Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to PRFA!

Adverse Possession

New information added on September 3, 2007

“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 Yorks adverse possession statutes to provide that a possessors 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
See Also

Adverse Possession - New York

Highways and Rights-of-Way

Rangeland and Grazing

 

In-Depth Information

  • Carol W. LaGrasseLetter 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 claimants 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.
  • Jack W. Herzberg“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 W. 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 theyve been grazing animals on the Daviss property.

Back to:
Property Rights - National PRFA Home Page
   

© 2014 Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.