Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm

[TexasGator]

“UNLESS they sold it to the county, which offered them $40k. “

Do you only rely on one click-bait article for your ‘facts’?

[Svartalfiar]

FACT: "Lot F was conveyed to them in 1994, and Lot E was conveyed to them in 1995."

The lots were owned by the family since the 1960s. The lots being conveyed was from the family trust down to the children, I think four out of six of whom are the current legal owners. Generally, any kind of grandfathering is held across generations. It's only lost when sold outside of the family.

[Svartalfiar]

And the county never said they couldn’t sell it.

Yes, they did. The only way they were allowed to sell it was by combining it with the lot that contained their cabin, which they didn't want to do. That has the same effect of not allowing them to sell the adjacent lot.

[Svartalfiar]

Do you only rely on one click-bait article for your ‘facts’?

No, I usually search around and find a couple click-bait articles to make sure they all agree on the same incorrect facts.

[TexasGator]

“
The lots were owned by the family since the 1960s. The lots being conveyed was from the family trust down to the children, I think four out of six of whom are the current legal owners. Generally, any kind of grandfathering is held across generations. It’s only lost when sold outside of the family. “

If they had given one lot to two of the children and the other lot to the other two they would have been grandfathered. As I understand (only slightly) the grandfathering could be passed to any new owner.

The county argued that by both lots being owned by the same people and their use of the lots as one lot, they in fact had ‘merged’ the lots into one and were no longer grandfathered for developing both lots.

They valued both lots as one for about $700k and valued two lots separately (without those restrictions) as slightly more than $700k but less than a 10% difference.

[TexasGator]

Fair enough!

Disinformation seems to flow from one article to the next.

[TexasGator]

“The lots being conveyed was from the family trust down to the children,”

One was held personally, the other was held in their business name.

[Svartalfiar]

The county argued that by both lots being owned by the same people and their use of the lots as one lot, they in fact had ‘merged’ the lots into one and were no longer grandfathered for developing both lots.

But they didn't combine them. Legally they were still two separate lots. Tax-wise they were separate.

If I buy a car and let my kid drive it to school and work, and he pays for fuel and basic maintenance while he uses it, does that make him the legal owner of the car? Not at all. Just because something is used in one manner doesn't legally turn it into something else.

[TexasGator]

“Just because something is used in one manner doesn’t legally turn it into something else. “

Google ‘adverse possession’.

[TexasGator]

“But they didn’t combine them. Legally they were still two separate lots. “

Not according to the local zoning laws.

[Svartalfiar]

Google ‘adverse possession’.

And what does that have to do with this case?

“But they didn’t combine them. Legally they were still two separate lots. “
Not according to the local zoning laws.

According to local zoning laws that supposedly combined them 30+ years before they tried to sell, which is when this 'combining' was discovered. And, in the meantime, everyone treated them as two separate properties, including the government forces who deal with property taxes. If the government actually combined them, why would they still treat them as separate? Why would the county offer to buy only the second lot, if the lots are combined and must be treated as the same lot?

[TexasGator]

What does a car have to do with this case?