View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 14, 2002 | ROBERT FARLEY

[Bikers4Bush]

The homeowners have a good case for arguing hostile posession assuming that the option exists where they live.

If they have been maintaining the property for an extended period of time (and it sounds like they've been doing that since the homes were built) then they could argue implied posession and argue that they should be able to buy out the speculator under hostile circumstances for what he payed for the property.

My brother and sister in-law had to deal with an issue like this once after they bought an older home. The only thing that saved their butts was that the issue wasn't brought up until AFTER they had already purchased the home. Had the "neighbor" begun legal proceedings before they bought it they would have had a hell of a fight on their hands in court.

[AppyPappy]

Maybe he enjoys constructing pick fences on his own property. In that case, what gives others the right to restrict HIS enjoyment of HIS OWN property?

Then why does he take them down for $30k? Your supposition is rather faulty.

[AppyPappy]

He can assert his ownership without obstruction the view of others. Clearly, he is using the fence to deny people to view, not the use. Instead of a fence, he could dump old cars on the lake.

[sausageseller]

Do you think the "pink' fence is not antagonism?

The truth is the guy is a jerk! They won't pay him so he is trying to get back at them.

And everyone will be on the lookout for this guy. He will have so many complaints for all his property all over the state, he will get his just rewards.

One of my favorites is "What goes around comes around"!

[Glutton]

Or perhaps dye the water pink. ;-)

[AppyPappy]

Maybe he enjoys constructing pick fences on his own property

Then why is he dismantling them for $30k? Face it, this is extortion. You can dress it up in fancy patterns but it is still extortion.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

....Gripe all you want, ...

I didn't say a word but I will. This is slimeball's using the system to his advantage. Slimeballs are everywhere. There's one here in Houston who bought a free and clear home (aprox. value 150K, I believe) for $5k. over a disputed homeowners bill (inflated by lawyer's bills). It has been resolved in court and her home was returned. Her lawyer is currently suing to have all her expenses to fight this case covered.

At the onset of the Houston case, it came out early on, that the man who purchased her home at auction has hundreds of these properties and uses them as rentals. It was also disclosed that he owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes on these rental properties. People like this man, work the system both ways.

It boils down to buyer beware - owner beware.

[Kermit]

Actually, this proves that we don't "own" our property, we rent it from the government. Property taxes are actually yearly rental payments. Otherwise, how can they confiscate your "property". You have fewer rights and less freedom than you think.

[Honcho]

Your right and the bad part is that this is the kind of stuff to that get's a bunch of stupid laws passed.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

in all cases, a hitman is cheaper than a lawyer.

And in some cases, you can get a twofer! lol

[GuillermoX]

You're not advocating arson, on anothers property, are you?

[thmiley]

He absolutely has every right to restrict other people's enjoyment of HIS property.

These idiots didn't pay attention to the details of their property. They should just stop whining and cough up the dough!

[ExSES]

Many residents thought they owned the lake behind their $300,000 homes. They mowed up to the water line and chipped in yearly to treat the lake for algae blooms. So it came as quite a shock Thursday when workers began erecting a 6-foot-high fence around the lake, obliterating their view.

About 20 years ago, I purchased a portion of the lake bottom behind my lot from the developer. Some neighbors said "I'm not going to pay for what I already have" (it only cost $200 at the time). In order to make sure that the entire lake was purchased from the developer and not subject to being acquired by who knows who, several of my neighbors and I purchased portions of the lake which others refused to buy.

Now, 20 years later, the Florida drought has greatly diminished the size of the lake and some property owners who refused to buy their portion of the lake bottom now have NO WATERFRONT AT ALL (their property lines are hundreds of feet from the remaining lake)! Should the drought continue, these acres of lake bottom will eventually be farmed or grazed by cattle owned by those who had the foresight to purchase them.

The obstinate property owners "saved" $200 each and now have seen their property values decline by $20 - $30 THOUSAND EACH!

[FatherTorque]

If I was him, the FIRST thing I would have done was to build the fence. If one of the homeowner's kids fell in that lake and drowned how long do you think it would take for them to look for a scapegoat to sue?

[ColdSteelTalon]

Property Rights under the Constitution are and should always be iron clad. The owner of the property has a right to sell it for whatever he can get. It is unfortuanet but it is the law...

[Hemingway's Ghost]

There's one here in Houston who bought a free and clear home (aprox. value 150K, I believe) for $5k. over a disputed homeowners bill (inflated by lawyer's bills). It has been resolved in court and her home was returned. Her lawyer is currently suing to have all her expenses to fight this case covered.

Sounds like The House of Sand and Fog by Andre Dubus III. A fantastic novel for anyone looking for something to read.

[AppyPappy]

Nah, Just tear down the fence and make him build another one.