“Veto
#153 - An Act to amend the real property actions and proceedings
law, in relation to adverse possession” - State of New York, Executive Chamber, Aug. 28.
2007
Governor Eliot Spitzer vetoed Senate Bill Number 5364-A, to
amend New York’s adverse possession statutes to provide
that a possessor’s actual knowledge of the true ownership
of property will bar a claim of title by adverse possession.
“This bill could have significant adverse consequences
for New York property owners.”… “[I]f this
bill becomes law, a homeowner could be sued by a third party
who claims to be the ‘true’ owner of
the property, and could assert that the homeowner was told this
in a conversation that occurred 25 years earlier.”
See Also
|
|
In-Depth Information
|
 Letter in Opposition to
S 5364 - To Amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law,
In Relation to Adverse Possession - By Carol W. LaGrasse,
President, Property Rights Foundation of America, to Amanda Hiller,
Assistant Counsel to the Governor, August 20, 2007
“The bill passed by the Legislature would poke a hole
in the law of adverse possession by adding the subjective standard
that adverse possession would not apply if the claimant had ‘acquired
actual knowledge’ that he did not have valid title
to the land.” This “would create confusion
in title in New York State by eliminating the ability to quiet
title after a standard statute of limitations.”
|
- “Adverse
Possession Heats Up In Legislature After Court Ruling”
- by Carol W. LaGrasse, Reprinted from New York Property Rights
Clearinghouse, Vol. 11, No. 3 (PRFA Summer 2007)
Although a survey existed in the case of Walling v. Przybylo,
both sides were mistaken about the boundary between their properties
until the Przybylos had a survey done many years after they owned
their property. After the 2006 ruling adhering to the traditional
law of adverse possession in favor of the Wallings by the New
York State Court of Appeals, the Legislature reacted in sympathy
to the Przybylos, who lost a strip of surveyed property, by passing
a bill in 2007 that would create a hole in the law of adverse
possession by stopping the claimant’s right if he
can be deemed to have knowledge of the formally surveyed boundary.
However, the traditional law of adverse possession serves the
important purpose of establishing a statute of limitations and
allowing the claimant to quiet title, and should not be muddied.
|
 “Open Range, Fact or
Fiction” - By Jack W. Herzberg (Used by permission,
copyright 2004 Jack W. Herzberg)
The U. S. Forest Service does not respect the property rights
of inholders. Instead, the agency allows cattle and sheep graziers
to permit their livestock to graze in unfenced, posted fields.
The law requires that livestock owners have a duty of ordinary
care to prevent the trespass of their livestock on posted lands,
whether fenced or not.
|
- “Adverse
Possession and Open Range” - by Jack Herzberg (Property
Rights Foundation of America, September 2004)
James and Carla Davis intend to use their range land in Pinal
County, Arizona, to enjoy their retirement and develop an old
west town. Instead, they find themselves in court defending against
the claim of Joe and Carmen Auza, who assert adverse possession
in the spurious basis that they’ve been grazing animals
on the Davis’s property.
|
|
