Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

[RXBrown]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I should have used the word encumbrance (I'm sure you knew what I meant). But it doesn't change anything.

Wha?!?!? Ok, I’ll go back and substitute the word for you:

There is nothing in the law, statutes or case law of any state that says that a potential claimant of adverse possession has any ENCUMBRANCE on property. And when the SOL runs, they then have a claim but not before. This is something you made up because it is not founded in law.

Come on now @budwad, that doesn’t make any sense and you know it.

Sooo, what’s the deal here guys? Is the username ‘Ashton Kutcher’ gonna pop up soon? Am I being punked… is this some sort of joke initiation for the new guy? These are all very basic and fundamental definitions. NOW we're debating the 101 definition of trespasser versus adverse possessor?? Even AFTER I’ve provided definitions?!?

@budwad, @Taxing Matters – certainly you know what Google is. All the definitions are out there.

1) From an article at orlandosentinel.com:
“A tenant who remains beyond the end of a lease is considered a "holdover tenant," not a trespasser. Moreover, a tenant's refusal to pay rent may be a breach of the lease for which the landlord may recover damages, but it is not a trespass.” I.E. I am not a trespasser.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...657-story.html

2) From Investopedia:
Tenancy at sufferance (also called "estate at sufferance" or "holdover tenancy") arises when a tenant who has a lawful possession of a property (for example, a lease) holds over without the owner's consent. The only difference between a holdover tenant at sufferance and trespasser is that the tenant entered into possession in a legal manner but has now overstayed his or her welcome. I.E. I am not a trespasser.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...sufferance.asp

3) MICHIGAN SPECIFIC REFERENCES (to definition of trespasser):

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961

600.5714 Summary proceedings to recover possession of premises; holding over by tenant or occupant of public housing or by tenant of mobile home park.
Sec. 5714.
(1) A person entitled to possession of premises may recover possession by summary proceedings in the following circumstances:
…
(f) When a person takes possession of premises by means of a forcible entry, holds possession of premises by force after a peaceable entry, or comes into possession of premises by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. This remedy is in addition to the remedy of entry permitted under section 5711(3). I.E. I am not a trespasser.

4) MICHIGAN SPECIFIC REFERENCE (to definition of trespasser):
600.2918 Damages for forcible entry and detainer; damages for unlawful interference with possessory interest; exceptions; opening of probate estate; forcible entry or possession by occupant; action for possession; claim for injunctive relief; joinder; waiver; commencement of action; limitations; "owner" defined.
Sec. 2918.
(1) Any person who is ejected or put out of any lands or tenements in a forcible and unlawful manner, or being out is afterwards held and kept out, by force, is entitled to recover 3 times the amount of his or her actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, in addition to recovering possession.

(5) An owner's actions do not unlawfully interfere with an occupant's possession of premises if the occupant took possession by means of a forcible entry, holds possession by force, or came into possession by trespass without color of title or other possessory interest. I.E. I am not a trespasser.


Although I’ve already pointed out the following, it appears that there’s a lot of restatement necessary lately:

As a holdover tenant, possessing this parcel of real property in a manner which is adverse to the deed holder’s interest, I am ‘not’ a trespasser as it pertains to the proper and relevant legal definition by virtue of the following:

A) I did not takes possession of the premises by means of a forcible entry – I owned the property, with a certified quit claim deed - a deed registered in the public county seat register of deeds, with full and exclusive possession of said property.

B) I have not held possession of premises by force after a peaceable entry. No person, entity, agent or agency has requested me to leave the property nor made efforts to remove me.

C) I did not come into possession (of the property) by trespass without color of title. As stated, I had deed and title to the property obtained through purchase and consideration.

D) I did not occupy the property without a possessory interest. Obviously, my ownership and title to the property gave me the possessory interest and rights of possession.

So, I don’t know what’s going on here; I'm confident enough that some of you guys are competently intelligent enough to already know these rudimentary basics. But, as the year 2020 goes: It is what it is.

################################

@Taxing Matters:

You have a big interest at stake here and I believe you have a bias here that is affecting your objectivity. You really want the period to be 10 years so you can make the filing to quiet title and get record title to the property now.

Fortunately, although all of the circumstances in my case are clear in my mind, I am aware that you would have no way of being able to visualize all of the actual circumstances, details and history as it pertains. No, I don't have a bias. What may not be front and center in your mind is that 'I' am the adverse possessor; which means that 'I' can be made the 'defendant' in this matter with the mere knock at my door. In life you don't always get to choose when the battle comes; sometimes it comes to you instead of the other way around. 'I' don't have get a choice in this situation but to prepare my defense in the event that the case is brought to me; that I am asked to vacate.

There is also the issue that as you can imagine, this is 'not' a Beverly Hills mansion; if it were he would have certainly claimed it by now. This house is in 'serious' need of some 'serious' repair. As you can also imagine, it would make zero sense for me to spend several hundred dollars, let alone $5-, or $10-, or $40 thousand dollars rehabbing a house which I don't hold title to; a house which could then be repossessed from me the very next day. It's been 10 years now, and it is 'seriously' questionable as to whether this house will be at the point beyond practical restoration is worth it in yet another 14 months. Not to mention that there are other neighboring property issues that need to be addressed like yesterday. So, no - the choice is not really mine to make. I have to be prepared now.

10 years ago, I made a conscious decision to leave - and was willingly ready to hand over the keys and made it clear to purchaser 'A' in an email that he should have purchaser 'B' call me to work out the details. But after BOTH purchaser 'A' (a real estate speculator from Australia) AND 'B' both showed exactly the extent of consideration, or lack thereof, that they would show to the neighbors here by way of their disregard for REPEATED requests to cut the grass, do anything with the property, or even to return ONE single phone call or email message to let us know anything in the last 10 years.... Still waiting for any of those. So, it became apparent that the best caretaker and rightful owner of the property should be me.

There are several other details... such as the fact that at my request an attorney for the county 'did' remove my property from the foreclosure list in 2010 (I already had a Quiet Title action courts regarding prior probate interests, an intestate estate interest, and clouded title)... but then he sent the property to auction anyway without notifying me. It got complicated; and yet 'still' there are a few other details.

AS FAR AS THE LEGALESE IS CONCERNED....

As I pointed out earlier, "title" is a complex issue which is not bound by the mere title at the top of a piece of paper, and I've seen many a judge exemplify that fact. More importantly as I also pointed out earlier: Contrary to some of the 'textbook' or 'academic' opinions here, the REAL WORLD HAPPENINGS are as I've stated already:
* The county treasurer IS already taking back properties on the basis that I've outlined.
* The courts ARE already making determinations that "title" is not determined by tricks, schemes, and other non-relevant devices for people to CONTINUE to abuse the system contrary to the intent of the tax foreclosure process.

I've provided the references to these real world happenings and given the reasons why - but for whatever reason there seems to be many folk here who are stuck in the textbooks. I'm quite confident that getting a court to recognize that the character of title never changed, and for the courts (or the county) to qualify this property (which was in violation of the terms and conditions of sale right from the start) as a tax-sale acquired property would not be a difficult task. THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS.
However, all that would accomplish in my case is getting the property put BACK into the system and it likely going BACK to auction... at which time I may get lucky if no one wants to bid significantly on it, or I might not. But I have to be mindful 'if' I were out bid, it is HIGHLY unlikely that I will find yet a 'third' person who buys a property and doesn't even try to take possession of it for years and years. Who does that?

[latigo]

Sparing us the boundless verbiage can you cite any Michigan case law wherein a so-called "squatter" was successful in quieting title to land predicated on less than fifteen (15) years of uninterrupted, adverse, excessive, etc., etc., possession?

[Taxing Matters]

Whether you are a trespasser or a holdover tenant doesn't fundamentally change anything as far as your AP case goes. The point here is that you didn't have the right to possession (which of course is a necessary element to establish the AP claim later) and A or B could have moved to eject/evict you at the time of the quit claim deed. You had not yet been there long enough to establish your AP claim, so you had no interest in the property at that time. Thus, the state of things at the time the quit claim deed was granted from A to B is that B got whatever interests A had and B was stuck with 2 years less time to go on the SOL get you out of the property. That latter part is the sole nature of the encumbrance to which you referred. Your 2 year presence did not defeat either A or B's title since you had not yet perfected your AP claim. So, B got whatever title A had. A's title is presumably good from his purchase of the property at the tax sale. In any event, A is out of the picture once the quit claim was granted as he passed whatever interests he had to B. So either B has good title from A, or A never had good title and the title still rests with the county. In either instance, though, that seems to me to mean your SOL period is 15 years, again assuming the courts will apply the SOL statute as written. I've not yet heard a compelling argument for why the court would say that (1) the statute is ambigious and (2) that the legisature intended for the SOL to be applied in the manner you wish it to be. You need both (1) and (2) to get there.

However, all that would accomplish in my case is getting the property put BACK into the system and it likely going BACK to auction... at which time I may get lucky if no one wants to bid significantly on it, or I might not. But I have to be mindful 'if' I were out bid, it is HIGHLY unlikely that I will find yet a 'third' person who buys a property and doesn't even try to take possession of it for years and years. Who does that?

Right, I alluded to that earlier. If you attack B's claim to title by saying A's title was no good then then the property is just back to the County, with the kinds of problems you have touched on above.

[budwad]

Fortunately, although all of the circumstances in my case are clear in my mind, I am aware that you would have no way of being able to visualize all of the actual circumstances, details and history as it pertains. No, I don't have a bias. What may not be front and center in your mind is that 'I' am the adverse possessor; which means that 'I' can be made the 'defendant' in this matter with the mere knock at my door. In life you don't always get to choose when the battle comes; sometimes it comes to you instead of the other way around. 'I' don't have get a choice in this situation but to prepare my defense in the event that the case is brought to me; that I am asked to vacate.

So what started out as your claim that you were an adverse possessor that would file claim to quiet title is now a defense to eviction or ejectment. What a long way to go to get there. But the fact is that until you have all the elements of an AP case (including the running of the 15 year SOL) it won't help you when the time comes. All buyer B has to do is notify you that you can stay in the house until he tells you to go or ejects you by law and your AP defense flies out the window. And if B does that, your use of the house becomes permissive and that ends your AP claim. He has another 5 years to do that.

Sparing us the boundless verbiage can you cite any Michigan case law wherein a so-called "squatter" was successful in quieting title to land predicated on less than fifteen (15) years of uninterrupted, adverse, excessive, etc., etc., possession?

I've looked for the case law and have found none on point. Maybe you looked and found none. Maybe TM looked also.

[RXBrown]

So what started out as your claim that you were an adverse possessor that would file claim to quiet title is now a defense to eviction or ejectment. What a long way to go to get there.

hahaha. Oh, budwad! Think, budwad, think. An AP claim as a quiet title Plaintiff 'is' the same thing as claiming AP as a defense as an eviction action Defendant, Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Quiet Title Plaintiff.
Need to have and prove all the same elements in both instances.

OH! WAIT!.... There 'is' one difference: Which table you would get to sit at in a courtroom.

I appreciate your input. It's always entertaining.

[budwad]

Whichever table you sit at you will be at the losing end of the stick. Glad you are entertained. So am I at your arrogance to the rule of law.