Post by Ian Gillespie on Nov 4, 2014 0:17:09 GMT
When limitations are being uplifted there are two possible courses of action to be taken under the current rules:
Either the boundaries can be defined by survey (Rule 6.2(a)(viii)) or,
The "alternative process" can be used where by the boundaries are defined by adoption, the neighbours consents obtained and the occupation surveyed to ensure it agrees with the calculated boundary.
In two recent court cases it has been reinforced that in order for a claim for adverse possession to be successful the occupation must predate the issue of the first land transfer title and the land in the two adjoining parcels must always have been in different ownership.
Consider the very common situation where limited land has been subdivided and the new parcels have limitations uplifted but the balance remains limited. In this situation the subdivided parcels can never have occupied land in the balance parcel since the first LT title was issued and, the land was in common ownership when the new titles were issued.
When limitations are removed from the balance title, the requirements above must still be adhered to, but there is clearly no grounds that could exist for an adverse possession claim.
Why do we have to continue to comply with this requirement? Is there a possible scenario where the subdivided land could make a claim against the limited land? Is this just another silly rule or am I missing something?
Either the boundaries can be defined by survey (Rule 6.2(a)(viii)) or,
The "alternative process" can be used where by the boundaries are defined by adoption, the neighbours consents obtained and the occupation surveyed to ensure it agrees with the calculated boundary.
In two recent court cases it has been reinforced that in order for a claim for adverse possession to be successful the occupation must predate the issue of the first land transfer title and the land in the two adjoining parcels must always have been in different ownership.
Consider the very common situation where limited land has been subdivided and the new parcels have limitations uplifted but the balance remains limited. In this situation the subdivided parcels can never have occupied land in the balance parcel since the first LT title was issued and, the land was in common ownership when the new titles were issued.
When limitations are removed from the balance title, the requirements above must still be adhered to, but there is clearly no grounds that could exist for an adverse possession claim.
Why do we have to continue to comply with this requirement? Is there a possible scenario where the subdivided land could make a claim against the limited land? Is this just another silly rule or am I missing something?
