Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:07:31 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have
their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what
the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one
that screwed up not the home owner.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

If the state paid too much for the land, they should give the land back.
The land is now worth lots more than what the state paid for it now it has
the ramp on it.

I know a man that sold a piece of land about 30 feet by 50 feet for around $
700,000. Nothing on the land but a small cement pad. It was at the beach
and between two high dollar houses. They did not want a camper parked on it
during the summer months, which was what that land was used for many years
ago.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:07:31 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have
their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what
the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one
that screwed up not the home owner.

Whoosh!

On 2/8/2014 11:16 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have
their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what
the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one
that screwed up not the home owner.

Whoosh!

LOL!

On 02/08/2014 10:25 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:07:31 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have
their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what
the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one
that screwed up not the home owner.




You did not realize DD was joking?

Oh my.

On 02/08/2014 10:48 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

If the state paid too much for the land, they should give the land back.
The land is now worth lots more than what the state paid for it now it has
the ramp on it.

I know a man that sold a piece of land about 30 feet by 50 feet for around $
700,000. Nothing on the land but a small cement pad. It was at the beach
and between two high dollar houses. They did not want a camper parked on it
during the summer months, which was what that land was used for many years
ago.




Years ago I had a friend who bought an old farmstead and wanted to have
a large pond put it...but the excavation would have cost $40k


A year later, the state was putting in an overpass and needed fill,
he sold them a "pond's worth" for about $2500



He was just trying to keep up with his nearest neighbor who named his
pond "Lake Annabel" after his wife.


My buddy name his " Whopeedinna Pond" (Who peed in the pond)


He said that little by little EVERYONE in town came out to see it and
giggle. The neighbor was not thrilled though.

On 2/8/2014 8:02 PM, Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom
window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

I think it's funny/ironic since government usually comes in and seizes
the property at gunpoint claiming eminent domain and if the property
owner gets anything it could be a tiny amount of money the owner must
accept with a gun pointed at his head. We've had a lot of slimy eminent
domain crap go on in my area where people had their taxes assessed at an
insane rate in order to force them to sell their property to a
corporation that wanted it and in some cases government took their
property so a shopping center could be built in order for that
government to get more sales tax. o_O

TDD

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:25:47 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:07:31 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

wrote:



Oren wrote:

Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.



Video:



http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips



Court is in session on Monday.



Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter

million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?



I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)



Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have

their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what

the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one

that screwed up not the home owner.


There is a lot missing here. From the pics of the property, the amount
the state paid appears way out of line and the amount the state says
should have been paid, $90K, appears closer to reality. If I had to guess,
I'd say the $250K may have been the value of the entire property and
that's how they made the mistake. It's a small house and the interstate
was already close to it. They make it sound like the interstate just
suddenly showed up 30 ft from his window. It looks to me like it was
always just one lane further away. They added a lane to make the exit.

They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been
a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for
their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.
Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like
this.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:31 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

..snip...
Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

Great conclusion! Sets a premise. So, does that mean we can get back our
$16,000+ from what the US govt spent financing all those 'useless' wars?

On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:18:46 -0700,
wrote:

...snip...
They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been
a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for
their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.
Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like
this.

When I questioned the idiotically high prices of housing in California, I
was told by the realtors that pricing is 'realistic' because 'price' is
based upon what someone is willing to sell and someone is willing to buy.
QED, $250k is realistic pricing. I won't even address how the banks make
more money with larger loans, nor how the realtors make more money on
higher commissions, nor even the assessors who make more on their
evaluation commissions. [It seems that everyone, BUT the buyer benefits
from these high prices!]

Great premise that you can go back to the seller and demand a partial
refund! I wonder if there will be such a class action suit throughout
California.

Plus, how much is the city paying the attorneys to pursue this? Waste,
begets waste, eh?

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:31 -0700, DerbyDad03

wrote:



..snip...

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter

million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?



I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)



Great conclusion! Sets a premise. So, does that mean we can get back our

$16,000+ from what the US govt spent financing all those 'useless' wars?


What an incredible leap in logical association, even for here.
You can't do math either. With $314 mil Americans, if we each got
$16K, that would be $5tril dollars. The total amount spent on
both wars is about $1.5tril. If the war in Afghanistan was useless,
what would you have done after 911, send the Taliban and Bin Laden a cake?

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:02:22 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:18:46 -0700,

wrote:



...snip...

They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been

a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for

their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.

Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like

this.



When I questioned the idiotically high prices of housing in California, I

was told by the realtors that pricing is 'realistic' because 'price' is

based upon what someone is willing to sell and someone is willing to buy.

QED, $250k is realistic pricing.

Of course that's nonsense. In the case of CA, what the realtor is telling
you is that the realistic prices are high because that's what many buyers
are paying in CA, in that neighborhood, for many similar houses.
You have many transactions that show what typical fair market value is.

We have no evidence whatever of that in this case. What determines a fair
price under eminent domain is what the property is worth based on actual
recent sales of similar properties and what the property will be worth
after a portion is taken. And I would not be surprised at all that the
house in question, the $250K was for the full value of the property, meaning
that is what similar houses are selling for there. And they didn't take
the whole house, they just reduced it's value. It's like this guy is
getting paid for his house and gets to keep it too.




I won't even address how the banks make

more money with larger loans, nor how the realtors make more money on

higher commissions, nor even the assessors who make more on their

evaluation commissions. [It seems that everyone, BUT the buyer benefits

from these high prices!]



All of which is irrelevant.





Great premise that you can go back to the seller and demand a partial

refund! I wonder if there will be such a class action suit throughout

California.


Again, apples and oranges. In CA, you have many transactions
that show many people are paying the higher prices in sales
transactions. You can't say I paid $800K for my house and
it's too much because similar houses have also sold for $800K.

If that whole house in VA is only worth about $250K, and the
state paid $250K for just a small portion of the backyard,
and they can show that it was by some clear mistake, that is
a different situation than what you're comparing it to.

One factor that this may center on is that the other party was
the state under eminent domain. If it was private party transaction,
I doubt they would have a case, absent fraud on the part of the
seller.




Plus, how much is the city paying the attorneys to pursue this? Waste,

begets waste, eh?

I believe it was stated that it's the state, not the city.
Good question as to cost. If they are using staff attorneys
might be impossible to say. It would seem the best thing in this
case would be a negotiated settlement, to save time, legal fees,
etc on both sides.

wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:31 -0700, DerbyDad03

wrote:



..snip...
Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?
I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)


Great conclusion! Sets a premise. So, does that mean we can get back our

$16,000+ from what the US govt spent financing all those 'useless' wars?


What an incredible leap in logical association, even for here.
You can't do math either. With $314 mil Americans, if we each got
$16K, that would be $5tril dollars. The total amount spent on
both wars is about $1.5tril. If the war in Afghanistan was useless,
what would you have done after 911, send the Taliban and Bin Laden a cake?


It depends upon what was inside the cake!

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On 2/9/2014 9:07 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:07:31 -0700, DerbyDad03


wrote:



..snip...

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a
quarter

million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?



I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)



Great conclusion! Sets a premise. So, does that mean we can get
back our

$16,000+ from what the US govt spent financing all those 'useless'
wars?


What an incredible leap in logical association, even for here. You
can't do math either. With $314 mil Americans, if we each got

Dang! I didn't know I was worth $314 million! There's a lot of stuff I
can buy now! I'll bet I could get a refill on my prescription meds now!
^_^

TDD

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:16:28 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:07:31 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter
million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?

I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)

Bull ****! The assessor who "over valued" the property should have
their wages garnished until any over payment is recovered. If what
the city of Virginia Beach is alleging is true the assessor is the one
that screwed up not the home owner.

Whoosh!

OK, everyone is entitled to a brain fart once in a while. That was
mine. ;-(

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been
a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for
their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.
Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like
this.

Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.

Happens all the time. We don't realize how much of our interpersonal communication is non-verbal until you get on the internet. The way we say things, the expression on our face, the tone of our voice and even our body language provide other people with signals on how to correctly interpret what we say. On the internet, all of those non-verbal clues are missing, and so it's easy to misinterpret things. We've invented emoticons and smilies just to help put the correct spin on the way a statement is to be interpreted.

If some radar telescope on the Earth somewhere receives a signal from a planet orbiting a distant star saying "Howdy neighbor?", and we began interstellar communications with that civilization, it would be interesting to see how a system of emoticons and smilies would evolve if they didn't know what a smile or frown was. Probably, it would take millenia for us to even learn to communicate given the time it would take radio waves to travel between stars, and the fact that we'd have no mutually recognizable starting point like "Me Tarzan, you Jane." or "Take me to your leader". We'd spend centuries just figuring out HOW to talk to each other.

nestork wrote:
Steve F.;3195290 Wrote:


- Whoosh!-

LOL!

Happens all the time. We don't realize how much of our interpersonal
communication is non-verbal until you get on the internet. The way we
say things, the expression on our face, the tone of our voice and even
our body language provide other people with signals on how to correctly
interpret what we say. On the internet, all of those non-verbal clues
are missing, and so it's easy to misinterpret things. We've invented
emoticons and smilies just to help put the correct spin on the way a
statement is to be interpreted.


I'm glad you used the word _help_.

Smilies and emoticons _help_ but don't eliminate the problem. Apparently
the smilie I used was missed/ignored/misinterpreted by Monsieur Shumway.

It happens. No biggy.

On 2/9/2014 9:31 PM, nestork wrote:

Happens all the time. We don't realize how much of our interpersonal
communication is non-verbal until you get on the internet. The way we
say things, the expression on our face, the tone of our voice and even
our body language provide other people with signals on how to correctly
interpret what we say. On the internet, all of those non-verbal clues
are missing, and so it's easy to misinterpret things. We've invented
emoticons and smilies just to help put the correct spin on the way a
statement is to be interpreted.


So, you think we're total idiots?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:20:31 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 8:02 PM, Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom
window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

I think it's funny/ironic since government usually comes in and seizes
the property at gunpoint claiming eminent domain and if the property
owner gets anything it could be a tiny amount of money the owner must
accept with a gun pointed at his head. We've had a lot of slimy eminent
domain crap go on in my area where people had their taxes assessed at an
insane rate in order to force them to sell their property to a
corporation that wanted it and in some cases government took their
property so a shopping center could be built in order for that
government to get more sales tax. o_O


When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private owner, even
if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both parties to
hire a private, licensed property appraiser.

Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E
insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an
appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.

If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal completely, I
would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can prove
the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have legitimate
recourse.

If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would find in
favor of the homeowner.

On 2/10/2014 7:17 AM, Lab Lover wrote:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:20:31 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 8:02 PM, Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom
window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips




Court is in session on Monday.

I think it's funny/ironic since government usually comes in and
seizes the property at gunpoint claiming eminent domain and if the
property owner gets anything it could be a tiny amount of money
the owner must accept with a gun pointed at his head. We've had a
lot of slimy eminent domain crap go on in my area where people had
their taxes assessed at an insane rate in order to force them to
sell their property to a corporation that wanted it and in some
cases government took their property so a shopping center could be
built in order for that government to get more sales tax. o_O


When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private
owner, even if the process of condemnation is used, it is common
place for both parties to hire a private, licensed property
appraiser.

Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a
O&E insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon
such an appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the
appraiser.

If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal
completely, I would speculate they have little chance of success.
However, if they can prove the seller materially misrepresented the
property, they might have legitimate recourse.

If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I
would find in favor of the homeowner.

The one thing about government and the law that most people don't
understand is that the authorities tell the citizens/subjects "Do as we
say or we'll kill you." That's how the law works. If government
enforcers come to your home and tell you that you must do something and
you say no, the enforcers will tell you that they're going to take you
away in chains and if you fight back, they will kill you. See it's
simple so just prostrate yourself in front of government enforcers and
they may not kill you, maybe kick you in the head and drag you away but
you might live. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:03:47 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 7:17 AM, Lab Lover wrote:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:20:31 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 8:02 PM, Oren wrote:
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom
window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips




Court is in session on Monday.

I think it's funny/ironic since government usually comes in and
seizes the property at gunpoint claiming eminent domain and if the
property owner gets anything it could be a tiny amount of money
the owner must accept with a gun pointed at his head. We've had a
lot of slimy eminent domain crap go on in my area where people had
their taxes assessed at an insane rate in order to force them to
sell their property to a corporation that wanted it and in some
cases government took their property so a shopping center could be
built in order for that government to get more sales tax. o_O


When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private
owner, even if the process of condemnation is used, it is common
place for both parties to hire a private, licensed property
appraiser.

Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a
O&E insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon
such an appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the
appraiser.

If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal
completely, I would speculate they have little chance of success.
However, if they can prove the seller materially misrepresented the
property, they might have legitimate recourse.

If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I
would find in favor of the homeowner.

The one thing about government and the law that most people don't
understand is that the authorities tell the citizens/subjects "Do as we
say or we'll kill you." That's how the law works. If government
enforcers come to your home and tell you that you must do something and
you say no, the enforcers will tell you that they're going to take you
away in chains and if you fight back, they will kill you. See it's
simple so just prostrate yourself in front of government enforcers and
they may not kill you, maybe kick you in the head and drag you away but
you might live. ^_^


I see where you might have gotten confused. The issue we are discussing is
taking place in Virginia, USA, Not the PRC or DPRK.

On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:07:04 -0700,
wrote:

...snip....

What an incredible leap in logical association, even for here.
You can't do math either. With $314 mil Americans, if we each got
$16K, that would be $5tril dollars. The total amount spent on
both wars is about $1.5tril. If the war in Afghanistan was useless,
what would you have done after 911, send the Taliban and Bin Laden a
cake?

Every citizen in US does NOT pay tax, that 'estimate' was based upon money
per taxpayer and per household, not per person.

Against my judgment, wishes, and advice, we did.

On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:32:31 -0700,
wrote:

..snip...
I believe it was stated that it's the state, not the city.
Good question as to cost. If they are using staff attorneys
might be impossible to say. It would seem the best thing in this
case would be a negotiated settlement, to save time, legal fees,
etc on both sides.

I've not followed this, can't use that link. How much time between eminent
domain purchase, funds transfer, and 'discovery' of "oops, paid too much,
give it back?" ??

On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:26:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:32:31 -0700,

wrote:



..snip...

I believe it was stated that it's the state, not the city.

Good question as to cost. If they are using staff attorneys

might be impossible to say. It would seem the best thing in this

case would be a negotiated settlement, to save time, legal fees,

etc on both sides.



I've not followed this, can't use that link. How much time between eminent

domain purchase, funds transfer, and 'discovery' of "oops, paid too much,

give it back?" ??

I just listened to it again. The video doesn't say when the transaction ocurred. The most that is said is that surveying started in 2009.
Reporter also starts off by saying "The city of Virginia Beach" bought the
land. But then when talking with the guy and his attorney, it's all
VA DOT, State of VA, etc, no mention of the city. Which makes sense
because it sure looks like a major state highway.

Really bad interviewer too. No question at all about how this happened,
what was the total property worth, etc.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:23 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been

a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for

their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.

Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like

this.



Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.

Yeah, except the state is one party, and that could make a difference.
Also, how the mistake was made could matter too. Like suppose you
had multiple drafts of a sales contract where the price was
$90,000, everybody had seen those, got used to it, and then in
the final one someone somehow cut and pasted incorrectly and made
it $250,000? In that case, clearly the meeting of the minds was
at the $90K price and the $250K price would be a mistake that I'm
sure you could reverse, if the facts prove it was clearly a mistake
and not the agreed on price. Problem with this one is there is no
mention of how it happened.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:17:14 AM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:20:31 -0600, The Daring Dufas

wrote:



On 2/8/2014 8:02 PM, Oren wrote:

Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom

window.



Video:



http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips



Court is in session on Monday.



I think it's funny/ironic since government usually comes in and seizes

the property at gunpoint claiming eminent domain and if the property

owner gets anything it could be a tiny amount of money the owner must

accept with a gun pointed at his head. We've had a lot of slimy eminent

domain crap go on in my area where people had their taxes assessed at an

insane rate in order to force them to sell their property to a

corporation that wanted it and in some cases government took their

property so a shopping center could be built in order for that

government to get more sales tax. o_O





When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private owner, even

if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both parties to

hire a private, licensed property appraiser.



Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E

insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an

appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.



If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal completely, I

would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can prove

the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have legitimate

recourse.



If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would find in

favor of the homeowner.

The only problem is, there are hardly any known facts. All we know is they
paid $250K for taking enough off the back of his property to add an
exit lane. Even the aerial photos aren't marked, but if it's the
house I think it is, it's a small house that was already close to
the highway. As I said before, I would not be surprised that the
error was that they paid him for the appraised value of the whole
property and house, by mistake.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:09:25 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:23 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been

a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for

their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.

Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like

this.



Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.

Yeah, except the state is one party, and that could make a difference.
Also, how the mistake was made could matter too. Like suppose you
had multiple drafts of a sales contract where the price was
$90,000, everybody had seen those, got used to it, and then in
the final one someone somehow cut and pasted incorrectly and made
it $250,000? In that case, clearly the meeting of the minds was
at the $90K price and the $250K price would be a mistake that I'm
sure you could reverse, if the facts prove it was clearly a mistake
and not the agreed on price. Problem with this one is there is no
mention of how it happened.

This article contains much greater detail.

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/he-s...ot-wants-dough

Additionally, you might be able to locate the filing, VDOT v. Ramsey if you can
identify the county in which the case is being heard and then search for a
register of actions that is available to the public.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

"Lab Lover" wrote in message
...

When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private
owner, even
if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both
parties to
hire a private, licensed property appraiser.

Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E
insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an
appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.

If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal
completely, I
would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can
prove
the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have
legitimate
recourse.

If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would
find in
favor of the homeowner.

There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the
government.

Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built
the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the
government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?

In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many
people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell
much of his land.
Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many
times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is
under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have
many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because
this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people
wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any
kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into
the water where some of his land is.

In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof
the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Lab Lover" wrote in message
.. .

When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private
owner, even
if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both
parties to
hire a private, licensed property appraiser.

Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E
insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an
appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.

If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal
completely, I
would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can
prove
the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have
legitimate
recourse.

If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would
find in
favor of the homeowner.

There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the
government.

Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built
the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the
government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?

In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many
people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell
much of his land.
Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many
times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is
under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have
many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because
this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people
wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any
kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into
the water where some of his land is.

In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof
the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.


We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a
government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as
determined by impartial appraisers.

In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through
eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep
his land.

Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more
than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient
crystal ball.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:18:52 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:09:25 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:23 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been



a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for



their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.



Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like



this.







Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.



Yeah, except the state is one party, and that could make a difference.

Also, how the mistake was made could matter too. Like suppose you

had multiple drafts of a sales contract where the price was

$90,000, everybody had seen those, got used to it, and then in

the final one someone somehow cut and pasted incorrectly and made

it $250,000? In that case, clearly the meeting of the minds was

at the $90K price and the $250K price would be a mistake that I'm

sure you could reverse, if the facts prove it was clearly a mistake

and not the agreed on price. Problem with this one is there is no

mention of how it happened.



This article contains much greater detail.



http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/he-s...ot-wants-dough



Additionally, you might be able to locate the filing, VDOT v. Ramsey if you can

identify the county in which the case is being heard and then search for a

register of actions that is available to the public.

Thanks for finding that. So, it looks like one big thing that's
missing and not in the property owner's favor is that this was not
a sale at an agreed on price. The state had a appraisal that the
piece in question was worth $250K. But he didn't accept
that and as part of the process, the state put that money into an
account and went ahead with the project, with the actual value
apparently to be determined later, either by some condemnation
appeals process or court. Then the owner was given access to the
money, and even warned at that time that the final amount could
be more or less. In short, with these facts, it would appear
there was never a sales transaction for the property to begin with.
And I would think to win he's going to have to prove that the property
they took should have been valued at $250K. It's far different
from the news story that made it appear there had been an actual
transaction completed.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:59:57 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:18:52 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:09:25 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:23 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:18:46 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:







They're all misleading here. Fox says the $250K appears to have been



a "fair" price. On what basis? The state says they aren't asking for



their money back, but they are suing the owner for exactly that.



Interesting case. IDK how the laws and case law work on something like



this.







Contract law? A "meeting of the minds" at sale. My guess.



Yeah, except the state is one party, and that could make a difference.

Also, how the mistake was made could matter too. Like suppose you

had multiple drafts of a sales contract where the price was

$90,000, everybody had seen those, got used to it, and then in

the final one someone somehow cut and pasted incorrectly and made

it $250,000? In that case, clearly the meeting of the minds was

at the $90K price and the $250K price would be a mistake that I'm

sure you could reverse, if the facts prove it was clearly a mistake

and not the agreed on price. Problem with this one is there is no

mention of how it happened.



This article contains much greater detail.



http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/he-s...ot-wants-dough



Additionally, you might be able to locate the filing, VDOT v. Ramsey if you can

identify the county in which the case is being heard and then search for a

register of actions that is available to the public.

Thanks for finding that. So, it looks like one big thing that's
missing and not in the property owner's favor is that this was not
a sale at an agreed on price. The state had a appraisal that the
piece in question was worth $250K. But he didn't accept
that and as part of the process, the state put that money into an
account and went ahead with the project, with the actual value
apparently to be determined later, either by some condemnation
appeals process or court. Then the owner was given access to the
money, and even warned at that time that the final amount could
be more or less. In short, with these facts, it would appear
there was never a sales transaction for the property to begin with.
And I would think to win he's going to have to prove that the property
they took should have been valued at $250K. It's far different
from the news story that made it appear there had been an actual
transaction completed.

Yes, the state has intentionally legislated a muddy morass of a process for
government acquisition of property.

If one had the money and inclination, I suspect it would not survive a concerted
challenge before SCOTUS.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:39:52 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Lab Lover" wrote in message

...



When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private

owner, even

if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both

parties to

hire a private, licensed property appraiser.



Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E

insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an

appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.



If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal

completely, I

would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can

prove

the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have

legitimate

recourse.



If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would

find in

favor of the homeowner.



There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the

government.



Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built

the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the

government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?



In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many

people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell

much of his land.

Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many

times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is

under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have

many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because

this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people

wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any

kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into

the water where some of his land is.



In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof

the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.



I don't know about the 10+ miles thing. There are a lot of places where
there is a huge differenc in price over even smaller distances.
An acre in Hoboken NJ is just a few miles from Times Square for example.
Or go out a few miles from say Beverly Hills and you're in completely
different areas.

But I do think that in general in these eminent domain cases
in the vast majority, the govt tries to lowball the price. And
it's difficult to figure out the true value of what they are
taking. Like this case, there is already a major highway right
after his existing backyard. So, they take enough of it for
adding an exit lane, moving the encroachment that much closer.
Hard to say exactly what that amounts to. It's certainly more
than just saying the whole lot is worth $100K, they are taking
10%, so you get $10K. It's how much it diminishes the overall
value, which is subjective.

I think most people would not mind their govts erring on the
side of being somewhat more than fair when taking propert like
that, ie if you had 3 appraisals, going somewhere closer to the
higher ones, rather than the lower ones. But time after time,
from what I've seen, they try to lowball it.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

wrote:





"Lab Lover" wrote in message

.. .



When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private

owner, even

if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both

parties to

hire a private, licensed property appraiser.



Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E

insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an

appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.



If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal

completely, I

would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can

prove

the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have

legitimate

recourse.



If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would

find in

favor of the homeowner.



There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the

government.



Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built

the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the

government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?



In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many

people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell

much of his land.

Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many

times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is

under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have

many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because

this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people

wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any

kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into

the water where some of his land is.



In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof

the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.





We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a

government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as

determined by impartial appraisers.



In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through

eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep

his land.


Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was
no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just
piece of the land.
\



Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more

than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient

crystal ball.

I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or
land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move.
IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've
lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien,
I think some additional compensation beyond
just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer,
I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number.
Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the
extent possible.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

so that would make you an articulate ****er?

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:18:31 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

wrote:





"Lab Lover" wrote in message

.. .



When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private

owner, even

if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both

parties to

hire a private, licensed property appraiser.



Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E

insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an

appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.



If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal

completely, I

would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can

prove

the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have

legitimate

recourse.



If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would

find in

favor of the homeowner.



There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the

government.



Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built

the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the

government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?



In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many

people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell

much of his land.

Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many

times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is

under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have

many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because

this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people

wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any

kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into

the water where some of his land is.



In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof

the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.





We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a

government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as

determined by impartial appraisers.



In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through

eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep

his land.


Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was
no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just
piece of the land.

If the man who did not sell his property (above) were subject to an eminent
domain condemnation of all his property and was unable to challenge such
successfully, he would not have been able to keep his property

I suspect this is what you were conveying?

\



Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more

than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient

crystal ball.

I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or
land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move.
IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've
lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien,
I think some additional compensation beyond
just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer,
I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number.
Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the
extent possible.


In the case on eminent domain condemnation of primary residences, most
jurisdictions will provide for reasonable relocation expenses, above and beyond
FMV of the property.

I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the USA where a government has been able to
acquire property, through eminent domain, where the property owner did not have
the right to due process and judicial appeal. Are you aware of any such
omnipotent jurisdictions?

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:20:52 -0800, Lab Lover wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:18:31 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

wrote:





"Lab Lover" wrote in message

.. .



When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private

owner, even

if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both

parties to

hire a private, licensed property appraiser.



Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E

insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an

appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.



If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal

completely, I

would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can

prove

the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have

legitimate

recourse.



If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would

find in

favor of the homeowner.



There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the

government.



Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built

the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the

government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?



In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many

people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell

much of his land.

Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many

times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is

under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have

many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because

this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people

wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any

kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into

the water where some of his land is.



In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof

the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.





We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a

government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as

determined by impartial appraisers.



In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through

eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep

his land.


Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was
no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just
piece of the land.

If the man who did not sell his property (above) were subject to an eminent
domain condemnation of all his property and was unable to challenge such
successfully, he would not have been able to keep his property

I suspect this is what you were conveying?

\



Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more

than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient

crystal ball.

I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or
land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move.
IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've
lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien,
I think some additional compensation beyond
just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer,
I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number.
Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the
extent possible.


In the case on eminent domain condemnation of primary residences, most
jurisdictions will provide for reasonable relocation expenses, above and beyond
FMV of the property.

I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the USA where a government has been able to
acquire property, through eminent domain, where the property owner did not have
the right to due process and judicial appeal. Are you aware of any such
omnipotent jurisdictions?

Sorry, typo above, should have said:

"In the case "of" eminent domain condemnation"