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

WNBC Television ^ | 5/24/2005 | Puppage

[SAJ]

You're somewhat too modest, I think. Being able to research any given topic is a matter of knowing where to look. For 'law', as you say, Lexis and Westlaw. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to access them, and, given your citations as posted, couldn't even understand good chunks of them, the cross-references and so forth.

Similarly, I daresay most folks would have some difficulty reading trade journals on electronics engineering and similar fields.

Trading, thank goodness, is considerably simpler than both the above endeavours, but I suppose the research and the sources probably seem every bit as foreign to non-traders as Westlaw does to non-lawyers.

Hell's bells, if you ask me, a Lexis is a car.

:^)

[Concentrate]

The City should STFU and step back, unless they want a messy, messy lawsuit on their hands, and immediately deed the land to the unit owners.

How can the City deed the land to anyone if it is owned by the state?

[JerseyHighlander]

Strange story. It's across the canal from a large wetlands open space, and a yacht club. It's zoned as R2 residential by the town and county, the parcels are shown on county master plan maps, the town road goes over the area of the "state owned property."

Sea Isle City has an Open Space fund, the town could step up to the plate and buy land elsewhere in town, and swap it with the state within the state open space initiative, then properly deed the parcels to the current occupants. The spirit of the fund will be followed, if not the specific statutes.

Otherwise the city is going to lose more money through the lawsuits and lawyers' fees, increased insurance costs, etc. etc.

[Chode]

absolutely... 8^)

[Always Independent]

I would think that by isssue of a property tax bill, that the state recognizes the tenants as the owners of the subject property. However, I'm not a lawyer.

[TheWriterTX]

The State should deed the land to the City, then the City to the unit owners, then. The State allowed it to be incorporated under the Comptroller's office as a not-for-profit, and nobody caught it then, either.

The City should pony up and face the State, not the unit owners.

[eartotheground]

They "bought" the land in 1988, so they have been there for about 17 years. I don't know what period of time is required for adverse possession in New Jersey. That was the first thing I thought of.

[Always Independent]

In Calif it was only five years and the person(s) living on the property had to be paying the property taxes. Being from Jersey, I hope they FIGHT and WIN!

[righttackle44]

". . . the land on which it was built actually belongs to the state of New Jersey."

I don't want to start a panic, but isn't there something like this also in California, that the homeowners don't actually own the land their houses sit on?

[1Old Pro]

"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."

Sue the title company.

[N3WBI3]

wont get them 885K it will only get them what they spent on the house..

[NorCoGOP]

"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."

By virtue of Adverse Possession, the condo owners also own the land upon which the structure sits.

[colonialhk]

Just look who runs the state.

[DumpsterDiver]

Isnt title insurance a requirement ?

In California, title insurance is a requirement to cover the lender, but the buyer needs a separate title insurance policy to protect themselves. Some people either don't know about that or they decline to purchase it. It may be different in New Jersey and elsewhere.

[hunter112]

As a title insurance guy, all I can say is wow. The "pucker factor" on this one is pretty damn high.

Same here, I worked in title insurance for about 25 of the last 29 years. I'd sure hate to have to sign the loss report!

Folks, what happens next is this: All the title companies that have outstanding policies in this area meet up. They figure out a strategy to challenge the state's claim, and show their cards on the table, when they've completed their research. The state doesn't really want the condos, they just want a big piece of change from a deep pocket. The bureaucrat who holds his ground long enough to get a fat check for the state out of the title settlements gets a promotion.

Case closed, everybody goes back to normal.

[o_zarkman44]

I guess a refund of ALL property taxes collected on the property is in order?

This is an outrage. Government is searching for loopholes to steal away property now that they know eminent domain is getting a lot of publicity and challenges.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Which is why I specifically stated that they would need a Market Value Rider on their policy.

Market Value Rider (Owner's Extended Protection)

Policy insures against loss or damage not exceeding the market value of the premises at the time of loss.

Requirements: The insured must be a natural person in occupancy of residential property containing no more than four dwelling units, including a residential condominium or cooperative unit (Owner's Policy).

Premium: 10% of the ALTA Owner's policy premium or 5% of the policy premium for an Owner's Extended Protection Policy.