Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ndusa
Not sure what happened here, posted something and it never came up.
I don't know about 'squatters rights', so to blacks I went. Here is what I found:
Adverse use- Use without license or permission; an element necessary to acquire title or easement by prescription. Shuggars v. Brake, 248 Md. 38, 234 A2d 752.
Now with that, I'm also looking at Adverse Possession. After reading that, it would appear as though this is for "claim" to the land. He doesn't want to do that, just want to give them a headache, and get something back for his time and money he invested. What do you think?
|
Jerrypits, the reason I put "adverse use", is when I looked up 'squatters rights', this is what I was directed to.
Now, here is Blacks for Common Law Lien: "One known to or granted by the common law, as distinguished from statutory, equitable, and maritime liens; also one arising by implication of law, as distinguished from one created by the agreement of the parties. It is a right extended to a person to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another, until the demand or charge of the person in possesion is paid or satisfied. Whiteside v. Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., C.C. A. Colo., 101 F.2d 765. 769"
So, I'm thinking this would be the way to go, or am I way off? I am just real unsure about this one.