Do you support abolishing Adverse possession?

[David Hume]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

[Lord Halifax]

yes, it's a really weird concept and basically legalized theft.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Depends on the time period. In VA its 15 years so im fine with that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, it's a really weird concept and basically legalized theft.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

It's useful, it makes sure there is a clear owner to properties and you don't have land lying inactive because nobody is able to figure out the owner.

[Lord Halifax]

No, it's a really weird concept and basically legalized theft.

My problem with it is that the property owners most at risk of losing their claim are the weak and vulnerable, people who due to old age, illness (incl. mental illness) or an addiction can't manage to safeguard their property. Corporations and rich people have the resources to make sure they're not targeted and can always protect their property.

[Skill and Chance]

Depends on the time period. In VA its 15 years so im fine with that.

This.  After some point, there's a societal interest in someone who is willing to manage and maintain a property having control over it vs. someone who completely ignores it.

It also helps limit the "this 18th century document says I actually own your land now give me money!" nuisance lawsuits that sometimes occur in the Eastern states.

[sting in the rafters]

Depends on the time period. In VA its 15 years so im fine with that.

This.  After some point, there's a societal interest in someone who is willing to manage and maintain a property having control over it vs. someone who completely ignores it.

It also helps limit the "this 18th century document says I actually own your land now give me money!" nuisance lawsuits that sometimes occur in the Eastern states.

 I agree in principle but wouldn’t a vacant property tax accomplish the same goal?
Edit: am big dummy who realized rule against perpetuities only protects against deceased owners

[Torie]

No, it's a really weird concept and basically legalized theft.

Suppose there is no intent? Suppose the adjacent land owner and sat on its hands for a long period, while the encrouching party invested in the land in question and improved it? At some point their needs to be some certainty and repose. That is why the concept is universally accepted in all 50 states, and by almost all of the legal community, particularly those with some experience in real estate law.


Intent a long time after the fact can be unproveable one way of the other.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That was an attempt to be tongue-in-cheek that didn't go over very well, I suppose.

I do not support abolishing adverse possession, not because it's legalized theft and that's based and Marxpilled or whatever (the joke I was trying to make), but for the reasons others have given in this thread.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

That was an attempt to be tongue-in-cheek that didn't go over very well, I suppose.

I do not support abolishing adverse possession, not because it's legalized theft and that's based and Marxpilled or whatever (the joke I was trying to make), but for the reasons others have given in this thread.

Other than my original quip calling you a "Marxpilled Red Tory" and the following couple months during which you made that your display name this seems to be the first time that word gets used on the forum - I am not sure whether I ought to feel flattered, surprised it took you so long, or else.

Anyway, since I should probably pretend I have something relevant to say if I want to post in this thread, I'll say that I also don't support abolishing adverse possession (or what should be its Italian law equivalent, usucapione) for the reasons already stated by others.

[SWE]

Adverse possession is one of the few concepts in 1L property I found easy to understand you can't take this away from me

[Antonio the Sixth]

It should only apply if 1. the person exercising it has no other place they could realistically move to and 2. there is a reasonable delay to sort things out legally, but if someone has been living in a place for, say, over 10 years and has nowhere else to go, then yes, they should be able to legally call that place home. It's clearly the least immoral course of action.

It might be legalized theft, but hey, guess what, if someone steals food to survive, that should also be legal. Food and shelter are fundamental human rights that supersede the right to property.