Tags: adverse, attorney, dispute, estate, involved, kentucky, law, lawyer, legal, possession, property, real
Adverse Possession In Kentucky
Hello! This is my first post just wanted to join in since we are involved in a property dispute because of adverse possession. My question is on the tract of land that has a recorded title at the court house if the boundaries can be moved out year after year after this has been recorded? Thanks for any information! Blessings, rilda
Leave a comment...
- 7 Comments
- My mother in law is in a nursing home and must sell her home. We have discovered in this process that someone has filed at the court house adverse possession on some tacts of her land. A lawyer in the 50's put it in his name then sells it for $1.00 to the person who is taking adverse possession. They did this transaction the same day.
Now the family members are claiming more of the land than is in the recorded adverse possession. My question is can they do that without it being recorded in the orginal title they made for adverse? Can they move their boundaries out over time then now state it is adverse possession? What are the rights of the legal title owner in a case such as this? Thank for any help.#1; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:00:00 GMT
- You cannot sell what you do not own. It sounds like the attorney was starting a claim under "color of title." Your mother in law still owns what her deed says she owns. The only way anyone can obtain legal title to property by adverse possession is through the court. At that time they would have to prove all of the elements of adverse possession, not just color of title.
Her attorney needs to notify the other parties that they are trespassing on her property.#2; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:57:00 GMT
- Thanks everyone! I have a update. We have contacted 2 lawyers and they say the same thing. This adverse possesion happened before MIL came into the picture. The adverse possession papers are more legal than MIL's legal document title for property. The lots are theirs by the adverse possesion and there is No thing we can do to claim it back with MIL's title. Also the owner of adverse is claiming other lots not included in the adverse. She is picking up more of MIL property just by speaking it so. No adverse papers on it are recorded. Just by her speaking it so. Anyway just wanted to give you the lastest news. Legally all the land belongs to God so I accept who he chose to give it to as being His will. It isn't settled yet but I trust He has it all under control. Bless YOU all and all you do.#3; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:38:00 GMT
- Sorry I don't know what timeline is please forgive me if I am not posting right. I am new to this.
Thanks to each of you for responding. MIL's deed states she owns lots 1-2-3-4-5-6-21-thru 25 and that is the legal deed recorded at the court house since 1946 when subdivision was created. But she purchased it in 1981.
in 1967 a lawyer recorded lots 7-8-20 and 21 as being his and there is no deed book recorded where he purchased it on the paper at the court house. It is blank where it should have book and page. Same day he writes up a paper to a man who is living in a trailer on lot 21 of MIL's [which was not her's then] and also to lots 7 and 8. He in 1969 sells to a couple lots 5-6 7-8. Their was fences when MIL bought which in time have been moved because of adding to house. In 1977 they sell lots 5-6-7-and 8 to a church and deed states it is clear and free. It was sold off 3 years after MIL bought it. There was a moragage on it. In 1984 Church sells it to a man in another town. All are dead except the wife of the couple who purchased in 1969 and she is now claiming without any court papers she is attaching on to adverse posssion lots 21-thur24. Of course MIL has been living on this poperty since 1981 and that is her yard.
Now there is a house on lots of the orginial lots adversed because in the 80's they kept adding on to the build around trailer that was there in the beginning.
What confusion and I am sorry if I am not explaining this to where you can see the picture of first renting, covering trailer, some land then more added to that adding on to adverse.
My question is can the lady claim adverse on the lots that are not on the only adverse possession paper recorded at the court house? She has never lived on them or on the property at all. MIL's laywer has never did any adverse possession.#4; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:00:00 GMT
- I can't understand what you are asking.
But I can tell you this: Get a title report at a title company that does business in the county where the land is. Explain the problem to them.
Then come back and tell us what the report says.
(BTW, if you want to try again, give us a timeline statement and don't use pronouns.)#5; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT
- It may depend on how they have been using the land. Does your mother in law have any recollection of the circumstances of the adverse possession title from the '50s? Certain conditions need to be met, as explained in these Kentucky cases. Maybe this will help you out, but I think you'll need to challenge them to prove up their claims.
In Kentucky, the duration of such possession is seven (7) years if held under patent from the state and fifteen (15) years otherwise. Kentucky Code 413.010, .050, .060.
In order for the Plaintiffs herein to acquire title by adverse possession, they would have to show entry under color of title, open and notorious possession of the property, hostile to the claims of all others and exclusive in nature for the prescribed time.
The law of the Commonwealth is clear in that, occupancy of land is deemed to be amicable and not hostile and can therefore not ripen into title, where one through mistake or ignorance as to the true location of his boundary line enters onto the land of his neighbor up to a certain line in belief that it is the true line. [Brunton v. Roberts, 265 Ky. 569, 97 S.W.2d 413, 416 (1936).
KRS 372.070 voids a conveyance of land being held adversely. In order to establish title through adverse possession, a claimant must show possession of disputed property under a claim of right that is hostile to the title owners interest. Further, the possession must be shown to be actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Phillips, 103 S.W.3d at 708#6; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:52:00 GMT
- I really have no idea what you are asking. If you could give some details and a specific question it would be appreciated.#7; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:54:00 GMT