I'm curious if anyone else has had dealings in a situation like this. My mom's neighbor decided to get a survey done on his property because he wanted to erect a fence. It so happens that the lean-to on the side of our garage falls over the property line by about a foot. This lean-to has been on the garage for over 30 years. The neighboring property has changed hands twice in that time, and the issue has never been raised. From my research, this issue falls under what is called adverse posession. Minnesota Code §508.02; 541.01-02. It states that if the occupation is known and for over 15 years, the land is owned by the person using it. At least that's how I read it. Thoughts?
If it can't be worked out between your mom and your neighbor: retain an attorney, and be prepared for a prolonged situation. It's not as simple as it having been there for 30 years -- it requires actual OPEN and KNOWN, and HOSTILE occupation for the land. The main problem here is that the land has changed hands twice in that time, and there is the question of whether or not the original owner of the property knew about this. Tacit acknowledgment that the land was in use doesn't mean OPEN, KNOWN, and HOSTILE. That means, pretty specifically, that it had to be a point of contention, though nothing outside of an argument ever arose. Not a lawyer, but the secretary in my office is currently dealing with this. I'd definitely suggest talking to an attorney if things can't be worked out, though. It would be best if it can be worked out between them, though. Far less expensive.
We have consulted a lawyer already. He feels that we have a pretty strong case, but nothing is a garantee. The neighbors have not been willing to discuss the situation. Also, he lies a lot, not just in this situation. I'm pretty sure he cannot afford to take this to district court.
well, there's 2 different ways to skin this cat, and you've got one of them. adverse possession means you are actually claiming a title of ownership to the land. an easement be prescription means you are claiming a permanent right to use the land based on the fact that whatever your "use" is, you've been doing it for a long time and no one said anything. ask your lawyer if you can acquire easements by prescription in MN because if you can, you may end up having to pay less to the neighbor because you are paying only for "use" and not ownership. in either case, the fact that no one said anything about it for this long is very favorable to your case, especially since you have spent money on improving the property. however, your best option is still probably to offer to settle/buy the land off of him. judges try to be fair and if you have a structure in place that's been there for 30 years with no complaints, they're not likely to force you to tear it down just so your crybaby neighbor can have his extra foot of land. this is what you will go through: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=559.23&year=2008 a judge will likely order you to pay damages to the owner and that will be that, so you can skip the runaround and just offer to pay for it upfront and be done with it. put it to him this way: do either of you really want to chance losing? if you're ordered to pay damages plus attorney's fees and court costs, technically you "lose" the case but win because you get the property but overall it's a wash because of the extra fees, plus a judge then determines the worth of the property which may require a pricey property evaluation to determine its market value. if you do it out of court, you get to determine the worth quickly and fairly. but there is a chance the judge might order only nominal damages ($1) then the neighbor gets screwed, and you really win. moral: settling out of court is in everyone's best interests. but if you do go to court, don't forget this tasty bit: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=559.15&year=2008 remember, property = taxes to the state. if you were to tear down the lean-to, the property would be worth less and then they could collect less $ in taxes on it. ergo, if i read this correctly, any damages that your neighbor claims should be set off against the value of the improvements and the increased taxes you have paid as a result of those improvements, plus interest. that may not set off against the value of the land you may be required to pay him (you'll have to ask a property lawyer, not a law student, about that) but it should set off against any additional damages he could claim against you. i would argue that your being forced to pay court costs or attorneys fees would be an "additional" damage, so hopefully the setoff would cover that. that's probably a stretch of an argument, but it can't hurt to try! good luck
Nice response Boss. I can do triple integrals all day long, but interpreting legal jargon can be challenging. I'll have to discuss these ideas with my mother and see where we end up. Thanks again.
