> Do it for a week and you are criminal; do it for twenty years and you are a homeowner?
I feel like adverse possession was meant to solve a real world issue, not some strange takeover of property. For example, let's say that we're neighbors. We both own our homes. There's been a fence between our properties for 150 years. Generations of owners have used the property with the fence demarcating the boundary. They've had cookouts, put up swing sets, mowed the lawn, whatever. Then you come along and are like, "I think my property actually extends 20 feet past the fence. You need to move your fence."
Maybe you're "technically right" if you get a surveyor to come by based on the original plans. The point of adverse possession in this case is that generations of owners have seen that fence as the boundary. People have bought and sold the properties with the fence as the boundary. It makes more sense for society for the fence to remain the boundary. All of society has acknowledged that fence as the boundary for 150 years. You didn't buy your property thinking that the fence wasn't the boundary.
The "without permission" bit isn't about doing something with evil intent necessarily. It's there to differentiate between a case where an owner knowingly gives you permission to use their property. If I come to you and say "hey, can I put a fence here? I know it's your property, but it makes more sense to put the fence here" and you agree to that, there's no ambiguity about the ownership. If I decide to put up a fence between our properties, but the fence is in reality on your property, you have a limited amount of time to challenge that. Why? Because at some point we have to deal with the reality on the ground. Maybe I made a mistake and the fence is 5 feet onto your property, but a hundred years later it makes more sense to go with the reality on the ground.
If I built a home on what I thought was my property and then some surveyor comes by 50 years later and is like "huh, the house is actually 2 feet over the line onto this other property," a wise and just ruler wouldn't say, "then the house will be torn down!" A wise and just ruler would think "if the owner of the other property thought that they owned the land the house occupied in a conspicuous and open manner, they would have said something earlier."
> My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws?
I think the answer is that you can't. Adverse possession wasn't meant to be a free way to get property. It was meant to resolve property disputes that would be way more disruptive than just letting the status quo continue existing. It's meant to avoid "well technically..." crap. Everyone in the town knows that's your property. The abutting owner saw or should have seen your use of it over a long period of time. They probably thought it was your property too. Turns out that technically the site plan was a bit different than everyone in the town knew. It makes more sense to go off what everyone thinks is true than to try and re-state reality, bulldoze houses, etc.
At some point, the reality in the world should take precedence over some piece of paper from along time ago. In a comical fashion, yes, do it for a week and you're a criminal; do it for 20 years and you're an owner. In a less comical fashion, put your fence in the wrong spot for a year and the other owner forces you to move it; if it's been generations and everyone thinks the fence is on your property, then the fence is on your property and some future owner doesn't get to "well technically I found this old document that says..."
It’s meant for situations where ownership is in doubt and someone acted as the owner, in good faith, for an extended period of time and the actual owner didn’t contest it because they didn’t think they owned it.
Here's a good example from Australia. A bunch of people in a small town in Tasmania by title owned the property, next door, and didn't know for many years.
I feel like adverse possession was meant to solve a real world issue, not some strange takeover of property. For example, let's say that we're neighbors. We both own our homes. There's been a fence between our properties for 150 years. Generations of owners have used the property with the fence demarcating the boundary. They've had cookouts, put up swing sets, mowed the lawn, whatever. Then you come along and are like, "I think my property actually extends 20 feet past the fence. You need to move your fence."
Maybe you're "technically right" if you get a surveyor to come by based on the original plans. The point of adverse possession in this case is that generations of owners have seen that fence as the boundary. People have bought and sold the properties with the fence as the boundary. It makes more sense for society for the fence to remain the boundary. All of society has acknowledged that fence as the boundary for 150 years. You didn't buy your property thinking that the fence wasn't the boundary.
The "without permission" bit isn't about doing something with evil intent necessarily. It's there to differentiate between a case where an owner knowingly gives you permission to use their property. If I come to you and say "hey, can I put a fence here? I know it's your property, but it makes more sense to put the fence here" and you agree to that, there's no ambiguity about the ownership. If I decide to put up a fence between our properties, but the fence is in reality on your property, you have a limited amount of time to challenge that. Why? Because at some point we have to deal with the reality on the ground. Maybe I made a mistake and the fence is 5 feet onto your property, but a hundred years later it makes more sense to go with the reality on the ground.
If I built a home on what I thought was my property and then some surveyor comes by 50 years later and is like "huh, the house is actually 2 feet over the line onto this other property," a wise and just ruler wouldn't say, "then the house will be torn down!" A wise and just ruler would think "if the owner of the other property thought that they owned the land the house occupied in a conspicuous and open manner, they would have said something earlier."
> My questions in regards to this law is how can one successfully do it without breaking other laws?
I think the answer is that you can't. Adverse possession wasn't meant to be a free way to get property. It was meant to resolve property disputes that would be way more disruptive than just letting the status quo continue existing. It's meant to avoid "well technically..." crap. Everyone in the town knows that's your property. The abutting owner saw or should have seen your use of it over a long period of time. They probably thought it was your property too. Turns out that technically the site plan was a bit different than everyone in the town knew. It makes more sense to go off what everyone thinks is true than to try and re-state reality, bulldoze houses, etc.
At some point, the reality in the world should take precedence over some piece of paper from along time ago. In a comical fashion, yes, do it for a week and you're a criminal; do it for 20 years and you're an owner. In a less comical fashion, put your fence in the wrong spot for a year and the other owner forces you to move it; if it's been generations and everyone thinks the fence is on your property, then the fence is on your property and some future owner doesn't get to "well technically I found this old document that says..."