Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alanrs who wrote (169797)	6/14/2006 1:42:08 AM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793885

It's the law of the land here, too. It's called "adverse possession". It doesn't work when the squatters had permission, though. It has to be "open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous", and it has to last for the statutory time. In our state, that is 10 years with no title, or 7 years with a "color of title". The hostile part in this case has only just begun, so these squatters should not be awarded title by possession. This is even a legal doctrine applying to federal land. It is a 20 year time to qualify under federal law.