Posted on 05/24/2005 8:24:56 AM PDT by Puppage
SEA ISLE CITY, N.J. -- Imagine getting a letter in the mail one day telling you that you don't really own your home.
Thomas and Dorothy Dowdell don't have to imagine. It's happening to them.
The retired couple, who bought a waterfront condominium here in 1988 and are about to sell it for nearly $900,000, were notified recently that the land on which it was built actually belongs to the state of New Jersey.
Like the owners of eight other properties on 47th Place, they have been told that the sliver of land their house sits on was city-owned land before it was deeded to the state for a dredging project in 1942.
The land was to be returned to the city after the work was done, city officials say, but it never was. Nonetheless, the city sold the land to developer Joseph W. Buecker Jr. and he sold lots for development.
Now, 62 years later, the state Bureau of Tidelands Management says the land -- and the expensive waterfront condominiums and homes since built on it -- belongs to the state.
The mix-up has the Dowdells in a tizzy, the city crying foul and the state standing by its claim.
"We can't get a decent night's sleep," said Dowdell, 73, a retired home improvement contractor. "We wake up with this on our minds and we can't stop thinking about it."
Sea Isle City Solicitor Paul Baldini characterizes the state's claim as a $10 million land grab that violates the spirit of the 1942 agreement, which called for the city to give the tip of the finger-shaped land to the state to allow for a state dredging project.
The city received no money for the land transfer, which Baldini says supports the idea that the original agreement never intended for the state to profit from the property.
"It's an unconscionable land grab by the state of New Jersey," Baldini said. "It's an extremely bizarre situation, for the state to come 60 years later and make these claims. I've never heard of such a thing."
The issue first arose about 18 months ago when a title company did a 60-year title search as part of the sale of another 47th Place house, according to Baldini. Other searches had missed the deed, he said.
Baldini and City Engineer Andy Previti traveled to Trenton last year to make a presentation before the state Tidelands Resource Council, explaining the discrepancy.
But on Dec. 1, the council passed a motion to push the state's claim.
Last week, the Dowdells returned home from a two-week vacation to a letter from Jo Ann Cubberley, manager of the Bureau of Tidelands Management.
"The State of New Jersey claims title to your entire property," it said. "The State has concluded that your deed is not valid. This title defect is a complete failure of your title."
The letter explained the Feb. 9, 1942 deed but said no deed had been found transferring the land back to the city.
"The City sold land it did not own and you eventually bought a portion of that land," Cubberley wrote.
The state might consider selling the lot, according to the letter, which informs the couple how to apply for a tidelands grant to make the purchase.
The state also mailed a notice to the Cape May County Clerk in which it asserted its claim and said that any improvements on the land "do not have the required tidelands conveyance and are considered a trespass."
A spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Bureau of Tidelands Management, said the state found out about the 1942 deed from a title company.
"The letter explains the department's position sufficiently," said spokeswoman Erin Phalon. "At this point, the state has simply notified the property owners of the situation. It's a preliminary step, to reach out to them."
She would not comment when asked if the state is seeking a certain dollar amount for the parcels, or whether it intends to take control of the land for a specific purpose.
Cubberley could not be reached for comment Monday. She was not in her office, Phalon said.
The Dowdells, meanwhile, find their lives on hold.
The couple bought their first-floor condo for $140,000 and have spent at least that much in improvements since then, including the construction of bulkheads on the water, for which the property passed at least one title search, Dowdell said.
Taking advantage of a shore real estate boom, they have agreed to sell it for $885,000 and plan to move to a home in an Egg Harbor Township retirement community. But the state's claim has put their sale -- and their lives -- in limbo.
"It's put our life at a standstill. We can't make a move until this is satisfied. And if it's not satisfied in our favor, they're going to bankrupt us," he said.
As a NJ shore homeowner, I was not happy to see this headline until I saw the extremely specific circumstances of this particular land grab.
Hope they have Title Insurance with a Market Value Rider.
(Do I really need a </sarcasm> tag?)
"We can't get a decent night's sleep,"
for heavens sake, why ? Isnt title insurance a requirement ?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Why doesn't adverse possession apply here? The original agreement is certainly old enough.
Win win.
Title Insurance is your friend. I sure hope they have some.
Well here in PA I am reminded twice a year, every spring and summer, that I do not own my home either. I just rent from the county and school district.
Well, to be fair, it does seem like the State legally owned this property. The city and any title companies involved are the ones at fault here, it seems.
Would squatters rights apply after 60 years?
Adverse possession has never applied against the government.
I smell a big lawyer payday coming up.
EXPLAIN HOW THAT WOULD BE USEFUL?
Adverse possession only works against private actors. There is no adverse possession of public property. You can squat on it for five generations, and it will forever be the government's land.
So, if the chain of title shows the state owns the land, the state owns the land. Now, whether or not the state chooses to assert its title...well, I guess it already has. What price will they demand for possession? That remains to be seen. This will have to be worked out through political compromise, but there are not many residents involved, and they are not multi-millionaires (meaning that they have no power, and there is no particular reason for the state to fear them).
Bottom line: the state wins.
Title insurance bought 20 or 30 years ago will probably get them their $140,000 back.
Sad case.
"city sold the land to developer Joseph W. Buecker Jr. and he sold lots for development."
Heads need to roll at City Hall, past and present. The homeowners bought the land under good faith, and should not be punished because of City Hall's mistakes especially in New Jersey where even the employees of Bank of America and Wachovia rob people.
Adverse possession doesn't work against the state.
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.