Adverse Possession in Georgia

There is an entry as follows in Georgia code:
§ 44-4-7. Effect of adverse possession for more than seven years
When actual possession has been had under a claim of right for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected; and the lines shall be marked so as not to interfere with such possession.

Does my neighbor's sprinkler being in my yard mean actual possession of the area of my yard has been had by the neighbor under a claim of right? What does "a claim of right" mean?
Do I have a legal right to have the sprinkler(s) removed?

Has the neighbor anything there other than a sprinkler?

Does the neighbor also use the land as if he owns it and you do not?

Does he mow it, maintain it, and keep you off of it?

There are some more items in the paragraph you quote:

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-161 (2007) - (a) In order for possession to be the foundation of prescriptive title, it:

(1) Must be in the right of the possessor and not of another;

(2) Must not have originated in fraud except as provided in Code Section 44-5-162;

(3) Must be public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, and peaceable; and

(4) Must be accompanied by a claim of right.

(b) Permissive possession cannot be the foundation of a prescription until an adverse claim and actual notice to the other party.

There are several additional requirements than just the statutory time period here.

Thanks for your quick response.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

Has the neighbor anything there other than a sprinkler?

---

Yes, it is lawn grass because the neighbor re-sodded the area.

Quote:

---

Does the neighbor also use the land as if he owns it and you do not?

---

No, because I did not know existence of the sprinkler in my yard for quite some times since I purchased the house. Recently one sprinkler is exposed because the lawn grass died and of resultant soil erosion.

Quote:

---

Does he mow it, maintain it, and keep you off of it?

---

He mows it and I mow it. I should say he maintais it because he re-sodded the area. He does not keep me off of it.

There are some more items in the paragraph you quote:

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-161 (2007) - (a) In order for possession to be the foundation of prescriptive title, it:

Quote:

---

(1) Must be in the right of the possessor and not of another;

---

Could you explain what this means?

Quote:

---

(2) Must not have originated in fraud except as provided in Code Section 44-5-162;

---

I would think this is not applicable to my case.

Quote:

---

(3) Must be public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, and peaceable; and

---

Public: ? Continuous: Yes. Exclusive: The spot where the sprinkler is placed is obviously exclusively used by him. Uninterrupted: Yes. Peaceable:No. I once called his attention to that his recognition of the boundary is incorrect but not because of the sprinkler. At that time I was not aware of the sprinkler. No formal complaint in writing was made.

Quote:

---

(4) Must be accompanied by a claim of right.

---

When I brought up the boundary issue as above, he did not neccessarilly agree to it. Does this mean he made the "claim of right"?

Quote:

---

(b) Permissive possession cannot be the foundation of a prescription until an adverse claim and actual notice to the other party.

---

I do not fully understand what this means. I have not received any notice from him.

Another question: Does he pay taxes on that land?

As long as he think the area where the sprinker(s) is his, he must naturally think he has been paying tax for that. Am I answering your question?

"O.C.G.A. § 44-5-161 (2007) "

As I read it, that means that the adverse possessor must have sole control of it, not shared control.

"(b) Permissive possession cannot be the foundation of a prescription until an adverse claim and actual notice to the other party."

This means that if you have allowed his use of the property by permission, it cannot ripen into an adverse claim.

What is the outcome you desire from this issue?

I am not the original owner of the house and my neighbor is the same. She purchased hers before I did mine. Thus I do not know whether the previous owner of her house or she installed the sprinkler(s). My point is I do not know who did or didn't allow use of then whose property.
The clause you mentioned includes "until an adverse claim and actual notice to the other party". Your explanation appears correct if no claim and notice to other party is made. Am I correct?
The outcome I desire is removal of the sprinkler(s).

Bear in mind, I am no expert...just studying Real Estate for Florida (2 days from actual Licensing Exam).

The way I understand it:

- The person must be taking hostile possession of the property, not allowing you to use it.
- Open possession with no attempt to conceal it (he is using the sprinklers out in the open....)
- Taxes. Florida law may differ from Georgia. In FL, he must have been paying the property taxes on that piece of land for 7 years.

Quote:

---

Quoting PandorasBox

---

- The person must be taking hostile possession of the property, not allowing you to use it.

---

Whether the above is true or not is not known to me because installation of the sprinkler was done before I purchased the house.

Quote:

---

- Taxes. Florida law may differ from Georgia. In FL, he must have been paying the property taxes on that piece of land for 7 years.

---

She has not been.
Where in the Georgia code the tax is mentioned? Condition or requirements for adverse possession seems to be included in the following:
http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

Quote:

---

The outcome I desire is removal of the sprinkler(s).

---

Get a survey done and have the line marked plainly on the ground. Have the surveyor locate the sprinkler heads and show them on a plat.

Notify the neighbor in writing that they have xx days to remove the sprinkler from your property.

Thank you everyone for your help.