N.J. Shore Homeowners Told They Don't Really Own Their Homes

WNBC Television ^ | 5/24/2005 | Puppage

[wideawake]

Aaaarrrrghhhh!

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.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Hope they have Title Insurance with a Market Value Rider.

[PeterPrinciple]

I would think someone in this process guaranteed a free and clear title.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

All property rightly belongs to the state, anyway.

(Do I really need a </sarcasm> tag?)

[Revelation 911]

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,"

for heavens sake, why ? Isnt title insurance a requirement ?

[goldstategop]

They vote for Democrats in New Jersey. I'm not impressed by their poor cries of being oppressed. People deserve the government for whom they voted.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[SAJ]

Why doesn't adverse possession apply here? The original agreement is certainly old enough.

[struwwelpeter]

Let's see, city illegally sold the plot on which the house was built, million dollar law suit. Land deeded to the owners, who sell it for $800k.

Win win.

[NonValueAdded]

Title Insurance is your friend. I sure hope they have some.

[NormB]

(Do I really need a tag?) YES! I nearly flipped when I saw the word "rightly". I have a real pet peeve with taxation, especially property taxes. Well, who in their right mind doesn't?

[WinMod70]

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.

[Modernman]

All property rightly belongs to the state, anyway.

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.

[ctlpdad]

Would squatters rights apply after 60 years?

[Modernman]

Why doesn't adverse possession apply here?

Adverse possession has never applied against the government.

[sportutegrl]

I smell a big lawyer payday coming up.

[RobbyS]

EXPLAIN HOW THAT WOULD BE USEFUL?

[Vicomte13]

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.

[lilylangtree]

"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.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Adverse possession doesn't work against the state.