When Can Land be Acquired by Adverse Possession in Oklahoma

My question involves real estate located in the State of: Oklahoma
we have lived here for 7 years in the country on 2.5 acres. the county road that goes in front of our property is older than 37 years old because our house is 37 years old.
way back when they made the road, it's a north south road, to the south of our house is a creek; when they were making the county road and got to the creek it was to deep and i guess they didn't want to build a bridge so they moved the road over about 120-150 feet. so by doing that, they basically increased my front yard by that amount.
the previous owners of my house, mowed the increased acreage; planted flowers in it; even dug a water well on it. since i have owned the property, i've mowed the yard as it was my own because i guess i actually consider it mine. I mow it, water it, pickup trash on it, and actually my driveway goes thru it also.
so can i claim it thru adverse possession?
and i think there is some kinda 15 year rule but i really haven't found out if that means i have to own it 15, or if this situation has been going on for 15 years?
and i guess i need to also throw this bit of information in; this is Indian land i am talking about. it's all around me but it is all wooded and not improved and no one takes care of it.

so i guess i had a couple questions:
#1 can this land be acquired by adverse possession?
#2 if so, does the oklahoma 15 year rule require me to own the land for 15 years before i can make claim to it?
#3 and also, the fact that it's Indian land play a part in all this or is Indian land just regular land?

any help with this is a big help, THANKS

You cannot acquire land that is owned by the government or any subdivision of the government like a town or a city or a county through adverse possession in almost every circumstance. Indian land as you describe it, is most likely US government owned land in trust.

So the answer to your question is you probably cannot acquire the land through AP.

One of the first things I would be finding out just as a starting point:

Is the county road called out in the property description in your deed as a boundary of your parcel?

Landsurveyor, explain further; the property description to my deed, would it be worded that way? that the county road is a boundary? i have a platt map showing my parcel and it shows where the county road would have been had they made the road stright; and it actually would have came within a few feet of my front door, but then then moved it further east onto this indian land so now my front yard consists of indian land between me and the county road; hope that makes sense.
and the real reason i am bringing all this up is not really to aquire the indian land but rather to respond to my neighbor who leases the indian land. like i mentioned, we, along with all the previous owners have taken care of the front yard, mowed, watered, etc. plus our driveway is going thru it.
but the neighbor, who happens to also be comanche, which I am also comanche, but i am not enrolled in the rolls; anyway, the neighbor got drunk the other day and deceided to burn some of the dead grass on the indian land; and by the way, he has that right, because he is the one that leases the indian land!!!!!
anyway, long story short, fire got out of control; fire department called out; this is about the 5th time he has done this; so i told the fire marshall i would file a complaint;well, firemarshall told the leaser; so........the leaser comes up to me and threatens to fence off all the land between me and the road, so if he did that, i actually could not get to my home, plus i would not have a front yard at all.

so actually it's a big mess and i was just trying to figure out how to resolve it.

Quote:

---

Landsurveyor, explain further; the property description to my deed, would it be worded that way? that the county road is a boundary?

---

I'm just trying to find a little daylight for you in this situation. My question was simply the first of possibly many regarding the chain of title to your property.

And now we have a torch wielding drunk neighbor in the mix!

You are most likely going to need the advice of a local attorney to begin to sort this out (that would include the drunk neighbor!). A number of things might need to be sorted out, including but not limited to:

How did the county road legally get "moved" to an indian leasehold?

Is the adjoining property leased under an approved Bureau of Indian Affairs lease? If not, what are the lease terms and parties to the lease?

Is the county road and/or your boundary a section or quarter line?

These are just a few facts which might be important in sorting this out. Even if we knew all of the facts here, we would not be able to advise you any further, or be any kind of a substitute for a local attorney.

It might be very important to find out how the land now in lease was titled. It's a fact that some Cherokee allotments in Oklahoma have been found subject to adverse possession.

From the Cherokee Nation Website:

Quote:

---

Federal law allowed restricted land to become subject to the statutes of limitations of the State of Oklahoma, which means:

1. If the original allottee or subsequent owners sold the land under the provisions of the law, the land is not available to reclaim.

2. If the original allottee or subsequent owners failed to pay ad valorem taxes where due, the County would have sold the land for taxes and the County Sheriff would have granted a Sheriff's Deed to the purchaser. The land is not available to reclaim.

3. If the original allottee or subsequent owners lost the land under state law adverse possession provisions and the case was properly performed, the land is not available to reclaim.

---

I cannot tell you what similarities, if any, would found between Cherokee and Comanche lands in Oklahoma.

From the same website:

Quote:

---

You are encouraged to seek legal counsel concerning issues with land ownership.

---

Good Luck!

Thanks Landsurveyor; i had already planned on going to an attorney when i stumbled onto this site and that's why i thought i'd ask a few questions before making that trip. thank you for giving me some info to work on because i really dont know any answers to any of those questions.
thank you again............

See what your attorney has to say but I suspect that the fact that you recognize that the land is Indian land you have defeated any claim to the land by adverse possession. You have no "claim of right or color of title" which is an essential element of adverse possession under Oklahoma law.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

I suspect that the fact that you recognize that the land is Indian land you have defeated any claim to the land by adverse possession. You have no "claim of right or color of title" which is an essential element of adverse possession under Oklahoma law.

---

I don't understand this at all. I have already shown that some "indian land" in Oklahoma may be fully susceptible to AP claims. So what does the OP's recognition that it is "Indian land" have to do with it? Oklahoma courts seem to have a different concept:

Quote:

---

The Oklahoma courts have decided that a claimant’s mental intention - whether he knew he was occupying his neighbor’s land, or whether he consciously intended to take title to his neighbor’s land - is not relevant in the adverse possession case

---

Source: The Oklahoma Bar Journal Vol 72 - No. 9 - 2001

As for the "claim of right or color of title" comment, I would point out that the statement uses "or" rather than "and", and from the same source as above:

Quote:

---

Oklahoma makes reference to color of title, but not as a separate element. Rather, in the litany of elements for adverse possession in Oklahoma, color of title is listed as an either/or, the claimant having the obligation to demonstrate possession under “claim of right or color of title.“ The claim of right or color of title element does not appear to be an exclusive, separate element for adverse possession; rather, it appears that this element is simply a restatement or summary of all the other elements of adverse possession.

---

From the OP we have this:

Quote:

---

I've mowed the yard as it was my own because i guess i actually consider it mine.

---

Some might interpret that as a claim of right. I could see it as such a claim.

I am not at all attempting to support an AP claim in this thread. As I have pointed out already, we have few facts to go on at this point, and even if we had all of the facts (a practical impossibility), we can't try the matter here.

By the same token, it is not appropriate to give an opinion in the thread against an AP claim either (ref. the "defeated" opinion above), under the same disability regarding the facts of the matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

we have lived here for 7 years in the country on 2.5 acres. the county road that goes in front of our property is older than 37 years old because our house is 37 years old.
way back when they made the road, it's a north south road, to the south of our house is a creek; when they were making the county road and got to the creek it was to deep and i guess they didn't want to build a bridge so they moved the road over about 120-150 feet. so by doing that, they basically increased my front yard by that amount.

---

A fundamental question here that has yet to be addressed in a meaningful way is who owns that @120-150 foot strip of land on which the road was originally situated, the land that now essentially extends your yard. Sometimes the land is owned by the unit of government, sometimes it is owned by one or both adjacent landowners.

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

the previous owners of my house, mowed the increased acreage; planted flowers in it; even dug a water well on it. since i have owned the property, i've mowed the yard as it was my own because i guess i actually consider it mine.

---

To make an adverse possession claim, your adverse possession must continue for the full 15-year statutory period. it is possible to assert "tacking" to add up successive periods of ownership in order to satisfy the 15-year requirement, but for that it is very helpful to have evidence that the prior owners also regarded the property as their own. Also, if you're asserting a claim of adverse possession that is being litigated, phrases such as "I guess" have potential to weaken your position -- your possession is either adverse or it is not, and you should be in a position to clearly state what your intentions and beliefs were throughout your period of possession.

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

and i guess i need to also throw this bit of information in; this is Indian land i am talking about.

---

As landsurveyor indicates, not all so-called "Indian land" is immune from claims for adverse possession -- but it would be helpful if you told us exactly what you mean by calling it "Indian land" and how you know it's Indian land.

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

...but then then moved it further east onto this indian land so now my front yard consists of indian land between me and the county road...

---

So the road was run over an easement obtained by the government, with the road -- whether in its original or present location -- running over the Indian land?

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

so........the leaser comes up to me and threatens to fence off all the land between me and the road, so if he did that, i actually could not get to my home, plus i would not have a front yard at all.

---

It is highly unlikely that he has the right to impede your access to the roadway. You can explore whatever grant is involved between the owner of the "Indian land" and the unit of government (apparently the county) responsible for the road, in terms of a right of access for adjacent properties. You should also check county ordinances, as they may give you an explicit right of access -- check what the ordinances say about "reserve strips".

But more than that, it's all-but-certain that you would be able to legally establish your right to maintain your driveway in its present location, even if a court found that you had no greater claim to the land.

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

so actually it's a big mess and i was just trying to figure out how to resolve it.

---

Assuming the problem cannot be resolved with the lessee, I suggest that you first investigate your general right of access to the road as an adjacent landowner, and secondarily see what rights you can get the actual landowner to agree that you possess. Given that it will be the actual landowner who has to pay the legal fees to defend against any lawsuit you bring, the landowner may be happy to reassure you that your right of access will not be impeded.

I hope we can agree that OP has no claim of title since he admits that he doesn't. The land appears to be Indian land in trust that is leased to the neighbor. The neighbor is not an allottee or a subsequent owner. He is a leasee. It is not land where title has transferred legally out of the Trust where it could be subject to adverse possession. I believe the US Government is the owner of the land and immune to AP claims.

Quote:

---

3. If the original allottee or subsequent owners lost the land under state law adverse possession provisions and the case was properly performed, the land is not available to reclaim.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting diabetichunter

---

the neighbor got drunk the other day and deceided to burn some of the dead grass on the indian land; and by the way, he has that right, because he is the one that leases the indian land!!!!!
anyway, long story short, fire got out of control; fire department called out; this is about the 5th time he has done this; .......the leaser comes up to me and threatens to fence off all the land between me and the road,

---

I don't think OP has a claim of right simple because he cut and watered the grass or picked up the trash.

I believe this is still the controlling case:

Quote:

---

It is not necessary, in order to establish and maintain possession of real estate, that the claimant should actually reside upon it or have it inclosed with a fence. It is sufficient if the party is doing such acts thereon that indicate in an open, public and visible manner that he has the exclusive control over the land, under a claim of right to such exclusive possession." see Farris v. Smallwood.

---

I don't see anything in OP's posts that indicates exclusive control of the land.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

By the same token, it is not appropriate to give an opinion in the thread against an AP claim either (ref. the "defeated" opinion above), under the same disability regarding the facts of the matter.

---

I am not advocating a position for or against AP. I am simply giving my opinion based on the facts that have been posted and my reading of the Oklahoma case law be it correct or not. Just food for thought.