Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Saije

Because of your post, I went ahead and read the article. These people are nuts! On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land, or maybe the purchase price reflected compensation.
On the other hand, they knew they couldn’t live in the home, and yet blame the Army for keeping them out. Let me guess ....they’re Dimocrats??


2 posted on 03/14/2010 8:41:58 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (Froggie sez water nice and warm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Shimmer1
On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land, or maybe the purchase price reflected compensation.

The easement existed at the time they purchased the land. The former owners of record in 1955 had been "compensated" for the value of the easement at that time.

7 posted on 03/14/2010 8:52:32 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Shimmer1
On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land

They were "compensated" by the reduced sale price of the land that resulted from such a easement.

When you buy property with an easement, you buy it "as is". The purchase price reflects that.

If, on the other hand, the realtor did not disclose the easement or did a sloppy title search, then they can sue the realtor for fraud or negligence.

The Army has no liability in this. They have had their easement rights for decades, maybe since before these people were even born.

8 posted on 03/14/2010 8:56:09 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson