[All states] Legal theory question:
EXAMPLE CASE #1:
* At 12 noon, John parks his car in a 2-hour parking zone.
* At 1PM John sells his car to Mary. Mary left the car in the same parking space and did not move it.
* At 2:30PM, the car got a parking ticket.
* QUESTION: Should the car be excused from the parking ticket since John sold the car to Mary half way through the 2-hour period, and Mary didn't get the benefit of a full 2 hours?
ACTUAL CASE #2:
* In the year 2000, John bought a house in a state with a 15-year abandonment statute (adverse possession, aka “squatter’s rights law”). John never visited the house, came to claim the house nor occupied the house.
* In 2009, John sells the house to Mary. Mary also never came to claim the house nor occupied the house.
* In 2016, John nor Mary has yet to come forward to claim the house – so Tom who was occupying the house for the full 16 years asserts his claim of ownership [takes his case to court to get ownership of the house] by virtue of the adverse possession law.
* QUESTION: Although the house was never claimed nor occupied by John or Mary for more than a total of 15 years, should the statute be ignored by the court since John sold the house 10 years into his ownership, and the clock be reset for Mary so that she can have an additional 10 years to come and claim the house?
* NOTE: While this specific scenario does not have precedent, there ‘is’ precedent and established case law which has ruled that if a property has been vacant of any owner for a full 15 years, that even ‘if’ a squatter, in this case Tom, moves out after 10 years and Tom’s brother for example, moves in (and all of the other requirements of adverse possession are met), then the action of Tom moving out does 'not' reset the clock, and at year 15 Tom’s brother would be allowed to bring a claim of ownership for the property. This is known as ‘tacking of time periods’.
So, since tacking of time periods is the allowed standard as it pertains to the squatter, should tacking of time periods be allowed as it pertains to the owner(s) - in this case tacking the time period that Mary owned the house on to the time period that John owned the house (since neither ever came forward to claim the house)?
* Addtional note: The value of the house is $5K or less, and there is now $3K in back taxes due.
RATIONALE: The adverse possession law is a law of public policy. One of its intentions is to protect the broader public by preventing blighted properties from remaining abandoned and bringing down property values. To allow individual owners to circumvent or sidestep the law by merely selling/transferring the property midway through the 15-year period would be a loophole which would allow abandoned/blighted properties to continue to bring down property values of the rest of the public in that neighborhood, which is of course not fair to those owners. The law is not a reward of a house for anyone who can manage to squat a house for 15 years, but instead is mechanism to protect to broader public interests by limiting how much time an owner can leave a property abandoned.
Any thoughts as to which side of this opinion you consider to be more correct is appreciated:
Should Tom be allowed to bring his claim of ownership since the property has been abandoned for more than 15 years?
Thanks very much for any input.
EXAMPLE CASE #1:
* At 12 noon, John parks his car in a 2-hour parking zone.
* At 1PM John sells his car to Mary. Mary left the car in the same parking space and did not move it.
* At 2:30PM, the car got a parking ticket.
* QUESTION: Should the car be excused from the parking ticket since John sold the car to Mary half way through the 2-hour period, and Mary didn't get the benefit of a full 2 hours?
ACTUAL CASE #2:
* In the year 2000, John bought a house in a state with a 15-year abandonment statute (adverse possession, aka “squatter’s rights law”). John never visited the house, came to claim the house nor occupied the house.
* In 2009, John sells the house to Mary. Mary also never came to claim the house nor occupied the house.
* In 2016, John nor Mary has yet to come forward to claim the house – so Tom who was occupying the house for the full 16 years asserts his claim of ownership [takes his case to court to get ownership of the house] by virtue of the adverse possession law.
* QUESTION: Although the house was never claimed nor occupied by John or Mary for more than a total of 15 years, should the statute be ignored by the court since John sold the house 10 years into his ownership, and the clock be reset for Mary so that she can have an additional 10 years to come and claim the house?
* NOTE: While this specific scenario does not have precedent, there ‘is’ precedent and established case law which has ruled that if a property has been vacant of any owner for a full 15 years, that even ‘if’ a squatter, in this case Tom, moves out after 10 years and Tom’s brother for example, moves in (and all of the other requirements of adverse possession are met), then the action of Tom moving out does 'not' reset the clock, and at year 15 Tom’s brother would be allowed to bring a claim of ownership for the property. This is known as ‘tacking of time periods’.
So, since tacking of time periods is the allowed standard as it pertains to the squatter, should tacking of time periods be allowed as it pertains to the owner(s) - in this case tacking the time period that Mary owned the house on to the time period that John owned the house (since neither ever came forward to claim the house)?
* Addtional note: The value of the house is $5K or less, and there is now $3K in back taxes due.
RATIONALE: The adverse possession law is a law of public policy. One of its intentions is to protect the broader public by preventing blighted properties from remaining abandoned and bringing down property values. To allow individual owners to circumvent or sidestep the law by merely selling/transferring the property midway through the 15-year period would be a loophole which would allow abandoned/blighted properties to continue to bring down property values of the rest of the public in that neighborhood, which is of course not fair to those owners. The law is not a reward of a house for anyone who can manage to squat a house for 15 years, but instead is mechanism to protect to broader public interests by limiting how much time an owner can leave a property abandoned.
Any thoughts as to which side of this opinion you consider to be more correct is appreciated:
Should Tom be allowed to bring his claim of ownership since the property has been abandoned for more than 15 years?
Thanks very much for any input.
Adverse Possession: Legal Theory Question - Abandonded Property
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire