Land squatters’ rights under threat
(CNS): The public is being asked to comment on a draft discussion paper drawn up by the Law Reform Commission on what could prove to be a controversial topic. The legal experts are looking at the potential abolition of “squatters’ rights” and the adverse possession law. The law impacts easement and access rights on land boundaries and even access to the beach.
In the discussion paper, the commissioners said the process that allows someone to obtain title to land belonging to another person by continuously occupying it in a way that is inconsistent with the rights of the owner contradicts modern concepts of property rights.
The idea of “squatter’s rights”, however, which the commissioners said was a “somewhat emotive term with negative connotations”, was not only about “an aggressive incursion tantamount to land theft” but is usually more nuanced, involving encroachments relating to inadvertent mistakes over boundaries.
“As such, any reform of the law relating to adverse possession must be undertaken with care to ensure that there are no unintended consequences that would unfairly disadvantage a person with a deserving claim,” the commissioners wrote in the paper.
They explained that the most straightforward justification for the doctrine of adverse possession is relevant only to unregistered land, but there is no unregistered land here. When it comes to registered land, it may appear obvious that people with no title cannot just occupy it. The integrity of a land register system can only be maintained if owners can rely on the registration to safeguard their ownership.
However, the commissioners explained some scenarios where it could still be justified.
“It can be argued that the doctrine of adverse possession stands in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of indefeasibility of title that underpins the modern system of registration-based land ownership. But there are still justifications for adverse possession where land becomes unmarketable where ownership no longer reflects the reality of the possession and the land should not be ‘wasted’.
“It is generally accepted that it is in the public interest to encourage the upkeep, improvement and development of land rather than allowing it to be left neglected and unused,” the LRC stated.
That situation could now be called into question, given the pressing environmental need for re-wilding. The idea that land can be neglected may prove a positive one in future in order to allow the return of the country’s natural resources. At this point, however, most of the more common adverse possession cases in the Cayman Islands have related to mistakes and misunderstandings.
“A squatter may have taken possession of land under a reasonable but mistaken belief that he or she is the true owner. This most commonly occurs if the squatter owns neighbouring land,” the LRC wrote. “Relying on this mistaken belief, the squatter may have made improvements to the land or otherwise incurred expenditure.”
In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable or even unjust to take the land away from those who have used the land for years, especially where access rights are concerned.
Bus as land values increase and vacant land becomes increasingly scarce, the number of cases could grow. The commissioners said it was reasonable to predict an increase in applications, and there is a global trend towards reform on how this should be handled, which in some cases meant abolition of the doctrine.
“There is a fundamental conflict between the concept of indefeasibility of title and adverse possession, and its retention in its current form compromises the primacy of the Land Register as the foundation of our system of title by registration,” the LRC said. “The existing system attempts to shoehorn a historical doctrine based on a system of ownership by possession into a modern system of title by registration,” the commissioners added as they urged the public to weigh in on the debate.
The discussion paper questions whether the doctrine should be abolished or retained in a modified form. It outlines the history and the existing law, assesses the justification and examines the law and recent reforms in other common law jurisdictions.
See the discussion paper in the CNS Library.
A hard copy can be collected from the Offices of the Law Reform Commission.
Submissions should be made to the Director of the Law Reform Commission by 27 October
- by email to cilawreform@gov.ky;
- by hand delivery to the Law Reform Commission, Portfolio of Legal Affairs, 4th Floor, Government Administration Building, 133 Elgin Avenue, George Town
- or mail to the Law Reform Commission, P.O. Box 136, Grand Cayman KY1-9000
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
I would imagine that if you have a FIXED boundary survey then that is finite if it hasn’t been challenged at the time the notices were sent to owners with adjoining properties.
What a stupid headline. If you are a squatter on peoples’ land how in the world can you have any kind of rights?
Why is the Law Reform Commission suddenly interested in “looking into” Adverse Possession laws with the possibility of doing away with these laws? Could they be influenced by the owner of more land in all three islands than possibly even government itself, I.e. DART who can afford to buy everything and get it l into his name as beneficial owner. You can say goodbye to beach access rights forever and every other right you have registerd on your land document.
A word to the wise, if you have bought property (especially in a condominium complex) where the land around you is shared by Strata owners, please find out who owns the land next to you or behind you or whatever. You might find out that what you assumed belonged to your strata because your strata fees have landscaped it, beautified it, and maintained it for years, will possibly become a big hole to provide the owner next door with a lot of fill or some ten story building blocking off your sunlight, breeze and fresh air.
Land laws are historical laws going back to the Cadastral Survey and and there is no reason why any country should review and change a land law for one super developer. Changing this law is not thinking about about the good of Caymanians. There are many important rights of way on all three Islands that would be affected. This IMPORTANT topic deserves there to be a referendum and at the very least, a full account with examples of what these changes will mean to the average citizen. Please contact the Commissioners (Whoever they are) and find out what these changes are really about, and WHY they are necessary.
This is a very good question: what prompts the LRC members to turn their planet-sized brains to a specific issue? They should explain.
Another question: how many new laws has the LRC introduced since its inception in 2005? One maybe? Do they release that kind of information? If not, they should.
Yes , we deserve an answer/explanation as to the reasons the LRC have raised this issue at the particular time. It will be interesting to see if anything is forthcoming from them but don’t hold your breath,
It’s hard to imagine a more useless government body.
Oh wait…
ulterior motives
“… the process that allows someone to obtain title to land belonging to another person by continuously occupying it in a way that is inconsistent with the rights of the owner contradicts modern concepts of property rights.”
WHAT ABOUT The Dormant Accounts Law?
that requires certain financial institutions to transfer monies that are in dormant accounts in their institutions to the Government after seven years [‼️]of account inactivity.
SEVEN not SEVENTY!
Isn’t it the process that allows to take money belonging to another by arbitrarily establishing a seven years inactivity limit inconsistent with the rights of the owner and contradicts modern concepts of property rights?
And…….what if the owner very recently purchased this land that was already for many years being used in good faith by the neighbors? And then the sneaky new owner wants the law changed so he can claim it back?
If your property has been surveyed with a FIXED boundary and no adjoining property owner makes a claim, then that should not be challenged right???!
And what about our private pensions (ultra vires 2016 pension amendments)?
This would mean that any chance of keeping our right to access the beach would be dead on arrival. Caymanians can kiss the right to go to the beach goodby.
They are trespassers, not squatters. They have no rights and should be arrested.
Tell Mike Adam that.
Trespass isn’t an offense and therefore trespassers cannot be arrested.
all in favor of rich! ZZZZZ
There is no need for Cayman to reinvent the wheel. All of this has been successfully dealt with in places where there is actually a body of case law on land rights. If these issues were of immediate importance, there would be more recent litigation.
Cayman did not become a world class financial centre by being a follower. We need progressive legislation on all matters. Most jurisdictions including UK now have laws relating to this matter….so new case law from those countries are no longer relevant.
#worldclassmyass
Squatters rights are progressive. Otherwise the one with the expensive lawyer always wins.
if we all put a tent on the land owned by Dart we could solve the monopoly of land ownership rapidly. Owns the land, leaves it alone for decades. You’re welcome
Adverse possession prevents stagnation of land. Where land in the Cayman Islands is finite, given that all three Islands (Grand, Brac and Little) comprise only 100 square acres, it is important that stagnation and neglect, amongst other things, have a legal purge mechanism.
Principles of indefensibility of title are, in certain circumstances, not paramount — other unregistered rights (s.28, RLA) can give title to registered land (including, inter alia, proprietary estoppel and common intention constructive trusts, as well as others).
If only Caymanians were permitted to adversely possess land in the Cayman Islands, that would be a welcomed recalibration of the relevant system, with relevant exceptions and modifications to ensure fairness (as appropriate).
* Meant to say “100 square miles” (not “100 square acres”).
I think you meant square miles there Sir.
In other words, if only Caymanians were permitted to steal land?
Squatters Rights is a Latin American thing, not an English Law thing. We don’t want to live in a place that commercially rewards sustained and determined thievery. That’s not a good place.
Tell me you don’t know English Law without telling me you don’t know….oh wait, you have just announced you don’t know English law.
It is called Adverse Possession and has existed in English law for hundreds of years.
UK has revised their legislation to deal with some aspects of this. Time for Cayman to keep up.
Tell me you’re a smart ass without coming out and saying it.
There are ways to inform without being insulting. I know, because I just deleted the third paragraph I wrote here.
There is nothing insulting in my response. You made a statement that is factually incorrect, with a little bit of bigotry thrown in for good measure. Mouthing off on subjects without knowledge is a huge problem and it deserves calling out. Maybe you will think twice next time before making up “facts”.
Sorry that you feel so triggered, but ……. “bigotry”??? Really? where? You think that ‘smart ass’ is racially linked? That says more about you than me.
There is nothing within my statement that isn’t a FACT. You simply chose to regard your opinions as fact. I’m guessing that you’ve used that same paragraph over and over around the internet. I imagine it has been somewhat effective.
Your screen name is very poorly chosen. You may feel quite superior, but you’ve been found wanting.
Be well and do better in the future. Cheers
“Squatters Rights is a Latin American thing, not an English Law thing.”
“Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”
You have an incorrect belief and made a statement based on that, attached to a group of people/place i.e. Latin America.
I originally pointed out why your statement was incorrect, so not sure how you still believe it as a fact despite being given the evidence. My “opinion” is explaining to you the principle of english law that has existed for hundreds of years in rebuttal to your completely inaccurate opinion.
Logical thinking obviously does not come naturally to you, but casting assumptions with no basis in fact does. There is only one person who needs to do better here.
“Adverse possession” is well founded in US law.
Logic 101, his bigotry is apparent even through a phone screen!
I’m surprised squatters’ have rights. Renters don’t seem to have any.
Stop paying rent, then you become a squatter with rights.
(*Tongue in cheek comment*)