Fantastic. I had a "professional tenant" in one of my rent houses years ago... they were a huge pain in the ass.

AggieGunslinger said:

---

Fantastic. I had a "professional tenant" in one of my rent houses years ago... they were a huge pain in the ass.

---

There's a special place in hell for those people!

AggieGunslinger said:

---

Fantastic. I had a "professional tenant" in one of my rent houses years ago... they were a huge pain in the ass.

---

Just claim ownership with a fake contract and it's out of the JP court and you're fighting an uphill battle.

Now it's just a possession issue. I've got one I'm saving for Jan 1 to get a summary judgment. $10,000 in lawyers fees to win 'ownership' of a property I bought from a guys mom. But he lived there, quit paying, she died, and he cooked up a contract, a check he wrote his mom in 1995, and claimed ownership.

After we won our lawsuit his lawyer told ours 'he already paid me $8500 for the appeal'

Our first settlement offer was for the $7500 we paid for the property in 2018.

nm

Being a landlord made me hate people.

What steps does it take for adverse possession other than get squatters evicted faster. They were highly unlikely to ever actually have a realistic adverse possession claim, anyway.

From what I understand, adverse possession can take years. I think that the most common statute of limitations on it is ten years, but it can take, I think, as long as 25 years in some cases.

AggieGunslinger said:

---

Being a landlord made me hate people.

---

Landlords and Attorneys have a special perspective on people.

eric76 said:

---

What steps does it take for adverse possession other than get squatters evicted faster. They were highly unlikely to ever actually have a realistic adverse possession claim, anyway.

From what I understand, adverse possession can take years. I think that the most common statute of limitations on it is ten years, but it can take, I think, as long as 25 years in some cases.

---

I don't think the intent of adverse possession is to allow a squatter to claim a house. It's more about a fence that was put up a few feet off the property line decades ago.

torrid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

What steps does it take for adverse possession other than get squatters evicted faster. They were highly unlikely to ever actually have a realistic adverse possession claim, anyway.

From what I understand, adverse possession can take years. I think that the most common statute of limitations on it is ten years, but it can take, I think, as long as 25 years in some cases.

---

I don't think the intent of adverse possession is to allow a squatter to claim a house. It's more about a fence that was put up a few feet off the property line decades ago.

---

Fences are kind of strange.

If it is determined that the fence is a "designed enclosure" then it does mark the boundary. If not a "designed enclosure", then the fence line is supposedly not deemed to determine the boundary.

I could be wrong about that, though.

Adverse possession, on the other hand, serves a very real purpose that it brings finality to property claims. Suppose you bought a section (square mile) of land fifty years ago and a nephew or grandnephew of the seller came up and demanded the property back because his father or grandfather had joint ownership of the land and never agreed to the sale. Without adverse possession, he might have a chance at getting it back. With adverse possession,

I think that with color of title, the statute of limitations in Texas is 3 years. He would have had to go after you in that three year period.

Someone I know bought some farmland land (I think about 280 to 300 acres) from a local family about thirty to forty years ago. I think that there were eight brothers and sisters who owned the land. One of the brothers objected quite loudly to the sale. With the color of title, he only had three years to gum up the sale. After Due to adverse possession, after three years, the buyer was safe from the brother trying to take it back.

Plenty of idiots think that all they need to do is move into the house and it is theirs, but they are completely wrong.

Regarding fences, there was a recent decision in Texas involving the difference between "designed enclosures" and "casual fences".

From https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2024/07/01/fence-boundary-dispute-involves-adverse-possession-claim/

Quote:

---

When dealing with an adverse possession claim involving grazing and fences, the issue of how to categorize the fence often arises. Fences are classified as either "casual fences" or "designed enclosures." If the fence existed before the claimant took possession and the claimant failed to demonstrate the purpose for which the fence was built, then the fence is presumed to be a "casual fence" and generally does not prove adverse possession. This is only a presumption, however, and may be rebutted if the defendant offers evidence the fence is actually a "designed enclosure." A casual fence can become a designed enclosure when there are "substantial modifications' that change the character of the fence. An exception to the enclosure requirement exists if the claimant can prove sufficient non-grazing use of the land that the true owner would have notice of the hostile claim.

Casual Fence

The court stated this case turns on the question of whether the existing barbed-wire fence Appellants claim is the boundary between their property and Thornton's is a casual fence or a designed enclosure. There was no dispute the fence has been in the same place for decades with testimony it had been there since 1965. Randolph testified to helping the Thornton family repair the fence in 1963 when they "shored up" the fence line and fixed broken wires. The fence was repaired again by Appellants' tenant and a Thornton family employee who had leased the land beginning in 2008. The tenant testified he put up new wire, put in new posts, and tied wire back together where needed.

This fence, the court held, is a classic casual fence. The fence existed before Appellants took possession of the property and they provided no explanation for the purpose for which it was built.

Designed Enclosure

Appellants argued that by repairing the fence by replacing wires and posts, it became a designed enclosure. The court rejected this argument. "Repairing or maintaining a casual fence generally does not change a casual fence into a designed one." These repairs did not modify or change the nature of the fence. Further, the evidence showed the repairs that were made were a joint effort between the Appellant and Thornton. Working together on the fence with the landowner is not indicative of an adverse possessor attempting to make the fence a designed enclosure. The court contrasted this situation with Butler v. Hanson, where the claimant did change the character of the fence to a designed enclosure by adding a net fence to the original three-strand barbed wire fence.

---

Years ago, we made one farmer really mad when we took out the fence and plowed up the road on his side of the fence. The fence was about ten feet off of the property line and had been there for many years.

What really got him was that his irrigation hydrants were right by the property line. When he was irrigating, the pipes had to cross his new road and turn 90 degrees. As such, he could no longer drive down that road when irrigating and had to get out and walk to wherever he needed to go to do things like turn on and off water hydrants.