Case Brief: Tim V Hill Bob

CASE BRIEF - QUESTION 2

To: ***** *****

From: ***** *****

Re: Tim v Hill Bob

1. Facts:

The Blues Ranch, a 2000 acre ranch in Colorado is owned by Tim. There is a log hut in one corner of the ranch that appeared inhabited, but no 'tenant' was ever seen. Recently, it has been found to house Hill Bob. When Tim attempted to make him leave, Hill Bob told him that he had squatter's rights.

2. Type of Action:

Tim contacted his lawyer to find out what was involved in 'squatters rights' and how and if he could remove the trespasser from his property.

3. Issues:

a. Court Holding:

Taking all factors into account, I think that the courts might have found for the defendant, Hill Bob, as he does fulfill all the requirements for Squatter's Rights.

b. Legal analysis:

Squatter's rights are a term used for adverse possession, an ancient law which states that when a person uses a piece of property that belongs to someone else for a period of years without the owner's permission, that piece of land becomes the property of the possessor. This period is anywhere from five to fifteen years, depending on the laws of the state. (Legal Database, 2007) Colorado laws set this period at five years.

If the squatter abandons the property for a period, or if the rightful owner effectively removes the squatter's access even temporarily during the statutory period, or even gives his permission, the "clock" stops. (Adverse possession, 2007) The squatter had the legal right to be paid for improvements and could be evicted. (Alston, Mueller, 2006)

Tim stated that for the past 15 years, someone "obviously lives in the hut". Although he never found the inhabitant, this shows that Hill Bob was residing in the hut. If Tim or his lawyer were to find proof that Hill Bob had spent any time residing elsewhere within the last five years, his claim to Squatter's Rights would be void and he could be evicted from the property.

References:

Legal

...