Welch lost on her adverse possession claim that she owned the land underlying the woodshed and landscaping. Portion of Lot 8 she inadvertently built on. Portion of this case, ruled against Welch because she had not paid taxes on the
Of) the true owner (4) under claim of right and (5) they paid taxes on the Part of a neighbor’s property for over five years, he or she may request aĬourt order that they “own” the land underlying the improvements if theĮncroachment has been (1) open (visible) and notorious (obvious) (2)Ĭontinuous and uninterrupted for five years (3) hostile to (without consent Prevail under the legal theory of adverse possession. Welch claimed she had a prescriptive easement and/or was entitled to Have the long-standing improvements removed. Harrisons, had the property surveyed and the encroachment was discovered. If they have been in place for five years or longer, the riddle is moreħ in the Shasta Holiday subdivision, built a woodshed and planter boxes whichĮxtended over her property line onto Lot 8 – about seven feet for the shed and Were constructed less than five years ago: Over the boundary line be removed or may it legally remain in place? That, my friends, is the question.
Over your property line, whether it be a driveway, a fence, a deck or even a Given the frequent lack of survey monuments, is a neighbor’s inadvertent building
