On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:39:56 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 01:50:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:01:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 09-01-2013 16:07, wrote:
I'd say you're not open, that you are in fact a sneak, if
you knowingly allow someone else to pay property taxes on a
piece of land you own. Some states agree, because it part
of their AP laws. In order to claim adverse possession,
someone else, ie the rightful owner, can't be paying the
property taxes. The person making the AP claim has to be
paying them. Sounds very reasonable to me.
If I am listed as the owner, then I am getting the tax bill.
How would someone else be paying it?
If he's getting the tax bill, then it's already his in the
official records. If that's wrong, gonna be a heck of a struggle fixing it.
Who exactly are you referring to? The fact that the person here trying
to claim adverse possession is *not* getting a tax bill and *not* paying the taxes is precisely the point. I'll say it one more time. In some states,
part of the AP law specifically includes that to make such a claim, the
person must be paying the property taxes on the property he seeks
via AP, just as if he owned the property.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. If you own your own lot, you
pay taxes on it. To claim that you own part of the neighbor next door's
lot when the neighbor has been paying taxes on it, not you, seems unreasonable
to me. And apparently to some states too.
Only "some states"? So are you agreeing that in some other states,
the law is the way Wes and I and, I think, Unquestion, have said it
is?
I have said from the beginning that it's some states that have
laws that require the payment of taxes by the party claiming AP.
I never said it was all. And I said that I'd be interested in
seeing the case law in those other states, because unless you know the
exact wording of the law for each state and how the courts have
interpreted it, you don't know what effect who's been paying the
taxes has.
If you think you own it,
then why aren't you paying taxes on it?
Because you think you are. You think the bill you get includes the
land you think you own. Who wouldn't think that?
I can think of plenty of examples. Here's one. A guy buys a property,
gets it surveyed. The surveyor puts in concrete markers that show the correct property lines. Then they guy puts up a fence that is two feet over on to
the neighbor's property. You're going to tell me that because his
tax bill hasn't changed, he thinks it includes the property he just
encroached on? That he is the one paying the taxes on it now? Good grief!
Let's say there is a vacant house on a lot. The owner walks away
from it. A squatter occupies the house and starts paying the property taxes.
After the required number of years, he can claim it via AP. Not
You choose examples that fit your conception of the law and where the
results will coincide with your conception of the law. No one is
saying it doesn't work out like you expect some of the time.
Wow, imagine that.
But you don't consider other examples that don't fiti your conception
of the law.
Now I'm supposed to find your examples for you too?
saying all states work that way, but some do. And I'd be curious to
see the case law regarding the issue of tax payments and how courts
have treated it in other states.
Also, some states have de minimus exclusions, specifically covering
fences placed a few feet off the correct boundary, and similar
common occurances, where you can't claim AP.
And then there are the other states with no such clause.
wow, imagine that. I say there are some houses that have granite
countertops. You figure out that there are also some that do not.
That's remarkable.
Where that is the case, AP won't apply, but if the fence is further
out of place than "a few feet", or whatever the statute says, I guess
AP is again a possibility.
This makes sense. If the fence is only an inch, or a small number of
feet, out of place, the original owner will come out of his house
every day and look at the fence and he won't be able to tell that it's
not where it's supposed to be. That's why *some* states have the
exclusion.
Wow, now you can read the minds of unknown law makers in unknown
states. Very impressive.