T/F ... A possessor of land has tort duties to both an invitee and a licensee, but not to a trespasser?
609936
Legally, Tort is a duty of care. For example, if you see an open drain on a pavment and do not do something (tell the local authority) and someone fell down, they could sue you in tort, because you failed in your duty of care.To apply this to your question, an invitee is someone the possesor invites onto the land, a licensee is someone permitted to use the land.Therefore, the posseser has a duty of care. The trespasser was neither invited or licensed. This assumes that the land is fenced off.
34756
If someone enters your property and is injured by a hazardous condition you are probably liable.  Posting a "no trespassing" sign should shift at least some of the blame to the trespasser, especially if local laws permit prosecution.  Only a licensed lawyer in your state could advise you on the full implications of the law.  For example an "attractive nuisance" perhaps a swimming pool without an adequate fence, puts the owner at danger of liability because small children (who would have been excluded by a fence) may enter and drown.  Even posting the property may not be enough.
358775
Always ask permission before entering private property. The land does not have to be posted for trespasser to seek legal action. You can be issued a citation and a fine under civial penalties. You can lose hunting privilages for two years and lose all equipment.
93590
In what country?  \n\nIf you mean the U.S., under certain circumstances it is possible.  The legal term is "adverse possession."
199919
I would think that it would be the person who benefits from the easement. This is usually not the property owner. If you are using someone Else's property (using an easement on their property) to get to yours, you should be responsible for maintaining the driveway.
22471
And who do you think is in a position that they are property of another person?
370355
It requires somewhat more than just taking care of the property. What you are referring to is called adverse possession, which by Texas law, must be "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person." Further, the true owner of the land has a period of time from the commencement of that possession to file a claim, though the time period depends on the circumstances. I would contact a lawyer and see what your options are. If you built a fence around the land and kept it for long enough, it would be yours.
164922
As a former Texas police officer, I can tell you that the guy that is doing it on purpose could be charged with Criminal Mischief if the owner of the property choses to press charges. If it's an accident, then the owner can take the driver(s) to civil court and sue for the damage to the lawn. No one has the right to hurt someone else's property and the one guy that is doing it on purpose needs a charge slapped on his butt and then he can sit in his jail cell and spin his wheels. He can also be sued for the damage. If the owner wants to press charges, tell them to get it on video if possible. Hide a camera somewhere and then they have their proof. =)
152614
Easments and other areas of property law vary by state.  You should consult a local real estate attorney.
82305
The funny thing is that there could be two types of trespassers at Augusta.  There isa criminal and a civil definition.\n\n  If you do not have the right to be on the ground of this property, you may have committed the criminal act of going into somebody else's land or property without permission of the owner or lessee, a criminal act in Georgia, which if it is your first offense, could receive a fine of up to 1000 dollars under current state law (judges decision), unless there are aggravating factors.   Aggravating factors involved with your trespass such as assault, theft, etc, could make it worse.\n\nThe interesting part of this is that the golfers could actually committ trespassing as well, but are punishable only under the civil definition of trespassing.  Hitting a ball into the yard of a person whose property abutts a gold course could give grounds for a tort that may be a valid cause of action to seek judicial relief and possibly damages through a lawsuit, don't laugh there is precedent.
503221
some states have this law. Basicly what it sums down to is that the violator entered onto a property to strike fear in the defendent.
405519
IN property law often times ACTUALLY Holding on to an object or occupying some land is often decisive.\n\nFor example: if you are walking down a street and someone snatches your purse and is then caught, YOU do not have to prove that the purse is ACTUALLY yours, that you did not steal it yesterday etc etc, before the person is convicted as a thief. All you have to show to convict that person of theft is that you were just holding on to a purse before he snatched it. \n\nSimilar reasoning dictates that if your purse is stolen and is not found within 5 years(statute of limitations) the thief basically now owns the purse, because there is no way you can prosecute him(so the thief acquired an object by actual possession although he never legally acquired it).\n\nThis doctrine also often applies to real property. If you actually LIVE on the land(but don't have a legal title, basically you are squatting) you can kick off a new trespasser without showing title. And if you live on the land long enough(usually 10 years) You will get a Title to it, and the person who had it before but did not use the land looses it(This is known as adverse possession).\n\nSo basically often(90% of time) the entitlement to property will be useless or irrelevant while ACTUAL POSSESSION will control.
926458
You don't have to it a no trespassing sign signed to be legal. \n\n"Technically, a person violates the law against trespassing by knowingly going onto someone else's land without consent. "Knowledge" may be inferred when the owner (or the owner's representative) tells the trespasser not to go on the land or when the land is fenced in a manner that suggests that intruders should stay out or there is a "no trespassing" sign in an obvious place."\n\nhttp://www.tba.org/LawBytes/T10_1903.html
815314
click here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
214200
It depends on the area.  If this was verbally done, and verbal contracts are allowed in that area then you just need a witness to attest to the offer, and the state of mind of the person making the offer.  Without a witness there's not really anything that can be done to enforce a verbal offer.  If it was written down at all regardless of it was signed this can be enough for a judge to decide there was an offer.  ie This can be on the back of a napkin describing what is being offered and what is being given in return.  Now you still have to show state of mind of the offeror, but if they're the one who wrote it that goes to show state of mind.  Of course either way there has to be some type of consideration shown that is reasonable.  ie They offered to sell land at no price, a court wouldn't up hold that since there was no consideration for the sale of the land, and no reasonable person would/should think that would be reasonable.
707004
Well It would help if I knew what state you were in; however, I may be able to help anyway because I took Real Estate Law a couple of semesters ago.  \n\nFirst of all I think title exams go back further than 50 or 60 years.  I think they go back as far as the title has been recorded. Regarless, if the title was obtained fraudulently at anytime that causes an issue.   Legally if the deed was ever obtained fraudulently or if there is some other flaw in the deed then some unknown person may have a legal claim to the property if they ever find out they have a claim and may be intitled to quite title lawsuit.  The other problem that could occur is if the real estate is ever sold and title insurance is purchased and the fraud is discovered then the current owner may loose his claim to the property or the flaw in the title will have to be resolved before it can be sold.\n\nAccording to my real estate law book a quitclaim deed purports to convey only the grantor's present interest in the real estate, if the grantor has any interest, rather than the real estate itself.  Since such a deed purports to convey only whatever interest the grantor has at the time, its use does not mean or imply the grantor has a good title, or any title at all.  This form of deed does not impose any future obligations on the grantor.  If the grantor has an interest, it is conveyed by the quit claim deed.  If the grantor has no interest none will be conveyed.  If the grantor aquires an interest after executing the deed, the interest will be retained as the grantor's property.  \n\nQuitclaim deeds are used when the grantor knows that the title held has a flaw, such as where another may have an interest in the real estate, or where the interest of the grantor is doubtful, but a deed is need to clear that interest.  They are commonly used when parties have aquired title through foreclosure or some other involuntary means.\n\nThe point of the quitclaim deed is to release the grantor from the covenants and warranties included in other types of deeds becuase he knows there is a flaw in the title.  This knowledge alone would make me wonder why he is choosing this method of transfer if he allegedly know nothing of the flaw.\n\nI don't know if this helps or not but I hope it does! :)
1009684
criminal trespass is when you're on private property.  for example, the sidewalk in front of your house belongs to the city, so does that little strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street.  If you cross off the sidewalk into the yard up towards the house... that becomes criminal tresspass if someone doesn't want you there.