DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Idaho: what the law says

Idaho is one of the few states that lets law enforcement act on an owner's sworn word alone. You hand the sheriff a signed, perjury-backed complaint, and if he is satisfied you are the record owner he serves a notice to immediately vacate and puts you back in possession. No judge signs anything. The statute even lets you ask him to stand by while the locks are changed — a thing that is lawful in Idaho and a crime in most other states. The other side of that bargain is that the whole risk of being wrong lands on you: a person removed wrongly can take the house back and collect three times the fair market rent, your court costs and their lawyer. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No. Idaho keeps them in different statutes from tenants: the eviction statute is written about "a tenant", and the squatter is handled under a separate statute, written about someone who walked in while you were away and will not leave. The fast sheriff route exists only where the person was never your tenant, and being inside without permission is a crime.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

1 · Idaho Code § 6-303 — unlawful detainer defined

“A tenant of real property, for a term less than life, is guilty of an unlawful detainer:”

Only the opening clause is quoted, because that clause is the whole point: every one of the five numbered situations that follows it hangs off the word "tenant".

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-302 — forcible detainer defined

“Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer who either: 1. By force, or by menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peacefully or otherwise; or 2. Who during the absence of the occupant or property owner of any lands, unlawfully enters upon real property, and who, after demand made for the surrender thereof, refuses to surrender the same to such former occupant or property owner. The occupant of real property, within the meaning of this subdivision, is one who, within five (5) days preceding such unlawful entry, was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such lands, regardless of whether the property was inhabited by the occupant of real property.”

Read the last sentence of subdivision 2 with a vacant house in mind. It defines the "occupant" whose absence matters as one who was in peaceable possession within five days before the entry — and the 2017 amendment added the words "regardless of whether the property was inhabited". A demand for surrender is an element.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(2)(f)–(g) — who the remedy may be used against (added 2025, ch. 222; am. 2026, ch. 82)

“(f) The unauthorized person or persons are not current or former tenants pursuant to a written or oral rental agreement authorized by the property owner; (g) The unauthorized person or persons are not immediate family members of the property owner; and (h) There is no pending litigation related to the real property between the property owner and any known unauthorized person.”

Note what these conditions do to the boundary. A former tenant who overstays, a relative, or anyone you are already in litigation with is OUTSIDE this section entirely — that is the ordinary court track in the same chapter. Note also that an oral rental agreement counts.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can I just change the locks?

Not on your own. You have to swear a complaint to the sheriff, he has to serve a notice to vacate, and a deputy has to be standing there keeping the peace — only then does Idaho's statute let you change the locks and set the belongings out. That is lawful in Idaho and it is a crime in most other states, so never carry it across a state line. Move first and you are outside the statute's protection: Idaho's forcible-entry law is still on the books, and this chapter attaches triple damages to a forcible entry.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(5) — the sheriff stands by; the owner pays the hourly rate

“The sheriff is entitled to the same fee for service of the notice to immediately vacate as if the sheriff were serving a writ of restitution. After the sheriff serves the notice to immediately vacate, the property owner or authorized agent may request that the sheriff stand by to keep the peace while the property owner or agent of the owner changes the locks and removes the personal property of the unlawful occupants from the premises to or near the property line. When such a request is made, the sheriff may charge a reasonable hourly rate, and the person requesting the sheriff to stand by and keep the peace is responsible for paying the reasonable hourly rate set by the sheriff. The sheriff is not liable to the unlawful occupant or any other party for loss, destruction, or damage of property. The property owner or the owner's authorized agent is not liable to an unlawful occupant or any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage to the personal property unless the removal was wrongful.”

READ THE SEQUENCE, NOT THE SENTENCE, AND DO NOT CARRY IT ACROSS A STATE LINE. Every step here is downstream of subsection (4), in which the sheriff must first verify the complainant is the record owner and then serve the notice — the owner acts second, and a deputy is standing there. Read the last clause too: the owner's protection from liability runs out where "the removal was wrongful." Idaho is one of a small number of states in which an officer-assisted lockout is lawful at all. In most states the same act is a crime.

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(6) — civil action for wrongful removal

“A person may bring a civil cause of action for wrongful removal under this section. A person harmed by a wrongful removal under this section may be restored to possession of the real property and may recover actual costs and damages incurred, statutory damages equal to triple the fair market rent of the dwelling, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The court shall advance the cause on the calendar.”

The complaint is sworn under penalty of perjury, and item 11 of the statutory form makes the owner initial his acknowledgement of exactly this exposure: "I understand that a person or persons removed from the property pursuant to this procedure may bring a cause of action against me for any false statements made in this complaint, or for wrongfully using this procedure, and that as a result of such action I may be held liable for actual damages, penalties, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees."

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-301 — forcible entry defined

“Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either: 1. By breaking open doors, windows or other parts of a house, or by any kind of violence or circumstances of terror, enters upon or into any real property; or, 2. Who, after entering peaceably upon real property, turns out, by force, threats or menacing conduct, the party in possession.”

And § 6-317 attaches treble damages to it: "If a landlord or a tenant recovers damages for a forcible or unlawful entry in or upon, or detention of, any building or other tract of land, or for an action brought pursuant to section 6-320, Idaho Code, or for an action brought against a tenant or in bad faith pursuant to section 6-310(3), Idaho Code, judgment may be entered for three (3) times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed." We have not found, and do not assert, any Idaho decision on how §§ 6-301 and 6-317 interact with the 2025 sheriff procedure. DeedProof does not advise on this and never will.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Depends, and on two things. Being inside a house you have no permission to be in is criminal trespass, a misdemeanor — but if it is a first offence, nothing is damaged and the person leaves when the owner tells them to, the statute drops it to a $300 fine, with no jail. And for a misdemeanor Idaho lets an officer arrest without a warrant only when the offence is committed in front of him, or where it is one of a short list of named crimes that does not include trespass.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · Idaho Code § 18-7008(2)(a) — acts constituting criminal trespass (added 2018, ch. 350; am. 2026, ch. 78)

“A person commits criminal trespass and is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3)(a)(i) of this section, when he enters or remains on the real property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted. A person has reason to know his presence is not permitted when, except under a landlord-tenant relationship, he fails to depart immediately from the real property of another after being notified by the owner or his agent to do so, or he returns without permission or invitation within one (1) year, unless a longer period of time is designated by the owner or his agent.”

Note the words the whole thing turns on — "without permission" — and note the definition the section gives to "permission" in subsection (1)(f): "written authorization from the owner or his agent to enter upon private land, which shall include the signature of the owner or his agent, the name of the person being given permission, the appropriate dates that the permission is valid and a general description of the property; or another form of permission or invitation recognized by law." Subsection (6)(a)(iii) then excludes from the offence anyone entering under "a lease, easement, contract, privilege or other legal right to enter, remain upon, possess or use the real property."

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 18-7008(3)(a)(i) — penalties

“Any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of subsection (2)(a) of this section for the first time: 1. If no damage of any kind was committed during the trespass and the person accused does not remain if ordered to depart by the owner of the real property or his agent, then the person shall be guilty of an infraction and fined in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300); or 2. Except as provided in subparagraph (i)1. of this paragraph, the person may be sentenced to jail for a period of no more than six (6) months and shall be fined in an amount no less than five hundred dollars ($500) and no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

THIS IS THE LINK THAT KILLED A PREVIOUS MARKET ELSEWHERE — an offence graded so low that no arrest follows from it. Read the condition carefully: the infraction applies where the person "does not remain if ordered to depart". Read it against the facts on this page and decide for yourself; we do not decide it for you, and we make no claim about what an Idaho officer must or may do at the door.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 19-603 — when a peace officer may arrest, quoted in full

“A peace officer may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When a person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has in fact been committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. 4. On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party arrested. 5. At night, when there is reasonable cause to believe that he has committed a felony. 6. When upon immediate response to a report of a commission of a crime there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation of section 18-901 (assault), 18-903 (battery), 18-918 (domestic violence), 18-7905 (first-degree stalking), 18-7906 (second-degree stalking), 39-6312 (violation of a protection order), 18-920 (violation of a no contact order), or 18-3302I (threatening violence upon school grounds — firearms and other deadly or dangerous weapons), Idaho Code. 7. When there is reasonable cause to believe, based upon physical evidence observed by the officer or statements made in the presence of the officer upon immediate response to a report of a commission of a crime aboard an aircraft, that the person arrested has committed such a crime.”

The section is quoted in full, and the reason is that an earlier version of this page cut it off at subsection 5 and then said the rest of the list was felony-only. It is not. Subsections 6 and 7 let an officer arrest on probable cause, without a warrant and without the offence happening in front of him, for a named list of crimes — assault, battery, domestic violence, first- and second-degree stalking, violation of a protection or no-contact order, threatening violence on school grounds, and a crime aboard an aircraft. Some of those are misdemeanors. Trespass is not on the list. Whether a person found living in a vacant building is committing the offence "in his presence" under subsection 1 is the question the whole encounter turns on, and it is not ours to answer. These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission, and whether anyone can tell that you are the one who could have granted it. The crime turns on permission the officer has to judge in a doorway. The fast removal route turns on the sheriff satisfying himself that you are the record owner — and the statute tells him to do that without telling him how, while asking you for nothing but a signature and a photo ID.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · Idaho Code § 18-7008(2)(a) — the words the offence hinges on

“A person commits criminal trespass and is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3)(a)(i) of this section, when he enters or remains on the real property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted.”

And § 18-7008(6)(a)(iii) excludes from the offence a person holding "a lease, easement, contract, privilege or other legal right to enter, remain upon, possess or use the real property." A forged lease is a lease until somebody establishes that it is not.

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(4) — the sheriff's verification duty

“Upon receipt of the complaint, the sheriff shall verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner of the real property or the authorized agent of the owner and appears otherwise entitled to relief pursuant to the provisions of this section. If verified, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read Idaho Code § 6-310A in full, as currently printed on the Idaho Legislature's own server, and we looked for any provision telling the sheriff how to establish that the person who signed the complaint owns the building — a deed check, a recorder's lookup, a registry, a standard of proof, anything. We found no such provision. The only ownership evidence the statutory form asks for is item 13: "A copy of my valid government-issued identification is attached, or I am an agent of the property owner, and documents evidencing my authority to act on the property owner's behalf are attached." That establishes who the person is, not what he owns. Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(3) — the statutory complaint form (as amended 2026, ch. 82)

“I, the owner or authorized agent of the owner of the real property located at……, declare under the penalty of perjury that (initial each box): 1….. I am the owner of the real property or the authorized agent of the owner of the real property. 2….. I purchased the property on….. 3….. The real property is a residential dwelling. 4….. An unauthorized person or persons have unlawfully entered and are remaining or residing unlawfully on the real property.”

The ellipses and the numbered boxes are the statute's own, quoted as printed. Item 7 of the same form is the one worth reading twice, because the legislature plainly had the forged lease in mind: "The person or persons are not current or former tenants pursuant to any valid lease authorized by the property owner, and any lease that may be produced by an occupant is fraudulent." The owner swears that in advance, and the perjury exposure is what stands behind it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

A sworn complaint handed to the sheriff — not a lawsuit. If he is satisfied you are the record owner, he serves a notice to immediately vacate and puts you back in possession. Where that route does not fit — a former tenant, a relative, a case already in litigation — you are in court instead, and the statute has the court set your trial within seventy-two hours of filing.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(2)–(3) — the request and the sworn complaint

“A property owner or the owner's authorized agent may request from the sheriff of the county in which the property is located the immediate removal of a person or persons unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling pursuant to this section if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The requesting person is the property owner or authorized agent of the property owner; (b) The real property that is being occupied includes a residential dwelling; (c) An unauthorized person or persons have unlawfully entered and remain or continue to reside on the property owner's property; (d) The real property was not open to members of the public at the time the unauthorized person or persons entered; (e) The property owner has directed the unauthorized person to leave the property; (f) The unauthorized person or persons are not current or former tenants pursuant to a written or oral rental agreement authorized by the property owner; (g) The unauthorized person or persons are not immediate family members of the property owner; and (h) There is no pending litigation related to the real property between the property owner and any known unauthorized person. … To request the immediate removal of an unlawful occupant of a residential dwelling, the property owner or the owner's authorized agent must submit a complaint by presenting a completed and verified "Complaint to Remove Persons Unlawfully Occupying Residential Real Property" to the sheriff of the county in which the real property is located.”

All eight conditions in subsection (2) are quoted above, and ALL EIGHT must be met. The remaining ellipsis stands only in the place of the statutory complaint form set out in subsection (3), which is quoted under "What decides whether police arrest or walk away?" on this page. Read (b) and (d) together: the section reaches only a RESIDENTIAL DWELLING that was not open to members of the public when the occupant entered.

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(4) — service and restoration

“If verified, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property. Service may be accomplished by hand delivery of the notice to an occupant or by posting the notice on the front door or entrance of the dwelling. The sheriff shall also attempt to verify the identities of all persons occupying the dwelling and note the identities on the return of service. If appropriate, the sheriff may arrest any person found in the dwelling for trespass, outstanding warrants, or any other legal cause.”

Read the two verbs the statute gives the sheriff: "shall" serve and "shall" put the owner in possession — but only "if verified", and verification is subsection (4)'s first sentence. Nothing in the section requires him to act on a complaint he is not satisfied with.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-310(3)–(5) — action for possession, forcible detainer

“In an action for possession against a defendant alleged to be occupying property as a result of forcible detainer, a property owner shall state in a verified complaint: (a) A description of the premises with convenient certainty; (b) That the defendant is in possession of the premises; (c) That the defendant entered upon the premises and holds the premises by means of forcible detainer; (d) That neither the property owner nor any agent thereof has ever entered into a lease or any other similar agreement with the defendant; (e) That demand has been made to the defendant for surrender of the property, and the defendant has refused to surrender the property to the former occupant or property owner; and (f) That the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the premises. Upon filing the complaint, a summons must be issued, served and returned as in other actions, provided, however, that at the time of issuance of the summons, the court shall schedule a trial within seventy-two (72) hours from the filing of the complaint, excluding weekends and official holidays. The service of the summons, complaint and notice of trial setting on the defendant shall be not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the time of trial appointed by the court.”

Subsection (5) is the warning attached to that track, and it is aimed at owners: "If any property owner files an action for possession against a defendant alleged to be occupying the property as a result of forcible detainer when a landlord-tenant relationship existed with the defendant and/or in bad faith, said property owner shall be liable to the defendant for treble damages as enumerated in this chapter." Bringing the squatter action against someone who was in fact your tenant costs you three times their damages.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Weeks, if the person inside argues — and the person inside will argue. On paper it is days: the sheriff acts "without delay", and the court track sets a trial within seventy-two hours of filing. But that is the version where nobody produces a lease. If they do, the sheriff has something to weigh before he will act, and a disputed fact in the court case goes to a jury. What it costs you is the sheriff's fee for serving the notice, an hourly rate if you ask him to stand by, and a lawyer if the person inside fights it. Idaho sets the sheriff's rates county by county, outside the statute, so no dollar figure appears on this page.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(4) — "without delay"

“If verified, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property.”

The statute puts no outer limit on the verification that precedes those words, and sets the sheriff no deadline for performing it.

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-310(4) — the 72-hour trial setting

“Upon filing the complaint, a summons must be issued, served and returned as in other actions, provided, however, that at the time of issuance of the summons, the court shall schedule a trial within seventy-two (72) hours from the filing of the complaint, excluding weekends and official holidays. The service of the summons, complaint and notice of trial setting on the defendant shall be not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the time of trial appointed by the court.”

That is the setting, not the ending. § 6-311 limits a continuance to two days in the rent cases it names, and it does not name the forcible detainer action.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-313 — trial by jury

“Whenever an issue of fact is presented by the pleadings it must be tried by a jury, unless such jury be waived as in other cases. The jury shall be formed in the same manner as other trial juries in the court in which the action is pending.”

This is why the cell on this page says weeks and not days. A forged lease IS an issue of fact. On the other side of the ledger, § 6-319 favours the owner once judgment is in: "An appeal taken by the defendant does not stay proceedings upon the judgment unless the court so directs." NO DOLLAR FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE. § 6-310A(5) pegs the sheriff's service fee to the fee for a writ of restitution and lets him set "a reasonable hourly rate" for standing by; both are set county by county, outside the statute, and we did not fetch a published schedule.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

Yes — Idaho is one of the few states where a sheriff can put you back in possession on your sworn word alone. No judge, no hearing, and nothing the person inside can sign to stop it. The check is the sheriff satisfying himself that you are the record owner, and the whole risk of being wrong lands on you: a judge appears only afterwards, if the person you removed sues.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

1 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(1)–(2) — legislative intent and the request (added 2025, ch. 222, sec. 1; am. 2026, ch. 82, sec. 1)

“The intent of this section is to quickly restore possession of residential real property to the lawful owner of the property when the property is being unlawfully occupied and to thereby preserve property rights while limiting the opportunity for criminal activity. A property owner or the owner's authorized agent may request from the sheriff of the county in which the property is located the immediate removal of a person or persons unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling pursuant to this section if all of the following conditions are met:”

Quoted from the section as currently printed by the Idaho Legislature, whose history line reads: "[6-310A, added 2025, ch. 222, sec. 1, p. 1042; am. 2026, ch. 82, sec. 1, p. 439.]" No court, no judge and no hearing is named anywhere in subsections (1) through (5).

Read it at the source →

2 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(4) — the sheriff acts

“Upon receipt of the complaint, the sheriff shall verify that the person submitting the complaint is the record owner of the real property or the authorized agent of the owner and appears otherwise entitled to relief pursuant to the provisions of this section. If verified, the sheriff shall, without delay, serve a notice to immediately vacate on all the unlawful occupants and shall put the owner in possession of the real property.”

Compare Georgia, where a single counter-affidavit from the occupant stops the deputy and sends everything to a magistrate. Idaho's section contains no counter-affidavit and no equivalent. The occupant's remedy is the lawsuit in subsection (6), and it comes after they are already out.

Read it at the source →

3 · Idaho Code § 6-310A(6) — the civil action, after the fact

“A person may bring a civil cause of action for wrongful removal under this section. A person harmed by a wrongful removal under this section may be restored to possession of the real property and may recover actual costs and damages incurred, statutory damages equal to triple the fair market rent of the dwelling, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The court shall advance the cause on the calendar.”

This is the whole of the judicial check Idaho builds into the fast route, and it runs backwards: the removal happens first, and a court looks at it only if the person removed brings the case. Subsection (7) adds: "The provisions of this section shall not limit the rights of a property owner or limit the authority of a law enforcement officer to arrest an unlawful occupant for trespassing, vandalism, theft, or other crimes."

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long before they can claim they own it?

Twenty years — and they must also have paid every state, county and municipal tax bill on the property for all twenty of them, and proved the whole thing by clear and convincing evidence. Idaho makes this very hard to do quietly.

›Read the law

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

Idaho Code § 5-210 — oral claim, possession defined, payment of taxes (am. 2006, ch. 158)

“For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession, by a person claiming title not founded upon a written instrument, judgment or decree, land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases only: (1) Where it has been protected by a substantial enclosure. (2) Where it has been usually cultivated or improved. Provided, however, that in no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provisions of any sections of this code unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of twenty (20) years continuously, and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have paid all the taxes, state, county or municipal, which have been levied and assessed upon such land according to law.”

Read the proviso, and read how far it reaches: "in no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provisions of ANY sections of this code" unless the twenty years and every tax bill are made out. So the tax requirement is not confined to the oral-claim section it sits in — on its own words it also reaches a claim founded on a written instrument under § 5-208. The same section also requires "clear and convincing evidence" of the enclosure or cultivation, and shuts the door entirely where the owner has recorded an instrument declaring that permitting occupation was not intended to define boundaries or ownership.

Read it at the source →

This page is the law. What it costs you in Idaho — the filing fee, the sheriff’s bill, the months, and whether you ever see the money again.

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (9)

Idaho Code § 6-303 — unlawful detainer definedIdaho Code § 6-302 — forcible detainer definedIdaho Code § 6-310A(6) — the civil action, after the factIdaho Code § 6-301 — forcible entry definedIdaho Code § 18-7008(2)(a) — the words the offence hinges onIdaho Code § 19-603 — when a peace officer may arrest, quoted in fullIdaho Code § 6-310(4) — the 72-hour trial settingIdaho Code § 6-313 — trial by juryIdaho Code § 5-210 — oral claim, possession defined, payment of taxes (am. 2006, ch. 158)

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.