"Legal" advice needed... lawyers welcome

[OGputtnfool]

Ok, so, let me preface by saying this is NOT an urgent situation. This is a hypothetical situation. I do not intend to make any life changing decisions based on any input from this thread, but I am very interested in any input from anyone... most of all lawyers.

If Person A grants Person B use of a their property (let's use a shovel for an example) for an undetermined amount of time, at what point does Person A lose ownership of the shovel to Person B? Now, at first glance I think never. "A" owns the shovel. The shovel will always belong to "A", but let's dive further into this.

What if "A" shows no interest in the shovel for an extended period of time (months to years). "A" sees "B" using the shovel in his yard and never even so much as asks when "B" is gonna return it. Then, "A" (months or years) sometime down the road tells "B" that he must do favors for him to keep the shovel or else he's taking it back.

At what point does possession dictate ownership? I purposely didn't use anything that had a title because I'd guess that'd make it a little more cut and dry.

What say you?

 

[oumagic]

I think I saw this scenario on “Judge Judy” about a dog. Person A bought the dog and person B had been raising the dog and paying vet bills for over a year. I think person A lost. I am no expert and my only exposure to the legal system is court room television.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OGputtnfool]

I think I saw this scenario on “Judge Judy” about a dog. Person A bought the dog and person B had been raising the dog and paying vet bills for over a year. I think person A lost. I am no expert and my only exposure to the legal system is court room television.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know I never thought about diving into the Judge Judy archives. That sounds like it was probably a family dispute and that would mesh well with the point I'm trying to make. Thank you.

 

[JMB3]

Google "adverse possession." Not sure if it applies to shovels, but it does to titled land.

 

[campilobaxter]

I'd say never, if we are talking about personal property. As JMB3 notes, real property is a different story. But the "shovel" belongs to A, no matter how long B hangs on to it.

Now, in the dog scenario, B might have some claim to damages if B has been raising the dog, paying for its food, shots, housing, etc. But that doesn't make the dog his. It just means he has a claim for recovering the money he put into it.

 

[bigskyirish]

Google "adverse possession." Not sure if it applies to shovels, but it does to titled land.

For the most part, I think adverse possession is limited to real property. But that may not be true in every state. With personal property, the question might be one of abandonment.

**Note: this is not legal advice**

 

[JMB3]

For the most part, I think adverse possession is limited to real property. But that may not be true in every state. With personal property, the question might be one of abandonment.

**Note: this is not legal advice**

I think you're right.

 

[DaBuckBoys]

I think I saw this scenario on “Judge Judy” about a dog. Person A bought the dog and person B had been raising the dog and paying vet bills for over a year. I think person A lost. I am no expert and my only exposure to the legal system is court room television.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure you have to cut the dog in half... preferably not with a shovel...

 

[campilobaxter]

With personal property, the question might be one of abandonment.

**Note: this is not legal advice**

Good point. Now the question is, is allowing your neighbor to continue possessing something they clearly borrowed "abandonment"? I can see it being abandoned when A moves and leaves the shovel in his yard, so B goes and gets it. But can B just hold on to something and claim A abandoned it? Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[JMB3]

Good point. Now the question is, is allowing your neighbor to continue possessing something they clearly borrowed "abandonment"? I can see it being abandoned when A moves and leaves the shovel in his yard, so B goes and gets it. But can B just hold on to something and claim A abandoned it? Doesn't sound right to me.

Probably depends on the initial conversation or whether A has ever demanded its return?

 

[OGputtnfool]

@campilobaxter @JMB3

So, I'm reading https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html and this sounds close to what I'm getting at. Imagine if the scenario were changed to a website or internet account of some sort. "A" logs on to the account for "B". "B" does not know the password to access the account. So, anytime "A" gets a hair up his ass, he can make "B" work for the privilege of using the account.

Does that change any answers? FWIW, "B" has been "maintaining" the account alone. "A" has done nothing to/for/with the account recently.

 

[campilobaxter]

@campilobaxter @JMB3

So, I'm reading https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html and this sounds close to what I'm getting at. Imagine if the scenario were changed to a website or internet account of some sort. "A" logs on to the account for "B". "B" does not know the password to access the account. So, anytime "A" gets a hair up his ass, he can make "B" work for the privilege of using the account.

Does that change any answers? FWIW, "B" has been "maintaining" the account alone. "A" has done nothing to/for/with the account recently.

So the link you included is a classic adverse possession situation, which is allowed in probably all 50 states. As was said above, that rule ONLY applies to real property (as far as I am aware, although maybe some state has extended it to some other form of property).

If you change the situation away from real property to something like the website, the adverse possession rules likely don't apply anymore. Its almost more of a license situation. Someone has granted you a license to use the website, even though they aren't using it (but they own it, or have the right to license you to use it). The licence can be revoked, even if you have put time and money in to improving the website and maintaining it. But, as I said before, you might have a claim against the owner if you have put money into and improved it such that the owner now has a more valuable website because of your work.

The problem with the license analysis is that license are almost always handled through contracts, which should then spell out the rights of the parties and how and when those rights can be terminated. I'm guessing that doesn't apply to your situation.

Also, like bigskyirish said, this is NOT legal advice and I'm not your lawyer.

 

[BigDill]

My back of the napkin reaction to this law school question:

It remains A's shovel. There was no intent when the shovel was given to B to transfer ownership. The only way title to the shovel would transfer to be is (a) it was gift, and the intent to give it as a gift was present, or (b) there was a contractual agreement to transfer ownership of the shovel with all the elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration exchanged. None of those seem to be present in this limited fact pattern.

What I see is that A intended to give the shovel to B with the intent that B would use it for a limited or indefinite time. That is not, in my view, enough to transfer ownership. So now we look to see whether there is a common law or state law regarding abandonment of property. i don't know the specific location of the fact pattern, so this part cannot be answered. But, assuming the jurisdiction is like most jurisdictions, some form of notice, typically set forth in a statute, is required for abandonment to occur on private property. Since that is missing from this fact pattern, I am going to conclude that A, without notice, cannot be found to have abandoned the shovel.

I should also add that (a) this is not specific legal advice intended to be relied upon by anyone, and is solely based upon the above hypothetical as a thought exercise, and (b) if this were a real issue, by the time someone paid my hourly rate to send a demand letter for the shovel, said person could have probably purchased 10 shovels, which is why situations like this never really happen in real life.

 

[bigskyirish]

So the link you included is a classic adverse possession situation, which is allowed in probably all 50 states. As was said above, that rule ONLY applies to real property (as far as I am aware, although maybe some state has extended it to some other form of property).

If you change the situation away from real property to something like the website, the adverse possession rules likely don't apply anymore. Its almost more of a license situation. Someone has granted you a license to use the website, even though they aren't using it (but they own it, or have the right to license you to use it). The licence can be revoked, even if you have put time and money in to improving the website and maintaining it. But, as I said before, you might have a claim against the owner if you have put money into and improved it such that the owner now has a more valuable website because of your work.

The problem with the license analysis is that license are almost always handled through contracts, which should then spell out the rights of the parties and how and when those rights can be terminated. I'm guessing that doesn't apply to your situation.

Also, like bigskyirish said, this is NOT legal advice and I'm not your lawyer.

I agree with all of this.

I'd just add that the website/internet account angle brings a lot of nuance into it. Because if it is a website that one of the parties owns, they are probably free to license it and even if they don't expressly do so, their actions may create an implied license. But if we're talking about an internet account to a site owned/operated by a third party, an attempt to license it--or the shared use or password sharing or whatever--might actually violate the terms of service. So then there's the question of whether A could license the account to B (or vice versa) in the first place. So it's tough to give even an educated guess without more specific facts.

**Note: This is not legal advice**

 

[campilobaxter]

I agree with all of this.

I'd just add that the website/internet account angle brings a lot of nuance into it. Because if it is a website that one of the parties owns, they are probably free to license it and even if they don't expressly do so, their actions may create an implied license. But if we're talking about an internet account to a site owned/operated by a third party, an attempt to license it--or the shared use or password sharing or whatever--might actually violate the terms of service. So then there's the question of whether A could license the account to B (or vice versa) in the first place. So it's tough to give even an educated guess without more specific facts.

**Note: This is not legal advice**

I was thinking along those same lines. Say, e.g., A gives B his Netflix password and B uses Netflix for years without logging out. Then A comes back to B and says you need to buy me lunch since I've been letting you use my Netflix account for all these years, or I'm going to kick you out. All of that would likely violate Netflix's terms of service, so both A and B would technically be in the wrong and Netflix could cancel the account at any time and refuse (if they wanted) to allow them to open a new account (obtain a new license).

 

[oumagic]

With the “Judge Judy” dog episode, she basically said that A abandoned the dog and that if B not stepped in and taken ownership, the dog would be dead or with another person C, D, etc. So when they abandoned the dog, they had no real expectation to ever get it back.

There were obviously details that mattered that I don’t recall. One that sounds familiar was a text from A asking how FiFi was doing that did not ask when they could get the dog back or if B needed help with costs associated with the dog.

 

[OGputtnfool]

I should also add that (a) this is not specific legal advice intended to be relied upon by anyone, and is solely based upon the above hypothetical as a thought exercise, and (b) if this were a real issue, by the time someone paid my hourly rate to send a demand letter for the shovel, said person could have probably purchased 10 shovels, which is why situations like this never really happen in real life.

This part got a real-life belly laugh. Thanks!

I was thinking along those same lines. Say, e.g., A gives B his Netflix password and B uses Netflix for years without logging out. Then A comes back to B and says you need to buy me lunch since I've been letting you use my Netflix account for all these years, or I'm going to kick you out. All of that would likely violate Netflix's terms of service, so both A and B would technically be in the wrong and Netflix could cancel the account at any time and refuse (if they wanted) to allow them to open a new account (obtain a new license).

OK, you're good. Not Netflix, but you're close. I'll lay out the facts now to show how stupid this whole scenario is. My intention was not to waste anyone's time. I, actually, learned a little bit from this.

So, my (now) 18 year old let his 12 year old sister use his Minecraft account. It's been many, many months, if not over a year since he first let her use it. He doesn't play it anymore. If he does, I'm sure he has another account. Anyway, he has a tendency when he's mad to shut it down or, like today, when he's hungry, he'll just tell her to cook him some food and he won't turn it off. Such petty behavior. It really gets on my nerves. He's 18 now, but acts like he's 8.1 sometimes. Bring on the Navy!

 

[campilobaxter]

This part got a real-life belly laugh. Thanks!



OK, you're good. Not Netflix, but you're close. I'll lay out the facts now to show how stupid this whole scenario is. My intention was not to waste anyone's time. I, actually, learned a little bit from this.

So, my (now) 18 year old let his 12 year old sister use his Minecraft account. It's been many, many months, if not over a year since he first let her use it. He doesn't play it anymore. If he does, I'm sure he has another account. Anyway, he has a tendency when he's mad to shut it down or, like today, when he's hungry, he'll just tell her to cook him some food and he won't turn it off. Such petty behavior. It really gets on my nerves. He's 18 now, but acts like he's 8.1 sometimes. Bring on the Navy!

Haha. In that situation, I would probably tell you to take the Judge Judy route and award the account to the girl. After all, she's got all her worlds built up in there!

 

[pattyboy21]

I'd say that A retains ownership forever and B should be chastised for not returning it. Now, if B pours money into the shovel (sharpening, new paint, new handle, repairs, etc...), I would think that he has at least some claim on the shovel or possibly a case to be partially reimbursed if A demands its return.

I have no idea what the law might say; this is just my opinion.

 

[campilobaxter]

I'd say that A retains ownership forever and B should be chastised for not returning it. Now, if B pours money into the shovel (sharpening, new paint, new handle, repairs, etc...), I would think that he has at least some claim on the shovel or possibly a case to be partially reimbursed if A demands its return.

I have no idea what the law might say; this is just my opinion.

Well, you just about nailed it.

 

[Canio]

My back of the napkin reaction to this law school question:

It remains A's shovel. There was no intent when the shovel was given to B to transfer ownership. The only way title to the shovel would transfer to be is (a) it was gift, and the intent to give it as a gift was present, or (b) there was a contractual agreement to transfer ownership of the shovel with all the elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration exchanged. None of those seem to be present in this limited fact pattern.

What I see is that A intended to give the shovel to B with the intent that B would use it for a limited or indefinite time. That is not, in my view, enough to transfer ownership. So now we look to see whether there is a common law or state law regarding abandonment of property. i don't know the specific location of the fact pattern, so this part cannot be answered. But, assuming the jurisdiction is like most jurisdictions, some form of notice, typically set forth in a statute, is required for abandonment to occur on private property. Since that is missing from this fact pattern, I am going to conclude that A, without notice, cannot be found to have abandoned the shovel.

I should also add that (a) this is not specific legal advice intended to be relied upon by anyone, and is solely based upon the above hypothetical as a thought exercise, and (b) if this were a real issue, by the time someone paid my hourly rate to send a demand letter for the shovel, said person could have probably purchased 10 shovels, which is why situations like this never really happen in real life.

^^^^^^NAILED IT!

 

[Gyro25]

Break in and steal the shovel back in the middle of the night, play dumb next time



**** This is not legal advise ****

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Parrot]

So, my (now) 18 year old let his 12 year old sister use his Minecraft account. It's been many, many months, if not over a year since he first let her use it. He doesn't play it anymore. If he does, I'm sure he has another account. Anyway, he has a tendency when he's mad to shut it down or, like today, when he's hungry, he'll just tell her to cook him some food and he won't turn it off. Such petty behavior. It really gets on my nerves. He's 18 now, but acts like he's 8.1 sometimes. Bring on the Navy!

When he's not looking she could get his phone, tablet or whatever he might have on which he gets email and she might be able to her hands on unnoticed for a few minutes. She should then log out, use the lost password option, and when the link pops up in his email, change the password to the game.

I'm not suggesting that such a lovely girl should engage in such nefariousness. But I imagine it might be funny after he got over his pissedoffedness.

This too is not legal advice or the encouragement to commit what might is probably a crime.

It is for amusement purposes only!:banana:

 

[OGputtnfool]

Haha. In that situation, I would probably tell you to take the Judge Judy route and award the account to the girl. After all, she's got all her worlds built up in there!

This reply is 12 year old approved!

 

[OGputtnfool]

When he's not looking she could get his phone, tablet or whatever he might have on which he gets email and she might be able to her hands on unnoticed for a few minutes. She should then log out, use the lost password option, and when the link pops up in his email, change the password to the game.

I'm not suggesting that such a lovely girl should engage in such nefariousness. But I imagine it might be funny after he got over his pissedoffedness.

This too is not legal advice or the encouragement to commit what might is probably a crime.

It is for amusement purposes only!:banana:

This is 12 yr old approved, too...