Adverse Possssion
DAW
(last line at http://surpass.nu) or
http://surpass.nu/ceast-texas.pdf
I'd be interested in learning of y'alls view of this case.
Dave Wahlström
Kent McMillan
Dave:
Is there any doubt that in Texas a title established by adverse
possession may ripen into full, legal title? Under the facts of the
case you mention, how could the court have found otherwise?
The more interesting question that occurs to me to ask is whether Jasper
County, where the land subject of the suit was situated, was one of the
East Texas counties that had lost its courthouse and records in a fire
during the period after the Civil War. The statutes of limitation on
adverse possession served in important function in quieting land titles
in many of those counties.
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin TX
DAW
"Interesting" may have been somewhat of an overstatement.
Regardless, I don't think the case really stands for what type or quality of
title is established by adverse possession. The general rule, without regard
to the State, is as you say, namely full legal title. [As a side note, trace
a "leading" Texas case back to its genesis and I'll bet you a six-pack that
you end up in the Kentucky or Tennessee State collection! In fact, I cannot
recall a notable case wherein there is stated a rule of boundary law unique
to Texas.]
Rather, I believe the case clearly announces, in my opinion, what the
adverse possessor has to do to advise the public she has "been there long
enough" and satisfied all the elements of the adverse possession statute.
Namely, nothing!
Dave Wahlstrom
Bryan Williams
***SNIP***
[As a side note, trace
>a "leading" Texas case back to its genesis and I'll bet you a six-pack that
>you end up in the Kentucky or Tennessee State collection! In fact, I cannot
>recall a notable case wherein there is stated a rule of boundary law unique
>to Texas.]
>
***SNIP***
What about the horrible Gradient Boundary process for determining the
limits of navigable streams? Perhaps you are correct in that it was
developed to solve a dispute between Texas and Oklahoma on the Red River.
Bryan Williams
Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
I came, I saw, I stuck around.
DAW
law!"
Dave Wahlstrom
Kent McMillan
> [As a side note, trace
> a "leading" Texas case back to its genesis and I'll bet you a six-pack that
> you end up in the Kentucky or Tennessee State collection!
Dave:
When you write "six pack" are thinking of cans of top-quality product of
the brewer's art, or do you mean six empties? (One must be specific in
dealing with the legalistic.) On the assumption that you mean six of
the best, I'll take you up on your offer by drawing your attention to
the following case for starters:
San Antonio River Authority v. Lewis (363 S.W. 2d 444).
If you end up in Kentucky or Tennessee law as the genesis of this
court's decision, I would think you have taken a wrong turn.
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin TX
P.S. No Foster's lager, please, only real beer!
Al Smith
law."
DAW
unacceptable! Obviously, my profs didn't repeat themselves often enough.
I graduated from IU (Dan Quayle's alma matter). The difference is I can
spell potato.
DAW
jerrya
When I was Chief Location Surveyor for the NM Hwy Dept. we were given a case
in Farmington NM where the State had paved a portion of a turn-lane on
private property w/o benefit of acquiring any R/W.
State Supreme court held that if the HWY Dept had been using it for ONE YEAR
or more, it was theirs, and the property owner was SOL.
Ed Rios is still with the NMSH&TD I believe. He could get you a cite on the
case.
(Send me one too, Ed - I'll buy lunch next time.)
Ed....@nmshtd.state.nm.us
Jerry Anderson
"If ye love wealth greater than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
(Samuel Adams)
-----Original Message-----
From: DAW <d...@usa.net>
Newsgroups: sci.engr.surveying
Date: Friday, September 10, 1999 11:13 AM
Subject: More adverse possession
>Good day
>
>Can anyone furnish me with a cite for a case wherein a governmental entity
>successfully "acquired" property via adverse possession?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Dave Wahlstrom
>
>
Charles German
to stop the STATE from using it? Sounds like a kangaroo deal to
me... but who ever said lawyers and judges knew anything?
--
Charlie German
Professional "Swampstomper"
Al Smith
An eg. You own a lot in a city. You pass by the lot everyday.
You see some guys with bulldozers, cranes, powershovels start construction.
They start construction and the building is 2 feet on your lot. You say (to
yourself), "Hmmmm." You watch the foundation being dug and constructed, but say
nothing. You watch floor after floor being constructed, but say nothing.
Finally, the building is finished and you go to the CEO of the company who
owns the building and say, "Tear it down. It's on my property."
Anybody ought to be able to arrive at what a court would do.
It's latches.
Wwing
>
>When I was Chief Location Surveyor for the NM Hwy Dept. we were given a case
>in Farmington NM where the State had paved a portion of a turn-lane on
>private property w/o benefit of acquiring any R/W.
>
>State Supreme court held that if the HWY Dept had been using it for ONE YEAR
>or more, it was theirs, and the property owner was SOL.
hmmmm....somehow I doubt the judge would be so forgiving if the property owner
fired up a bulldozer and converted that turn lane back into the vegetable
garden he had always wanted there. Unless, of course, he did it within the
first year while patiently waiting for Mr. High and Mighty to hear the case.
Doesn't this come under the heading "Engendering disrespect for the Law"?
Bill Wingstedt
DAW
http://www.touchngo.com:/sp/html/sp-4469.htm
DAW
Gary R. Volmer
be adversely possessed. The state can be forced to pay for the property if
valid evidence can be show to prove ownership, but your guaranteed for a
long drawn out battle.
Gary R. Volmer, PLS
Charles German <cge...@darientel.net> wrote in message
news:37D9628C...@darientel.net...
> And just how did the STATE court expect this private individual
> to stop the STATE from using it? Sounds like a kangaroo deal to
> me... but who ever said lawyers and judges knew anything?
>
> jerrya wrote:
> >
> > Don't have a case cite for you, but can provide a lead...
> >
> > When I was Chief Location Surveyor for the NM Hwy Dept. we were given a
case
> > in Farmington NM where the State had paved a portion of a turn-lane on
> > private property w/o benefit of acquiring any R/W.
> >
> > State Supreme court held that if the HWY Dept had been using it for ONE
YEAR
> > or more, it was theirs, and the property owner was SOL.
> >