quote:

Adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, which states that "neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another[1]."

Plainly stated, this means the law does not reward a person who neglects to enforce his property rights by allowing him to claim the fruit of another person's labor at a later time. Failure of a landowner to exercise and defend his property rights for a certain length of time may result in the permanent loss of the landowner's interest in the property.

An example of this would be if a land owner saw that his neighbor had begun building a house on his land, due to ignorance of the location of the property line. If the land owner waits until the house is completed and then sues his neighbor over the location of the line, he has wrongly gained a house on his land at his neighbor's expense. The same principle would apply to any kind of work that improves the land from a wild state.


[edit] Requirements for adverse possession
The adverse party is called the "disseisor", meaning one who dispossesses the true owner of the property.

Adverse possession requires five conditions to be met in order to perfect the title of the disseisor[2]:

Actual possession: the disseisor must physically use the land as a property owner would, in accordance with the type of property, location, and uses. Merely walking on land, or hunting, does not establish actual possession[3] His actions must change the state of the land. Examples include, clearing, mowing, planting, harvesting fruit of the land, cutting timber, mining, fencing, pulling stumps, running livestock and constructing buildings and other improvements.

Paying taxes does not establish actual possession, but may be admitted by some courts as evidence of claim of right. For example, if the true owner regularly pays taxes on the land, even while a disseisor has taken actual possession of the land by his regular use and improvement of it, the true owner's payment of taxes does not affect the disseisor's actual possession.

However, if the disseisor were to pay taxes over the same period that he was using and improving the land, the court might find that his payment of taxes was evidence that he believed he had a "claim of right" to the land.

Open and notorious: the disseisor's use of the property is so visible and apparent that it gives notice to the legal owner that someone may assert claim. Must be of such character that would give notice to a reasonable person. If legal owner has knowledge, this element is met; it can be also met by fencing, posted signs, crops, buildings, or animals that a diligent owner could be expected to know about.
Exclusive: the disseisor holds the land to the exclusion of the true owner. Renters, hunters, and anyone else who entered the land with the permission of the true owner fail to have exclusive possession. (Note: There may be more than one adverse possessor, taking as tenants in common, so long as the other elements are met.)
Hostile or adverse: Objective view--used without true owner’s permission and inconsistent with true owner’s rights. Bad faith or intentional trespass view--used with the adverse possessor’s subjective intent and state of mind (mistaken possession in some jurisdictions does not constitute a hostility). Good faith view--a few courts have required that the party mistakenly believed that it is his/her land. All views require that the disseisor openly claim the land against all possible claims.
Continuous: the disseisor must, for statute of limitations purposes, hold that property continuously for the entire limitations period, and use it as a true owner would for that time. This element focuses on adverse possessor’s time on the land, not how long true owner has been dispossessed of it.

Occasional activity on the land with long gaps in activity fail the test of continuous possession. Courts have ruled that merely cutting timber at intervals, when not accompanied by other actions that demonstrate actual and continuous possession, fails to demonstrate continuous possession.

If the true owner ejects the disseisor from the land, verbally or through legal action, and after some time the disseisor returns and dispossesses him again, then the statute of limitation starts over from the time of the disseisor's return. He cannot count the time prior to his ejection by the true property owner.

In addition, some courts require by common law or statute:

Claim of title or claim of right. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mere intent to take the land as one's own constitutes "claim of right". Other cases have determined that a claim of right exists if the person believes he has rightful claim to the property, even if that belief is mistaken.

A negative example would be a timber thief who sneaks onto a property, cuts timber not visible from the road, and hauls the logs away at night. His actions, though they demonstrate actual possession, also demonstrate knowledge of guilt, as opposed to claim of right.

Good faith or bad faith
Improvement, cultivation, or enclosure
Payment of property taxes
Not under force of arms. Dispossession by armed invasion does not establish a claim of adverse possession against the true owner.

quote:

Originally posted by ICIP:
How come the Guyana government dole out land to crooks like Buddies and Roger Khan none can be provided to these poe squatters?

quote:

Originally posted by ICIP:
How come the Guyana government dole out land to crooks like Buddies and Roger Khan none can be provided to these poe squatters?

quote:

Originally posted by Praetorian.GY:
Thanks to the PNC regime the Ministry of Housing was abolished and people were forced to squat, not by choice but by circumstances. Can you believe that? They abolished the Ministry responsible for housing and forced people onto the streets? Heartless.

quote:

Originally posted by ICIP:
How come the Guyana government dole out land to crooks like Buddies and Roger Khan none can be provided to these poe squatters?

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by ICIP:
How come the Guyana government dole out land to crooks like Buddies and Roger Khan none can be provided to these poe squatters?

"wrong" type of hair.

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:
Good move removing these squatters. They were an eyesore to anyone leaving or departing GY.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by ICIP:
How come the Guyana government dole out land to crooks like Buddies and Roger Khan none can be provided to these poe squatters?

"wrong" type of hair.

Bynoe got land near Lindo creek where he was providing sanctuary to Fineman and his band of killers. What about Ashmins? What about the Black hoteliers next to Buddies? You does shoot crap without evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:
Good move removing these squatters. They were an eyesore to anyone leaving or departing GY.

why would they want to live so close to an airport? There is so much more better land up the highway fro them to squat and farm in peace and quiet.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:
Good move removing these squatters. They were an eyesore to anyone leaving or departing GY.

why would they want to live so close to an airport? There is so much more better land up the highway fro them to squat and farm in peace and quiet.

1. Closer to town.

2. Jobs or vending opportunities available at the airport.

3. A women said she fled flooding conditions on the coast.

4. Not every one has the ability or expertise to farm and the Linden highway is a bad place to farm due to poor soils (almost pure glass)as those who followed Burnham's exhortations to farm there discovered.

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:
Good move removing these squatters. They were an eyesore to anyone leaving or departing GY.

why would they want to live so close to an airport? There is so much more better land up the highway fro them to squat and farm in peace and quiet.

1. Closer to town.

2. Jobs or vending opportunities available at the airport.

3. A women said she fled flooding conditions on the coast.

4. Not every one has the ability or expertise to farm and the Linden highway is a bad place to farm due to poor soils (almost pure glass)as those who followed Burnham's exhortations to farm there discovered.

As mentioned above these squatters are not only an eyesore but they harass travelers. They prey on arriving passengers in the parking lot and utilize the airport washrooms meant for travelers leaving the washroom in filthy state. Having said the above, once the Government provides alternative land for all of them, all will be well in due time.

quote:

Originally posted by baseman:
It part of the prolific lawlessness and vulturism embedded in such people.