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

WNBC Television ^ | 5/24/2005 | Puppage

[SAJ]

Thanks, gents, I appreciate it. Knew there had to be a reason.

FReegards!

[Modernman]

What about an equitable estoppel argument?

I'm not sure that would apply against the government, either. IIRC from property law, few legal arguments that you could use against a private landowner in this situation would apply against the government, but I could be wrong.

Property was my worst grade in law school, and I'm now a real estate lawyer. Go figure.

[SAJ]

Thanks, mate. Knew there had to be a reason, otherwise it seemed awfully clear-cut.

[Tanniker Smith]

What is the big deal? That is why you buy TITAL INSURANCE.

Isn't that what Clinton had in case of impeachment or a presidential defect?

TS
(Sorry, it's lunchtime -- only one more class and I get to go home!)

[Antonello]

if they never owned it, then the property taxes they paid were for the benefit of the state and they should file claim for reimbursement of every dime along with compound interest

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is a statute of limitations on filing amended tax claims. If this is the case, then the best they could hope for is a refund of the past few years. That might not fly either, though, since the occupants benefited from the services funded by the taxes, i.e. fire, police, etc.

And I've never heard of a tax board paying interest on refunds for any reason.

[Antonello]

What about trying to get the city to sue to set aside the deed for failure of consideration.

That was my first thought also. Not sure if it can apply against the state, though.

[Warlord]

Title insurance.

[silverleaf]

Boys and Girls and all current and future property purchasers- THAT's why you buy title insurance!

[bertmerc1]

With property taxes I have always believed that we are renters anyway. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

Additional insurance, then tragic fire.

[monday]

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

Yes, but it would probably pay only the original purchase price of 140,000, not the appreciation. It's going to be a mess and I hope the state loses, and loses badly. They should be forced to pay the lawyers fees of the homeowners after a court throws their claims out.

Stinkin lowlife bureaucrats. This is why people hate government bureaucrats. They are all slimy sucker fish draining the life blood of society.

[silverleaf]

Another legal consideratoin might be whether the property "owner" (the government) has remained silent to 60 years of open and notorious use of this property by others, including the construction of capital improvements by other branches of government, without asserting an ownership claim....

Also whether the "owner" (government) has collected "property taxes" levied on the residents as if they were the owners...and whether the "government" owner has itself paid any property taxes or compensated the municipality in any way for services provided to this property it now claims.

[firewalk]

.

[ArmedNReady]

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

Sometimes title insurance only is in place to protect a lender in the event of a later-discovered tittle defect. It depends on who has the title insurance policy, the home-"owner" or a lender. Once the loan is paid off, the title insurance may no longer be in effect if it was held by the lender.

I don't see how adverse possession does not hold precedent over the state's claim.

[ArmedNReady]

"I smell a big lawyer payday coming up."

Probably correct: Class action suit, lawyers get millions, homeowners get a gift certificate for a pop-up camper. Another example of our fine legal system hard at work to ensure that lawyers are well-fed.

[WL-law]

What about trying to get the city to sue to set aside the deed for failure of consideration.

But a "deed" is not the same thing as a contract. One can, for example, make a gift of land, and there is no consideration involved, and the making of a deed doesn't require the elements of formation of a contract.

[Antonello]

But a "deed" is not the same thing as a contract. One can, for example, make a gift of land, and there is no consideration involved, and the making of a deed doesn't require the elements of formation of a contract.

I wondered about that as well. I wasn't sure if the deed would be the binding document of the trade, or was merely the consideration provided by one side encompassed within the actual contract.

[brityank]

Seems like there may be a bunch of properties affected by this.

[King Prout]

ping and run!

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists