adverse possession
Posted: September 29th, 2023, 5:00 pm
Si as not to derail the other thread i queried in...
so adverse posession needs to be 20+ years use of land, where the owner "has" to have known about it etc etc.
which got me thinking about why a land owner would not prevent such usage given it could lead to losing ownership of that land.
the only things that sprang to mind where
* its such a pointless, tiny bit of land that has no possible benefit, or use and such little effective value is likely so just let it go
* the costs of upkeeping the land far outweigh its effective value then letting somebody else have it is cost effective
Anyhthing else?
And it got me to thinking... could it be a way of keeping land that is valuable but giving an easy "out" if the ownership of that land ended up being "bad" for inheritance tax purposes, or care home fees wotsit? eg a child has adverse possession for > 20 years and that is claimed IF ownership by the parent is not useful for whatever other reasons? ie it may end more "efficient" than inheriting it or gifting it ?
Im not suggesting the use of adverse possession in this manner is a good or bad thing. merely intrigued as to whether that "works"
so adverse posession needs to be 20+ years use of land, where the owner "has" to have known about it etc etc.
which got me thinking about why a land owner would not prevent such usage given it could lead to losing ownership of that land.
the only things that sprang to mind where
* its such a pointless, tiny bit of land that has no possible benefit, or use and such little effective value is likely so just let it go
* the costs of upkeeping the land far outweigh its effective value then letting somebody else have it is cost effective
Anyhthing else?
And it got me to thinking... could it be a way of keeping land that is valuable but giving an easy "out" if the ownership of that land ended up being "bad" for inheritance tax purposes, or care home fees wotsit? eg a child has adverse possession for > 20 years and that is claimed IF ownership by the parent is not useful for whatever other reasons? ie it may end more "efficient" than inheriting it or gifting it ?
Im not suggesting the use of adverse possession in this manner is a good or bad thing. merely intrigued as to whether that "works"