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.

I am aware of the laws regarding adverse possession and nec vi, nec
vi, nec precario and all that, but this seems to be a bit
surreptitious, kind of conspiring to possess.

Any thoughts?

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:25:02 +0000,
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.

I am aware of the laws regarding adverse possession and nec vi, nec
vi, nec precario and all that, but this seems to be a bit
surreptitious, kind of conspiring to possess.

Any thoughts?

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.

Conspiracy don't enter into it.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought adverse possession only applied after 12
years, and efforts to trace an owner had failed.
Mike.

I am aware of the laws regarding adverse possession and nec vi, nec
vi, nec precario and all that, but this seems to be a bit
surreptitious, kind of conspiring to possess.

Any thoughts?

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

"Mike G" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought adverse possession only applied after 12
years, and efforts to trace an owner had failed.
Mike.

I am aware of the laws regarding adverse possession and nec vi, nec
vi, nec precario and all that, but this seems to be a bit
surreptitious, kind of conspiring to possess.

Any thoughts?

The thought that comes to my mind is that a simple Google search for
'adverse possession' comes up with any number of useful links that explain
the legal position far better than a random selection of posters here.

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.

I am aware of the laws regarding adverse possession and nec vi, nec
vi, nec precario and all that, but this seems to be a bit
surreptitious, kind of conspiring to possess.

Any thoughts?

Lots!

Start here

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/lib...uments/lu5.pdf

Peter Crosland

Norman Wells wrote:

The thought that comes to my mind is that a simple Google search
for 'adverse possession' comes up with any number of useful links
that explain the legal position far better than a random selection
of posters here.

You might specify UK websites when you do that. Adverse possession in
the US has very similar rules, but has some significant differences.

For example in the US the distinction between registered and
unregistered land does not exist - it's all registered (we call it
"recorded").

And as I recall using of property for the prescriptive period in the UK
does not automatically create adverse possession. Some further steps
are necessary, such as contacting the adverse party and giving notice
of your claim. In the US once the prescriptive period passes (assuming
all the other elements are also present) legal ownership transfers
without any additional action. Of course to make it more enforceable a
court order is helpful, but it's technically not necessary.

Stu

On 31 Oct, 11:55, "Norman Wells" wrote:


The thought that comes to my mind is that a simple Google search for
'adverse possession' comes up with any number of useful links that explain
the legal position far better than a random selection of posters here.

Indeed. Whether or not the possession is "adverse" will depend on
factors that we haven't yet been told.

But even if it were, there is a question as to whether the land on
which the shed stands is registered. That seems likely at this point
in time (though it may not be). If it is, the rules are quite
different and you *don't* acquire title automatically by adverse
possession.

Maybe the OP would like to check that.

Francis

On 31 Oct, 13:15, Stuart Bronstein wrote:


For example in the US the distinction between registered and
unregistered land does not exist - it's all registered (we call it
"recorded").

My understanding was that this isn't the case - that there is no
registered land, as we would understand it - in the US and that you
rely on title insurance. Isn't that right? Your system is essentially
a form of deed registration, whereas ours is a full "Torrens title"
system.


And as I recall using of property for the prescriptive period in the UK
does not automatically create adverse possession. Some further steps

It does if its unregistered not if its registered.

are necessary, such as contacting the adverse party and giving notice
of your claim. In the US once the prescriptive period passes (assuming
all the other elements are also present) legal ownership transfers
without any additional action. Of course to make it more enforceable a
court order is helpful, but it's technically not necessary.


Right. Both are possible here as I said in my last post.

Francis