Indiana fence laws?

[AngryRooster]

I think it is adverse possession, as you mentioned...but I am not 100% sure.

I just know a guy who bought a house with an easement alley running behind it, here in Danville, that no one maintained. The alley led to nothing but a dead end. So he started mowing and taking care of it and was able to then claim ownership. I am sure there is more to it....but not sure of details of the law.

That is like the log cabin rule. Many people don't even know it exists and your courthouse will lie to you and tell you it don't exist. But it does exist.

Never heard of this. What is it?

 

[88GT]

Adverse possession, paying taxes. Mowing it isn't enough.

Fences May or may not cover the residential installation of fences. But be sure to check local ordinances as well.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Adverse possession, paying taxes. Mowing it isn't enough.

Fences May or may not cover the residential installation of fences. But be sure to check local ordinances as well.

Can you narrow down that 600+ pages in that first link to what you are referring to? That .pdf file I found made the assertion of the 10 year window and I've heard it from other sources before but I'd love to have it confirmed or (preferably) refuted by seeing it in the IC.

 

[Whosyer]

Log cabin rule?

 

[88GT]

Can you narrow down that 600+ pages in that first link to what you are referring to? That .pdf file I found made the assertion of the 10 year window and I've heard it from other sources before but I'd love to have it confirmed or (preferably) refuted by seeing it in the IC.

Oh, sorry. I thought it would link directly to the relevant page.

It's 32-21-7. It says the adverse possessor must pay the taxes for the whole time of the adverse possession, in addition to meeting the other requirements. I can't find IC for the other requirements, but I did find this this. It references the same IC but it has to be old because current 32-21-7-1 doesn't mention time. The general elements of proving adverse possession at the bottom of the link are pretty universal across all states. They are probably common law minimums.

 

[Slawburger]

Never heard of this. What is it?

Indiana Log Cabin Rule

Robinson v. Monroe County, Indiana Court of Appeals, State Courts, COURT CASE

If you or your family provide a "substantial" amount of the labor in building your home then you gain some protection from codes (e.g. Septic Tanks, Fire Codes).

 

[88GT]

Log cabin rule?

Log Cabin Rule | Indiana Homestead

 

[Slawburger]

Too slow 88GT.

 

[88GT]

Too slow 88GT.

Mine references more than one court action, and the applicable IC.

And I was busy answering another question too. So I'm ahead by both counts.

 

[Slawburger]

Mine references more than one court action, and the applicable IC.

And I was busy answering another question too. So I'm ahead by both counts.

...but, but, I included a summary for the "click-challenged".

Kudos for knowing about the rule, most don't.

 

[88GT]

...but, but, I included a summary for the "click-challenged".

Kudos for knowing about the rule, most don't.

I have an advantage. Almost 13 years of real estate gives me exposure to a variety of non-traditional real estate issues.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh, sorry. I thought it would link directly to the relevant page.

It's 32-21-7. It says the adverse possessor must pay the taxes for the whole time of the adverse possession, in addition to meeting the other requirements. I can't find IC for the other requirements, but I did find this this. It references the same IC but it has to be old because current 32-21-7-1 doesn't mention time. The general elements of proving adverse possession at the bottom of the link are pretty universal across all states. They are probably common law minimums.

Let's say your neighbor mistakingly or intentionally put a fence up and maintained the portion of your property for an extended period of time. Let's say the plats or deeds or whatever the correct documents are at the county offices are not ambiguous--the land that the fence is on is clearly yours. But does this IC mean that your neighbor cannot achieve adverse possession unless and until s/he pays that portion of the real estate taxes corresponding to that portion of land? If the neighbor believes that strip of land belongs to him/her, maintains the property and in his mind, he has paid the taxes on the entire property including your portion, does that count for paying the taxes as required by the IC? Or does he specifically have to pay a portion attributiable to that portion?

 

[88GT]

Let's say your neighbor mistakingly or intentionally put a fence up and maintained the portion of your property for an extended period of time. Let's say the plats or deeds or whatever the correct documents are at the county offices are not ambiguous--the land that the fence is on is clearly yours. But does this IC mean that your neighbor cannot achieve adverse possession unless and until s/he pays that portion of the real estate taxes corresponding to that portion of land? If the neighbor believes that strip of land belongs to him/her, maintains the property and in his mind, he has paid the taxes on the entire property including your portion, does that count for paying the taxes as required by the IC? Or does he specifically have to pay a portion attributiable to that portion?

I don't know. The whole taxes for a portion of the property is beyond my "expertise." Way beyond.

I have seen some commentaries on adverse possession arguing that the "open and notorious" means the actual owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse possession as well. This is to protect an absent owner who honestly believes the property lines are being honored. I don't know if that is how it would play out in court though. That said, I don't know how someone doesn't become aware of an adverse possession action if the taxes are being paid. I would think that any judge would see that as constructive notice that there was an adverse possession claim on the property, and put the onus on the actual owner to investigate further.

Also, I believe I've read that any action by the actual owner demanding the adverse possessor to cease the possessory interest restarts the clock. So in your example, if I told my neighbor to stop mowing the grass and stop paying the taxes, it would break the continuity of the 10-year requirement. But again, I'm not sure how that holds up in court.

I only know of one true adverse possession case. It was in Colorado and it got really nasty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know. The whole taxes for a portion of the property is beyond my "expertise." Way beyond.

I have seen some commentaries on adverse possession arguing that the "open and notorious" means the actual owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse possession as well. This is to protect an absent owner who honestly believes the property lines are being honored. I don't know if that is how it would play out in court though. That said, I don't know how someone doesn't become aware of an adverse possession action if the taxes are being paid. I would think that any judge would see that as constructive notice that there was an adverse possession claim on the property, and put the onus on the actual owner to investigate further.

Also, I believe I've read that any action by the actual owner demanding the adverse possessor to cease the possessory interest restarts the clock. So in your example, if I told my neighbor to stop mowing the grass and stop paying the taxes, it would break the continuity of the 10-year requirement. But again, I'm not sure how that holds up in court.

I only know of one true adverse possession case. It was in Colorado and it got really nasty.

Is merely cutting the grass on the property enough to establish open and notorious possession? Or does the neighbor have to actually improve the property -- like building a structure of some sort, installing a driveway, etc?

 

[88GT]

Is merely cutting the grass on the property enough to establish open and notorious possession? Or does the neighbor have to actually improve the property -- like building a structure of some sort, installing a driveway, etc?

IANAL.

And I would say it would depend. I tend to doubt it, especially if the actual owner were occupying the property and keeping it maintained but for that strip. It could be argued that the adverse possessor mowed before the actual owner had a chance to. But in any case, if the actual owner is concerned, a polite conversation to the neighbor is in order. If nothing else, it breaks the continuity of the possessory timeframe and restarts the clock. (But to prove that, a way to document the conversation would be a good thing.)

 

[shibumiseeker]

Indiana Log Cabin Rule

Robinson v. Monroe County, Indiana Court of Appeals, State Courts, COURT CASE

If you or your family provide a "substantial" amount of the labor in building your home then you gain some protection from codes (e.g. Septic Tanks, Fire Codes).

I have built (almost entirely by myself with a little occasional help from friends) two houses. The first one was when Jesse (who I know and knew at the time they were fighting the county which is why I knew about the Log Cabin rule) was going through his ordeal with the county.

The kicker is, you may not be able to get insurance for such a dwelling, but it is useful to those of us who indeed can build our own home.

 

[yeahbaby]

My neighbor behind built his fence with a surface drain in his yard. I am thinking he built right over the easement. And if the city has to come in because of a problem they will tear the fence down to get to the drain.

 

[88GT]

My neighbor behind built his fence with a surface drain in his yard. I am thinking he built right over the easement. And if the city has to come in because of a problem they will tear the fence down to get to the drain.

City easements are an entirely different ballgame.

 

[IndyGunworks]

My neighbor behind built his fence with a surface drain in his yard. I am thinking he built right over the easement. And if the city has to come in because of a problem they will tear the fence down to get to the drain.

I did the same thing... But I don't complain about the drain.... I even built a removable firepit over the "beehive" part of the drain to get that part of my yard back as functional. If they wanted to work on it w/ any sort of decent sized equipment, they would have to tear down my fence, my shed, and my back porch.

 

[Leadeye]

Only had to put one fence up and that was to stop pesky neighbors from riding ATV's on my ground and dropping trash.