Posted on 07/18/2011 11:49:23 PM PDT by lowbridge
Thanks for the ping. Interesting case.
Even more interesting, because this guy managed to take possession a home in one of the better areas of North Texas. There are foreclosed homes all over this region, and I’ll bet that many of them are in similar questionable ownership status, but they’re not in Flower Mound.
I think this guy cherry picked this one.
Working within the framework of chaos in law and the legal system is something we all have to manage.
The US law and legal system of 2011 is a inchoate beast of destructive and deadly distempers.
Ask any GM stockholder or bondholder.
He may have cherry picked, but I think the back property taxes may have to be paid. I know we were having a tough time with the title company when we split the land, because of the total land acres. Most parcels of land were 200 acres back when my grandparents bought that land.
My parents bought just at 180 acres, but even after selling 20+ acres, the surveyor came up with over 190. He told the title company that if his figures were off that much, it was time to hang it up.
I’m not only in real estate but I have been on the bar too. Adverse possession has many purposes. It is a common law concept that dates back a 1000 years. During the civil war it was used to take over vacant farms, during the depression it was used to take over vacant buildings, this “recession” is quite a bit worse than we want to admit. No offense but adverse possession is something I’m very acquainted with. In recent times, fence line disputes is what it was used for, but that is only a small part of adverse possession.
You. Did not win, you got the charges dropped, however, this case has nothing to do with the topic.
You can in Tennessee. The snag is the mortgage holder. In this case the mortgage holder went out of business too. An enterprising person could obtain publicly available (in most cases) listings which feature this same mortgage holder, and send out fliers to friends to ‘come and take’.
I won. The charges weren’t dropped. The ruling was not guilty.
No, the judge refused to here the silly claim about paper streets. Now you should really be careful that the land owner does not move to the M13 option.
It’s true that the judge did not hear the claim. It’s not a silly claim at all. Paper streets are real. A right of way. If I buy a right of way from a property owner, say to access land locked property, that’s not something the property owner can one day say “all mine”. That would be theft on his part.
Now if I don’t use or claim the right of way long enough for it to be considered abandoned, sure he can and SHOULD reclaim it. But if it’s still ledgered as a claim against title (like a mineral right, or a public water line easement) he has to pursue an action to quiet title to correct the title.
As I said, on those paper streets, one precedent owner did sue to the quiet the title. We refused to give up our claim to those paper streets. IIRC, two other owners of property in the original subdivision also refused, but the dozens of others did not raise any objection. Their rights in the paper streets, as I remember, were thus extinguished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.