Adverse Possession of a Bank Owned Home in California

[Snooze]

My question involves real estate located in the State of: CA

On my old street, there is a house where I knew a lady many years ago. The house is now owned by a bank (a national trust, to be exact) but has been uninhabited and boarded up for 10+ years.

There is already a fence surrounding the property. The only posted signs say "authorized parking only".

I wish to take over this property and begin occupying it with intent to eventually make a claim of Adverse Posession. I see there are many negative opinions of the practice on this board, but the neighboorhood has gone downhill a bit, and the place has been an eyesore for a long time. I plan on on continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of this property starting immediately. There are currently a chains and locks on the fencing, but that's what trespassing is, after all.
The taxes have been paid up through 2010 by the bank. If I were to pay property taxes for 2011, what would happen? Is this one way the current "owners" would be notified that someone else has an interest in this property? Or do I have to put something else on file with the county? What is likely to happen if I do this?

Every time I am in the neighborhood (I used to live on that street) I take a look at the house. Nothing has been done to it, no one lives there, and the neighbors are all renters that tend to come and go every few years (so I doubt anyone would care that there was activity on the property).

I know you probably don't want to give instructions To how to do this, but would paying the taxes for 2011 begin to establish claim of right?

Thanks for your time

[LandSurveyor]

Here is the how-to-do-it:

Paying the taxes does not start a claim. No claim starts until all of the aspects of adverse possession are in place. You will need to be in place. You will need to openly and notoriously move in and the appearance of the place as an abandoned, boarded-up home will have to change to an un-boarded up lived-in home and lived in by you. It should be obvious to anyone driving or walking by that you are claiming it and treating it just as if you owned it. It would be a good idea to have your name on the mailbox, and get your mail delivered there. It would be a good idea to have your driver's license show this as your residence.

If your income is taxable as a resident in the municipality, you will likely have to pay those taxes also. Assembly Bill 1684, effective earlier this year, adds the additional requirement for adverse possession of obtaining certified records from the county that all state, county, and municipal taxes have been paid on time. It would seem that a late payment would not qualify, and could reset the five year clock back to the beginning.

Assuming that five years have passed, with all of the requirements being met, you are now in a position to go to court and sue for title to the property under the California statutes. The entire burden of proof that you met all of the requirements, for five years without interruption, is upon you. If you have met 95% of the requirements, you will not get 95% of the title- you will get 0%. The lawsuit is not a do-it-yourself project. It will not be small claims court. You will need to budget thousands of dollars for the process.

If you go through with your plan, remember that the bank or whoever holds legal title to the property, can come around any day prior to the end of the five year period and have you removed as a trespasser. They can also send you a letter, perhaps thanking you for the upkeep and improvements, and allowing you to remain there until further notice. Giving written permission for your occupation defeats your claim.

I don't think that the forum is particularly negative about adverse possession. It's just that there has been so much misinformation lately about the concept and how it actually works, along with a stubborn unwillingness to accept the answers of people with many years of professional experience.

My recommendation to you would be to approach the bank with a view to purchasing the property. I think that might be far cheaper and quicker than filing an AP claim.

As any AP claim will require legal advice, I'd also recommend that you get it up front rather than at the end. You will be paying for it anyway.

[eapls2708]

AP was not designed for the purpose of stealing another's property. The reason it exists is partially to provide a remedy for long time good faith occupation which does not coincide with the lines of written title. Another reason was to provide a way for the occupation and productive use of properties which had been truly and completely abandoned by their title owners as happened from time to time as the West was being settled. Again, this occupation was presumed to be in good faith, that an attempt was made to locate the record owner and not surreptitiously displace them. In this case, you know who the record owner is (the bank), and you know that they have not completely abandoned their ownership of the property because they continue to pay taxes on it.

If the place is chained up and you begin to occupy it, you will be guilty of both criminal trespass and breaking and entering. If you begin paying the taxes, it will be a flag to the bank that something is amiss with that account. they will probably investigate why someone else has paid the taxes and quickly find you naively trying to take that which is not yours. At a minimum, you will be evicted. Quite possibly, you will have civil and/or criminal charges filed against you and find yourself having to pay for the legal action taken to remove you, to dispose of whatever you leave behind, and to reinstall appropriate security measures sufficient to prevent this from happening again. Plus you may come out of it with a criminal record.

If for some reason, they didn't catch the fact that someone else is paying the taxes, and decided to stop paying them just because the County is showing a zero balance each year when they check, and you get past your 5 year mark, you still would have to file your dubious claim for title by AP with the court, suing the bank for Quiet Title. If the payment of taxes don't get their attention, a lawsuit certainly will. even if you then avoided any criminal charges for B&E, trespass, and fraud, you would still have to pay several tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs to see the suit through, and then still may lose.

OK, there's the harsh reality and admonishment, now here's advice to follow if you really want the property or just want to see it cleaned up. Find out if the bank has attempted to sell it in the past. find out if they are willing to sell it now. There may be a particular reason they are holding the property, but it may only be that the cost of actively trying to sell it exceeds the cost of holding it until the real estate market improves. If a potential buyer were to approach them with a reasonable offer, which may still be below market value, it might be worth it to them to sell. If you have reasonably good credit, they might (depending upon the bank) finance it to you.

If you just want the property cleaned up, there may be avenues for that. If it is becoming a health or safety issue, the City or County Building or Health departments might be the place to go. You might first contact the bank to insist that they properly maintain the property in a safe condition. If they are already doing that, but just not painting and landscaping to the standard set by the occupied homes nearby, there probably isn't much you can do about it.

Bottom line, if you want the property, go about it honestly. If you just want the property cleaned up, first try to get the bank to do it (heck, maybe they'd hire you to do it if your qualified and give them a good proposal for it), and failing that, go to the local authorities if it poses a nuisance.


My take is that of a surveyor. One of the lawyers that frequent the forum may have better advice, but probably not much more encouraging for you.

[Edit] LS posted as I was typing. Although his post was a little more temperate than mine, our advice is closely the same. I am not necessarily anti-AP. There are circumstances when it is the best means to achieve an equitable outcome. But I am against the misuse of AP as an attempt to get something for nothing at someone else's expense. That is called 'theft'.

[Snooze]

Here is the how-to-do-it:

Assuming that five years have passed, with all of the requirements being met, you are now in a position to go to court and sue for title to the property under the California statutes. The entire burden of proof that you met all of the requirements, for five years without interruption, is upon you. If you have met 95% of the requirements, you will not get 95% of the title- you will get 0%.

The lawsuit is not a do-it-yourself project. It will not be small claims court. You will need to budget thousands of dollars for the process.




My recommendation to you would be to approach the bank with a view to purchasing the property. I think that might be far cheaper and quicker than filing an AP claim.

As any AP claim will require legal advice, I'd also recommend that you get it up front rather than at the end. You will be paying for it anyway.

First of all, thank you... gives me some things to think about...
Ok, so wondering... if I do meet all of the requirements of AP 100%, and no one comes to evict me in that five years, what could cost thousands? I'm just wondering if any forms that needed to be submitted, and proof of occupation collected, and tax payments were in order, where does the battle come from?

I thought when all is satisfied it was just a matter of applying for title... but sounds like there is always a fight for the property/title?

[LandSurveyor]

I thought when all is satisfied it was just a matter of applying for title... but sounds like there is always a fight for the property/title?

That is one of the great misconceptions about an AP claim. It's not your fault. For some reason, many think that once they think they have satisfied the requirements, they just need to go over to the county and file a form or two for say $20 or so and have title. It has never worked that way.

Even if there is not a "fight" you will still have to go to court and have the title vested in you.

The "battle" you speak of comes from the fact that someone else holds valid written title to the property. That form of title is not overturned lightly in the US. A court will want to see a completely valid and proven claim before removing a valid written title from the owner, and vesting written title in someone else.

If it were possible to go to a notary, make a claim for property as having met the requirements, and paying a small fee for recording, anything we owned could be claimed for that small fee. Total chaos.

You will have to go to court at entirely your own expense. If the title holder defends, you are looking at some major expense, and you could lose. Nothing is guaranteed at that point.

You should also carefully read eapls's post. He is an experienced and highly qualified California Surveyor. The fact that two surveyors agree completely is worth of note. As he is in California, and I am not, you should give appropriate weight to his opinion.

[Snooze]

If you begin paying the taxes, it will be a flag to the bank that something is amiss with that account. they will probably investigate why someone else has paid the taxes and quickly find you naively trying to take that which is not yours. At a minimum, you will be evicted. Quite possibly, you will have civil and/or criminal charges filed against you and find yourself having to pay for the legal action taken to remove you, to dispose of whatever you leave behind, and to reinstall appropriate security measures sufficient to prevent this from happening again. Plus you may come out of it with a criminal record.

My take is that of a surveyor. One of the lawyers that frequent the forum may have better advice, but probably not much more encouraging for you.

[Edit] LS posted as I was typing. Although his post was a little more temperate than mine, our advice is closely the same. I am not necessarily anti-AP. There are circumstances when it is the best means to achieve an equitable outcome. But I am against the misuse of AP as an attempt to get something for nothing at someone else's expense. That is called 'theft'.

Thank you for all the info...
I understand the idea of theft... and I would not pursure such a claim if it was an individual that would hurt form such a transaction, but I know for sure that the person occupying that house at the time I knew her (1970's) had paid in full for the house, and that most likely the bank acquired it when she died, most likely for a very small price. In fact, when I looked up the property tax, it was assessed in 2008 at $42,000+ dollars, while the surrounding properties are worth upwards of $300,000. Zillow lists its worth at well over $350,000, so how does that happen?
Did the bank acquire it for a "steal"? I have always loved the house and it saddens me to see it and the attached land in such sad shape. If it could be mine at the expense of the bank, I guess my ambition is to thieve.

I understand that if I wanted to, I could go to the county clerk's office and request to be added to the existing name on the property tax, citing (in writing) the intention to eventually claim title to the property under adverse possession, and affirming that I am already in possession of the property. In doing this, a property tax bill for that property would also be mailed to me, as well as to the bank. It is also my (possibly mistaken) understanding that in paying the property taxes (even if just for this year (for starters), for example... it has not been paid yet for 2011), that this action establishes/reinforces the claim of right to occupy, and therefore could not be considered trespassing, so no arrest, since it would be a civil matter. As far as the B&E... the locks are ancient and rusted. The signs are faded and the stems they are set on bent and broken. No one has been on the property since the woman moved out, presumably to a rest home or hospital, until her death in the late 1980s.

What do you think.... me nutso, or no?

[LandSurveyor]

It is also my (possibly mistaken) understanding that in paying the property taxes (even if just for this year (for starters), for example... it has not been paid yet for 2011), that this action establishes/reinforces the claim of right to occupy, and therefore could not be considered trespassing, so no arrest, since it would be a civil matter.

This is one of the big bugaboos on the internet right now, and as such, it is not your fault that you are totally mistaken. You have no rights to occupy, and are a trespasser until you have been given written title to the property by a court. Paying taxes which are in arrears means that the payment is not timely per the statute I quoted earlier. That could mean that your claim as paying the taxes was invalid and would not start until you paid them timely at the next, and following, due dates. This law went into effect only on the first of this year so there is not any case law I can find yet. It may also mean that simply saving the tax receipts you get in the mail might not satisfy the law, which requires certified copies of the receipts. Only a local California attorney can advise you on that.

I don't know what more I can add to eapsl's comment that you are breaking and entering a locked premise and are a trespasser for at least five years.

Taking possession of the property gets you nothing but the start of a five year clock, with thousands of dollars due at the end.

If you decide to head out to the beach or the mountains for a couple of days nothing will actually prevent someone else from moving in, changing the locks, putting their name on the mailbox and having all of the rights you thought you had. They can also go down to the county and do whatever you did in the first place. Your clock stops at that point.

[eapls2708]

So your ethics tell you that since you would be stealing from a big faceless corporation with lots of money, it's OK. Gee, I've never seen that distinction in the law.

A bank is a business, and like any other business, exists to make a profit for its owners and shareholders. If a business incurs losses, it takes action to mitigate the effect of those losses. Sometimes that is through loss prevention measures, and when those don't sufficiently stem the losses, they look to other means. The other means would be higher fees for services or perhaps lesser interest payments to depositors. So your not just stealing from this bank you hold in contempt, you are stealing some small amount from each investor and depositor. Do any of your neighbors have accounts with that bank? If so, you would be stealing from your neighbor. But such things being morally relative, since it would be a very small amount to each depositor, maybe that's OK with you too.

If the bank has so little invested into the property relative to its true value, it would seem that there is a great opportunity for a potential buyer to purchase the property well below market value while still providing a measure of profit for the bank (remember the bank is a business; businesses exist to make $; people invest to gain on investment. If you have a 401K, IRA, pension, savings account, you are an investor whether you realize it or not). It could be a great deal for both the buyer and the bank. Again, with the potential of being able to buy the property at a great price, why not go about it honestly. As an added benefit to you, an honest purchase avoids the risk of criminal charges and losing anything you might invest into the property. If you proceed with your plan to steal the property via AP, you take on a very high risk of losing anything you invest without any legal recourse for recovery, and risk criminal charges.

I can't say it any plainer. The AP statutes were not designed to facilitate the intentional theft of real property from the rightful owner but to provide onne means of remedy to legitimate title disputes and to facilitate the occupation, productive use, and ability to define title on properties which had been truly and completely abandoned. Neither is the case here.

[jk]

Thank you for all the info...
I understand the idea of theft... and I would not pursure such a claim if it was an individual that would hurt form such a transaction, but I know for sure that the person occupying that house at the time I knew her (1970's) had paid in full for the house, and that most likely the bank acquired it when she died, most likely for a very small price. In fact, when I looked up the property tax, it was assessed in 2008 at $42,000+ dollars, while the surrounding properties are worth upwards of $300,000. Zillow lists its worth at well over $350,000, so how does that happen?
Did the bank acquire it for a "steal"? I have always loved the house and it saddens me to see it and the attached land in such sad shape. If it could be mine at the expense of the bank, I guess my ambition is to thieve.
?

If the house was paid for, just how do you think a bank would come into ownership of the home? Somewhere along the line, she owed the bank money and she used her home to secure it. When the debt wasn't paid, the house likely was foreclosed upon. The bank does not just acquire property when people die. They must buy it just like everybody else does. I know you do not have all of the info in this situation.

[LandSurveyor]

I am going to try to summarize here without going into the "theft" concept of which I have my own unstated opinion, which I am going to pass on in this post.

If the OP really has an attachment to this property, and wants to act in a publicly constructive way and return it to it's former good standing in the neighborhood, I'll say that the idea of obtaining it by AP is a non-starter, if only from the practical viewpoint.

The cost and effort will be significant and the downside risk is basically total.

If the OP is seriously interested in the property, I'll go back to my original advice, which I think has been agreed to here, of going to the bank and asking to negotiate a purchase.

Banks which own foreclosed properties can't just hold on to them indefinitely. There are regulations which require divestiture and reasonable efforts to do so. Eapls has basically spelled this out. If the bank has a low basis in the property, they can't hold out indefinitely hoping for some future profit.

If homes in the neighborhood are worth $300k plus, and the bank's basis is in the $40k range, someone needs to come by with an offer. It's the kind of offer many investors would be interested in (even a surveyor).