Squatting Laws..

Property developer awarded $1.6 million Sydney home under squatting laws

 

Wow, I've always heard about the so called 'squatters rights' but I've never seen it actually happen, I guess it does happen though!

 

I was going to post the same link.

I think the developer is overly opportunistic; however I do wonder why the previous owner/s (not clear from the article I read) had no interest in maintaining or selling the property when the protected tenant died.

 

interesting.

Under NSW law all that has to be done is to take possession of the property for 12 years or more, this possessory title can then be converted into legal title. There are a few hurdles to meet, but this is the first case that I have seen happen.

 

Illegal Annandale demolition: Property developer who tore down 100-year-old shopfront fined $200,000

Recognise the name ?


I smell a rat.

 

Given the property wasn't in his name when it was rented out, I wonder who is legally entitled to the rent?

 

I just wonder how the land rates came to be settled by the developer?

 

The decision makes some sense and goes far beyond the issue of 12 years...47 years earlier the owner died. I didnt see any comment in case regarding where rent went for the time it was tenanted. You would have thought someone would have acted earlier when the rent stopped.

Germany (and Swiss too I think) have a similar law for grave sites and it is frequently used. If the occupants family dont maintain the site then the site is available for re-use. Hence many germans maintain a grave site with amazing gardens as a way to ward off such issues. Adolf Hitlers sisters (Paula) grave in Berchtesgaden is a good example. It is also occupied by more recent persons who covered her name.

 

Paid the council arrears I guess. That means council have no rights to sell. Its one of the conditions Terry mentioned. Another is land tax. And legal fees....I bet he paid well in the end after legal fees on top

 

I would argue a lot has been spent on lawyers to address an "ownership interest" which the court has upheld.

 

• Rates - who needs a bill, anyone can pay them (keep proof) - mailing address would have been c/- Inner West Council
• Upkeep of property - he could prove that
• Land Tax - last traceable owner died before Land Tax Act came into being so never registered

 

Can you believe this guy's brass? Sure, he spent money on it but it seems the family didn't even know anything about it. To me, it's wrong. Perhaps letting him keep 20 years of rental profits, rather than the whole house, would've been fair.
Ashbury has been a nice little suburb for a long time - lived there in early 90's. Who wouldn't have wanted a fixer-upper in Ashbury in 1998!
Would like to know more about previous tenant's links.

 

the person in possession.

 

Courts can only apply the law.

 

Putting aside specific ‘squatter laws’, the doctrine of adverse possession is long standing common law right going back centuries. In property, possession still is 9/10ths of the law.

 

McFarland v Gertos - NSW Caselaw

 

I've seen this sort of thing happen in the UK.

I used to work for Manchester City Council in the 70's and the council had made a reserve for a future road in the 50's. Around 20 years later they finally got round to start on the road and had to buy parts of their own land back because people backing onto the reserve had moved their fence line to extend their back gardens

 

This case is more a lesson about why you should have a will and attend to estate administration after death

The transcript may be a good tool for use by the ATO to commence audit proceedings based on a range of factors. The very nature of the acquisition may well not be a CGT asset and for many year was reported as business income and expenditure. A isolated profit making activity / enterprise perhaps ? And poor record retention.

 

What would be the cost base of the property?