Georgia Squatters' Rights Information

By Patrick Gleeson, Ph. D.,

The legal name for squatters' rights is adverse possession -- the act of trespassing on property and occupying it until the trespasser becomes the legal owner. Georgia's statutes list adverse possession requirements similar to those in other states.

Time Requirements

Other Requirements

Georgia's statutory requirements for adverse possession are that the trespasser's occupation be

Actual. It is not enough merely to state a claim; the trespass must be physical.

Hostile. In the statutes, hostile doesn't necessarily mean aggressive. But the trespasser's occupation must counter the owner's property interest. Occupying property with the owner's permission is not hostile.

Open and "notorious." The trespass must be visible, not hidden from view. "Notorious" emphasizes that the occupation must be easily seen even by a casual passerby.

Continuous. The trespasser can leave the property for the usual reasons a property owner may leave: for work, to buy groceries and supplies, even to take a short vacation. But an occasional occupation doesn't qualify.

Exclusive. The trespasser may allow others to come onto the property so long as it is clear that his behavior is consistent with that of a true owner. If others use the property as their right, this nullifies the original trespasser's claim to exclusive use.

Complexities of Adverse Possession

There is a popular misunderstanding of adverse possession that supposes that anyone who moves into a vacant house begins establishing a legal right to the property. In reality, such actions are almost always illegal and the trespass may even rise to a felony.

Real adverse possession cases are often complex, with a confusing mix of motives and actions extending over several years and multiple generations of occupiers and possessors. In one 2006 Georgia case, the state's Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision only after presentations of the rights of the respective sides that reviewed several different revisions of deeds, claims and conflicting surveys. The court's decision hinged on such subtleties as whether surveyors' drills and pins used to establish the purported boundaries and left in place constituted an actual possession. The court ruled in this instance that they did not.

About the Author

Patrick Gleeson received a doctorate in 18th century English literature at the University of Washington. He served as a professor of English at the University of Victoria and was head of freshman English at San Francisco State University. Gleeson is the director of technical publications for McClarie Group and manages an investment fund. He is a Registered Investment Advisor.

Cite this Article A tool to create a citation to reference this article Cite this Article