本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Squatter’s Rights – Reiner V. Truxa
The Reiners commenced a property survey which showed that the neighbours, the Truxa-Sanis, driveway encroached onto their land. The Reiners requested the Truxa-Sanis remove the offending part of their driveway. However, the Truxa-Sanis argued that the portion of land became their own through Squatter’s rights. [5] Both properties were converted from the Registry system in 2001 and in order to successfully put forth a claim of Squatter’s rights, the Truxa-Sanis needed to prove that they or their predecessors in title had maintained: [6]
actual possession for the statutory period – in this case, ten years – by themselves and those through whom they claim;
that such possession was with the intention of excluding from possession the owner or persons entitled to possession; and,
discontinuance of possession for the statutory period by the owner and all others, if any, entitled to possession. [7]
The court was satisfied with the evidence before them that the Truxa-Sanis had successfully proved their claim of Squatter’s rights. [8] As a result, the property in dispute became the Truxa-Sanis through Squatter’s rights and they were not required to remove the portion of their driveway in dispute.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
The Reiners commenced a property survey which showed that the neighbours, the Truxa-Sanis, driveway encroached onto their land. The Reiners requested the Truxa-Sanis remove the offending part of their driveway. However, the Truxa-Sanis argued that the portion of land became their own through Squatter’s rights. [5] Both properties were converted from the Registry system in 2001 and in order to successfully put forth a claim of Squatter’s rights, the Truxa-Sanis needed to prove that they or their predecessors in title had maintained: [6]
actual possession for the statutory period – in this case, ten years – by themselves and those through whom they claim;
that such possession was with the intention of excluding from possession the owner or persons entitled to possession; and,
discontinuance of possession for the statutory period by the owner and all others, if any, entitled to possession. [7]
The court was satisfied with the evidence before them that the Truxa-Sanis had successfully proved their claim of Squatter’s rights. [8] As a result, the property in dispute became the Truxa-Sanis through Squatter’s rights and they were not required to remove the portion of their driveway in dispute.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net