 'conspiracy' was a bit strong, but I simply feel that the
people involved are setting out or scheming to gain something rather
than wait the 12 years THEN lay claim.

The point that the shed should have been in the title deeds at time of
sale is interesting, but then this would really be naughty as the
seller knows he simply does not own the shed. He swore an affidavit
instead which can be used when the 7 years is up.

Al