Author Topic: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case  (Read 4236 times)

Zapatista

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5264
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2008, 05:01:24 PM »
You are but it's not quite stealing. For example- I need somewhere to live and you tell me you have a bedsit in your garden you never use and I am more tha welcome to it. I move in and we live happily beside eachother for 10 years. During these 10 years I have a son who needs speacail care, I become a full time carer. I fit the bedsit with wheel chair access and enrol him in the local school for speacail needs. His life quality is built around the fact we live in this bedsit. Our lives over the last 10 years are designed to include the location, access, comfort etc of the bedsit.

If you come to me after 10 years and say i must move for some reason or another the cost of me moving would be imeasurable in terms of how it would effect me and my sons life. I could claim squatters rights and hope to get to stay. I would not be stealing I would just not be willing to pay that price for moving.

I see where you are comin from in a situation like this but this would be the most extreme case. Even at that, is the friends generosity for letting you stay for 10 years not enough of a gift. I probably come accross as mean but I just think that many people would use this law to take something they are not entitled to.

That's why it must be decided in court.

 It only generous if the friend is giving up something but in our case it's a garden bedsit you never use and little to no sacrafice espeacially since we are friends. There is only so much of the future you can allow for and in our situation it has changed through no fault of our own to becoming of life importance to me while of E10 000 importance to you. Perhaps a judge would decide the bedsit is more important to me than  E10 000 is to you.

brokencrossbar1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8113
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2008, 05:04:08 PM »
In fairness these are the extreme cases.  The majoirty of "squatters rights" or adverse possesion cases arise out of use of farm/derelict land that is not being used by anyone else.  Like the situation that Smokin Joe describes, you have situations where someone has been using a strip of ground ove a period of years and has tended to it as theirown and has acquired proprietry rights over that time.  It happened with my own mothers house.  We had used the garden all our lives as our own and the the back yard.  It was only when she went to sell it that it became apparent that the land had been vested by the DOE back in the 70's to build the main road.  For years we had used it as our own but never actually owned it.  Thankfully it was transferred back after a bit of wrangling over the time of occupation(you need to be in sole occupation for 30 years when dealing with the state and not 12 years like your normal case).  

They are horrible to be involved in trying to sort them out but only half as bad as a Right of way dispute :(

stephenite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4574
  • Ballina Stephenites
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2008, 07:50:51 AM »
How in the name of Christ can the Irish f**king Independent devote so much of it's online edition to this rubbish - seriously, it's not news. Never mind squatters rights, Tony O'reilly should be bought to court under false advertising or Trade Descriptions or something, because that thing can no longer be classed as a Newspaper

tyssam5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2008, 08:02:46 AM »
I think it's a very interesting case, though obviously getting more coverage because of the party involved.

Zapatista

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5264
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2008, 08:06:39 AM »
How in the name of Christ can the Irish f**king Independent devote so much of it's online edition to this rubbish - seriously, it's not news. Never mind squatters rights, Tony O'reilly should be bought to court under false advertising or Trade Descriptions or something, because that thing can no longer be classed as a Newspaper

It hasn't been classed as a newspaper since it called for the swift execution of James Connolly and his cohorts in 1916.

Lecale2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3602
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2008, 08:14:25 AM »

It hasn't been classed as a newspaper since it called for the swift execution of James Connolly and his cohorts in 1916.

Is that true?

Zapatista

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5264
    • View Profile
Re: * Pat's not losing any sleep over court case
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2008, 08:15:54 AM »

It hasn't been classed as a newspaper since it called for the swift execution of James Connolly and his cohorts in 1916.

Is that true?

Not really, some people still call it a newspaper ;)