Squatting Laws..

Margin scheme might be a bit dodgy too.

 

"Justice Darke said he had considered the plaintiff's submissions but was "unable to accept them" and ordered them to pay Mr Gertos's legal costs."

Cheers,
Inertia

 

Anyone happen to know of any other unoccupied houses around Syd/Melb?

 

Perhaps only entitled retrospectively because he ultimately became the registered owner. If the relatives came forward earlier (within 12yrs), what would be his entitlement to the rent as a third party? You couldn’t simply rent out someone else’s house and say I was in possession of it for 6 months, you never came forward during that time so the rent is mine.

Suspect there is more to the story. Title searches existed 12 years ago... he says that search was inconclusive?

 

This thing is rare so I don't know. I remember we did cover adverse possession in law school (we cover a lot of non-practical issues).

I would think the possessor would be entitled to the rent as there was no one else entitled and he did it up. If other more rightful owners popped up later they could apply to the courts to have at least some of the rent turned over to them.

 

The Law of Adverse Possession revolves around acting like the owner. Collecting rent is something an owner would do.

 

Agreed, but you only become the owner after a certain period of time has lapsed. The interim period seems pretty risky.

Put another way, if the relatives came forward in year 10 or 11.... don’t like this guy’s chances of being repaid (or being entitled to repayment of) rates or the $135k+ he spent on capital works / repairs etc in the meantime... and he wouldn’t be the owner..

 

The laws of equity would mean he has an equitable interest in the property and a court would likely impose a constructive trust to account for his expenses.

I recall a case from law school where a builder built a house on what ended up being the wrong block of land. The owner of the land had to account for the improvements to the person that paid for it.

 

I'm no expert but I think adverse possession is not so uncommon in Ireland. Reading up on it, I'm pretty sure all you have to do is occupy some land (a house or farm what have you) and act for all the world like its yours. You can't be sneaky about it, you just take it and behave as if you own it. And it all hinges on the owner either knowing or being in a situation where they should have known (like if they've totally ignored the land, or not followed up until decades after trying to evict someone, which was an actual Irish case). It's based on the idea the owner shouldn't just be allowed to just let their rights lapse, and it's based on places like the UK where land in the past might otherwise have been abandoned and left to rot with no one being sure who owns it. Not so common now in the days of managed databases of land titles.

If you take the current case, I know some are saying it's unfair, but I think it's hard to argue this family are that hard done by. It took them 20 years to bother to check up on land they owned. They didn't just not know it existed, or this wouldn't be adverse possession, because the whole justification of adverse possession is the owner has to pretty much recklessly ignore their asset.

I think a few people tried this after the crash in Ireland. All those empty houses... And recently, maybe a year or two ago, I read about a situation in Australia where someone had moved into an abandoned terrace owned by someone who'd moved to China many years before. This was in Sydney, and the squatter intended to gain ownership of it through adverse possession. Wonder how he's going with his plan?

 

oh equity!

 

Is this something that a long-term tenant could potentially try to do to a landlord if they've been renting from a landlord for over 12 years? If so, it might be a good idea to kick out any tenants that have stayed for nearly 12 years!! I think I've read or heard a long time ago in some country that a long-term tenant could potentially do this, but can't remember where.

 

Nope. No chance.

 

No, landlord is still in control of the property

 

Perhaps if rent hadn't been paid for 6 or 12 years?

 

They are occupying with consent even If in breach l

 

I don't know the ins and outs and it is not worth the time researching, but recall the limitations act says something about the time period starting to tick on the last day rent is paid.

I think if you are going to attempt adverse possession the best way to do it would be on a deceased estate. Just go around befriendly the elderly that have no relatives..

 

In 1979, I bought a vacant 2-bed unit in Melbourne. Back in those days, it was 3 month settlement.

One day during the settlement period, I went around to check on it. To my surprise, I found people living in my-soon-to-be unit.

Apparently the real estate agent rented it out. I wasn’t entitled to the rent as it wasn’t mine. I dot know whether the seller found out about it and claimed the rent.

As sure as hell, the REA wasn’t entitled to it. Cheeky bugger!!!

 

Yes, Croydon Sydney.....
Place has had squatters in it a couple of times, neighbors nailed boards over a broken window and nailed the doors shut.
I asked, no one in the street seems to know what is going on, they mow the nature strip and use the spare bin !
Tempted

 

I know of a family who have several vacant CBD office buildings in Sydney - all boarded up, landbankers. Linky

 

I don't really think so, because the tenancy would still be afoot until its terminated by the proper mechanisms.