Post for Moover about property possession

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 16:17

Hey Moover,



Been enjoying all the fun on NCFP for the past couple of weeks, including your relentless and fascinating pursuit of those beleagured GCs. Your continued taunt of possession is 9/10ths of the law has got me thinking.



In another life I was a Commonwealth-registered land surveyor in Australia, and actually conducted two or three (they aren't all that common) adverse possession surveys. Now all I can speak on with any authority is the property laws in Australia, and that only when I was still practising. Things may well be different now, and of course different in the UK and Cyprus.



My cases utilised the adverse possession law that stated any property you could prove you had been occupying for at least a period of I think 12 years, as proved by registered survey, was yours. The proof usually was in the from of photos of the property and receipts of all local government fees such as land tax and water rates, plus the diagram of survey showing the dimensions of the...

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 16:18

claimed piece of land.



Can you advise if this is also the case in TRNC? If so, it might be something that some people could benefit by.

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 16:19

Oops, where is part 2 Rottoilover.



In the mean time I would add that once upon a time there was 'Squatters Rights ' in U.K, whereby if you used land, or even a path over a period of time, it became your 'right'. Not sure now about the law, but you are right, technically 'Squatters Rights' could apply here, by using a bit of misplaced logic.

Maybe the Australian law was based on British law - mjore than likely.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 16:21

Uninterrupted and undisputed use for over twelve years was the rule in Cyprus too but if anybody is in the posession of a title deed, the title deed has priority.

ismet

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 16:52

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/Derelictbuildingsandsquatters/DG_10022452

http://www.propertylawuk.net/adversepossessionsquatters.html

Uk law was changed this century see second link

Maz


Joined: 29/03/2009
Posts: 1924

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 17:09

Yea, thought the law was changed in recent history. Been away too long, that I have! Thanks for the input Elko

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 17:15

Thanks for that wanderer.



But if I'm reading your link correctly, a "squatter" is permitted to apply for adverse possession over the land he is occupying after 10 years. This may be objected to by the paper owner, who then has 2 years to evict the squatter. After that, if eviction has not legally occurred, he may then re-apply for adverse possession and gain title.



Am I wrong?

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 17:19

Sorry to disappoint you all but if a property owner is prevented from evicting the squatter then the law does not apply, if this was otherwise then all of the TC property down south would have been lost too

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 18:12

It is unlikely that squatters or indeed adverse possession laws will provide much basis for a contest against a registered ROC title.



The Precedent has now been set by Apostolides v Orams. However, It is very unlikely that Appostolides will take benefit , above and beyond damages and back rent (circa £20K) for his victory and associated turmoil.

Now that judgment has been passed and the political points have been scored. I would not atall be suprised to see him before the IPC for some real monetary compensation. This will then give him both political victory and a tidy sum in the bank.



If, as I suspect, the villa in lapta is not demolished because of a refusal to grant permission by TRNC administration. The TRNC admin. will recommend mr. A indeed goes to the IPC.

This will present another angle upon future claims and will encourage refugees to go to the IPC in preference to long civil litigation cases.



In my view the most damaging outcome is the award of costs ....

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
30/01/2010 18:20

...cont

of circa £1.5 million.

This is open invitation for no win no fee type advertising in ROC. Any legal firm would welcome this level of reward for contesting title ownership and the associated political points to boot.



I do hope that the IPC is accepted by the ECJ as a suitable and local remedy. There is currently a high profile case GC's V Turkey. This is the next big judgment that will have significant effects to the TRNC.