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

To: Alberta's Child

I don’t see what that example has to do with this article, which is about one person effectively stealing another’s property simply by claiming squatter’s rights, IOW, they were using it so they get to keep it?

I suppose in the common area situation, someone else still owns the land, therefore you are apprehending property that someone paid for and is not you own, to take it for yourself without paying for it.

Instead, if people want to own a parcel of common use property, why don’t they put in an offer to buy it? My only guess is they want it without having to pay for it.


86 posted on 03/07/2023 6:30:20 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
I suppose in the common area situation, someone else still owns the land, therefore you are apprehending property that someone paid for and is not you own, to take it for yourself without paying for it.

Instead, if people want to own a parcel of common use property, why don’t they put in an offer to buy it? My only guess is they want it without having to pay for it.

Imagine a common area in an HOA that is bordered by five properties, and is accessible by the owners of those five properties. It's not accessible to anyone else.

Now, imagine that one of the five property owners acquires two more of those homes over the course of several years. Then, after this happens, the master deed of the HOA is amended -- with the unanimous consent of all owners -- to construct a water course and retaining wall that blocks the remaining two property owners from accessing the common area.

Due to the combination of these circumstances, the common area is now only accessible from three properties -- all of them with the same owner.

The owner doesn't need the common area property in his name for any functional reason. He basically "owns" it because he is the only one who can use it anyway.

There's no reason for him to buy it from the HOA because he'd be doing the HOA a favor by taking it off their hands. As it stands now, the HOA is technically responsible for paying the cost of maintaining and insuring the property even though only one person has access to it. Since he became the only owner with access to the property this guy has been doing whatever minimal upkeep has been required, even though he's not obligated to do so.

The owner is only considering the adverse possession route for two reasons:

1. If he makes an offer to the HOA to buy the property, his offer is going to be $1. It's worthless to the HOA. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for the HOA to pay him to take the property off their hands -- so they don't have responsibility for a property that is worthless to them.

2. He knows some of the other owners in the HOA would refuse to let him have the property just as a matter of principle, or would only sell it for a lot of money.

88 posted on 03/07/2023 7:06:29 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | 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