Delete

[ProtonPowder]

Most recent aerial photos they have for the country is ~4 years old, at a very, very good resolution at that. Otherwise there are google/bing satellite maps you can use which are a little older and not as detailed.

They can tell how long people on the land squatting for.
What they cant tell is who it is. If somebody sell you their squatting space under the table and you take over their galvanise shed, they cant prove that unless people willing to say so

[rspann]

You could transfer rights, I read it in the laws. If you leave and return it starts over though.

[Chimera]

In these kind of cases you find garbage truck drivers/delivery drivers/ neighbours/ postman / estate police etc to come to court to say that the conman....i mean person claiming adverse possession.... was only there for two or three years.

[88sins]

Land Settlement can help because they have aerial photographs every couple of years, so they can verify how long a building or cultivation has been going on on any piece of land. So you can't just say you were there sixteen years when you now hitting three.

LSA can't help him
Aerial photos might show there is a building on the property, but they won't prove that building belongs to him. Could have been an old building left on the property by the owners fore parents & op jus jump in & say he built it. He would need receipts for building materials, with his name on them & the address of or directions to that property, to legally prove the building is his in court.


OP, reason with the owner, & if you can't then go to court. But know this.

If he offers to sell to you & for whatever reason you say you can't/wont buy it, he can he can sell it to a third party.
& that is where your problems will start

[sMASH]

someone attempt that flabbergastery with us...for a piece of land in mayaro.....

not taking none of freaking that.

sounds interesting....



the essence of squatters rights is that although the owner of the land has deed and entitled to the land, the occupier made more use of the land. and since the squatter was allowed to stay so long on the land, that means that the owner aint too bothered about the land.
it sounds like the american term 'possession is 9/10 of the law'

back in 2009/2010 that issue came up with the rented land in la romain, and kamla them came round and was talking about that. the 30 years came up, and the 16 years came up. if u live there for so long, that mean the land is of more worth to u, than to the owner. and so u could make arrangements to purchase it, at a reduced price.



if u have land, and u dont want no bady take it from u, occupy it. make sure nobody use it.

[nos_specialist]

OP.. GTFO d man land..

[*KRONIK*]

OP.. GTFO d man land..

Woi nossssyy....waz the scene?
I find yuh scarce these days

[nos_specialist]

Ohhh bro.. wah vibes This hydro business have meh busy these past few months.

[*KRONIK*]

Ohhh bro.. wah vibes This hydro business have meh busy these past few months.

Nice...

Just doh put yuh ting on ppl land and try to take it from them eh

[nos_specialist]

Bwahahahahhaa

[Primo-El]

Another thing, suppose the owner sells the land and the new owner is a facked up individual who have no time for you and court? One day you gone down d road and when you come back, a bulldozer on yuh roof.

You have money for attorney? Use that money and try to get a deed for a small 2 lots eh (subdivide)... or ride out.

Man say bulldozer on yuh roof yes! DED

[gastly369]

Shoulda be my land....

[ADONI]

OP is injun!!!

[Kasey]

someone attempt that flabbergastery with us...for a piece of land in mayaro.....

not taking none of freaking that.

sounds interesting....



the essence of squatters rights is that although the owner of the land has deed and entitled to the land, the occupier made more use of the landSo? If I saving my money home, and a theif steal it, and buys car, stereo, and fridge, that means that since he made better use of my money, that he is right? WTF!!!. and since the squatter was allowed to stay so long on the land, that means that the owner aint too bothered about the land.BS again, suppose I buy the land as a 'nest egg', why should someone have the right to take it from me just because they stay on it long?
it sounds like the american term 'possession is 9/10 of the law'

back in 2009/2010 that issue came up with the rented land in la romain, and kamla them came round and was talking about that. the 30 years came up, and the 16 years came up. if u live there for so long, that mean the land is of more worth to u, than to the owner. and so u could make arrangements to purchase it, at a reduced price.



if u have land, and u dont want no bady take it from u, occupy it. make sure nobody use it.

[Kasey]

Again I say, the squatter's rights thing is utter BS!!!!! Just because someone else can make use of my HARD EARNED investment fro a particular period of time, it still should not give them the right to get it free, or even at a reduced price!!!!! I worked dam hard for that!!!! Its not my fault that you cannot work as hard as me to make an investment like that.

[not_a_monkey]

Just a little idea for anybody going thru this with any squatter/unwanted person on their property; as long as there is a noted/ verifiable complaint (from police station or court clerk of the peace/JP) lodged, that is your strongest evidence if ever the issue arises from a legal standpoint.

[sMASH]

Me, I say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[rspann]

Me, I say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Nah ,34 ounces of prevention is better. That's the weight of a fully loaded sig Sauer p226.

[Joshie23]

Good day all anyone ever accquire land by adverse possesion i need some advice ive been living on a 2acre agriculture property for 31 years but owner wants to sell for 85 per sq i dont know which drugs he on because a valuation was done by linden scott and accociates for 20 per sf agriculture is my main income hence i need the property i have need been served with any evictions so i decided to go to the courts which is pending if anyone ever was in similar situation and succeed any advice appreciated

Next, on today's episode of 'Trinidad Is Not A Real Place.'

[rspann]

So nobody ain't siding with Op?

[sMASH]

I, I am Spartacus.



Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

[Joshie23]

I, I am Spartacus.



Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

So by your logic, if a man is working offshore and his female companion is not 'used', as you put it, by said offshore worker, after a certain time frame has elapsed, by all rights, someone else should be have permission to move in and 'make use of her', as you put it, without any repercussions? Everything cool, hunky dory, as they say?

[Lance]

I, I am Spartacus.



Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

So by your logic, if a man is working offshore and his female companion is not 'used', as you put it, by said offshore worker, after a certain time frame has elapsed, by all rights, someone else should be have permission to move in and 'make use of her', as you put it, without any repercussions? Everything cool, hunky dory, as they say?

This analogy is sheit, so much flawed assumptions.

For one thing, you're comparing an inanimate object to two consenting independent individuals.

Secondly, your temporal element is flawed. You're trying to equate a stint offshore to 30 years of neglect?

[sMASH]

Why u suffering de ting for.. Give it to somebody who will use it.. Or already using it.



If somebody could make use for such a long duration of time, u not losing out by giving it up.

[Joshie23]

I, I am Spartacus.



Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

So by your logic, if a man is working offshore and his female companion is not 'used', as you put it, by said offshore worker, after a certain time frame has elapsed, by all rights, someone else should be have permission to move in and 'make use of her', as you put it, without any repercussions? Everything cool, hunky dory, as they say?

This analogy is sheit, so much flawed assumptions.

For one thing, you're comparing an inanimate object to two consenting independent individuals.

Secondly, your temporal element is flawed. You're trying to equate a stint offshore to 30 years of neglect?

Hook, line and sinker. What I was actually trying to do, was draw attention to how easily Trinidadians justify the wrong thing. sMASH is a smart guy but you, you took the bait. 'Why them police only studying speed? Ent it have other crime?' 'Weyy..that wrecker man wicked jed. I did only park up dey a five minutes inno!!' We all do it, but it doesn't change the fact that wrong is wrong. Whether it be a 2 week offshore stint or 30 years of ME not occupying MY land, if it's not yours, leave it alone. And since you want to play schupid, you're right. It's flawed logic because the woman can choose to go to the other man for comfort should she so desire. Show me where the land asked OP to occupy it in the owner's absence and then dictate how he should use HIS OWN land.

[sMASH]

The woman chose to go outside... The land was left unattended to, for Sooo long that is just like if it was in owned.


Just like an accident, u may not be the cause if an accident, but u can do things to prevent it from occurring.

[Lance]

I, I am Spartacus.



Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

So by your logic, if a man is working offshore and his female companion is not 'used', as you put it, by said offshore worker, after a certain time frame has elapsed, by all rights, someone else should be have permission to move in and 'make use of her', as you put it, without any repercussions? Everything cool, hunky dory, as they say?

This analogy is sheit, so much flawed assumptions.

For one thing, you're comparing an inanimate object to two consenting independent individuals.

Secondly, your temporal element is flawed. You're trying to equate a stint offshore to 30 years of neglect?

Hook, line and sinker. What I was actually trying to do, was draw attention to how easily Trinidadians justify the wrong thing. sMASH is a smart guy but you, you took the bait. 'Why them police only studying speed? Ent it have other crime?' 'Weyy..that wrecker man wicked jed. I did only park up dey a five minutes inno!!' We all do it, but it doesn't change the fact that wrong is wrong. Whether it be a 2 week offshore stint or 30 years of ME not occupying MY land, if it's not yours, leave it alone. And since you want to play schupid, you're right. It's flawed logic because the woman can choose to go to the other man for comfort should she so desire. Show me where the land asked OP to occupy it in the owner's absence and then dictate how he should use HIS OWN land.

I never made a statement of right or wrong. I merely highlighted the flaws in your attempt to deduce a comparison - one that ended up being devoid of logic.

[Kasey]

I have a piece of land, and if it were not for these stupid squatters laws, I would have let people use it until I ready to develop it. But I not letting anyone into it because someone go want to claim it after X years of use and then is me to catch. Its MY LAND, I choose to leave it unused for now because I plan to develop it in the future and make some money. How does my unattention to it, justify someone else claiming it if they use it? I PLAN TO USE MY LAND.

I still refuse to believe that a smart dude like sMASH actually agrees with this guy. sMASH playing us. LOL.

[*KRONIK*]

I still refuse to believe that a smart dude like sMASH actually agrees with this guy. sMASH playing us. LOL.

Squatter's advocate?

[The_Honourable]

I, I am Spartacus.

Is one thing of the owner had it for 30 years put down and Nutten doing.
Is another thing that someone else made comfortable use of it for that amount of period.

Some means of conveyance should be allowed to happen between the party that doesn't make use of the land and the one that does.

sMASH u self... whether the squatter made comfortable use of the land or not is irrelevant. You don't go and build on a property that is not yours. Sometimes there are other reasons why nothing is going on with the land:

- There are other owners on the land (usually family) but there are disagreements among them so nobody making a move until there is a change of mind or somebody dies.

- The owners died and there is no legal personal representative... and if there is one, doesn't have the funds to probate the estate.

- Held up in court, sometimes more than once.