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

[the]

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

No they do not.

There are five elements required for adverse posession, easily remembered by the mnenomic OCEAN, standing for Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Actual and Notorious.

Further, the fence builder in this case received his title from the county in a tax sale. Title from a tax sale trumps even regular posession of property, much less adverse posession.

Still further, the owners of the house could not be said to adversely posessing the lake against the interests of the county in taking it for a tax sale. Governmental property interests cannot be lost through adverse posession, for as the saying goes "Nullum tempus occurrit regi". (Time does not run against the King.)

Yet further, permitted use does cannot result in adverse possession. The owners of the homes likely had permission from the original developer to use and enjoy the property around the lake, so they cannot claim adverse posession.

The person to be mad at here is not the fence builder. The original developer of the land, as well as whomever he sold homes to, were lazy, stupid and/or cheap. There are many ways that the land could have been protected from such shenanigans. By cheaping out and cutting corners they took a risk.

This time the dice were against them.

[AppyPappy]

What if the child hurt themself on the fence?

[TheRightGuy]

Clearly the fence is only used to punish those who won't pay him.

Suppose the lake remained un-fenced, and one of the homeowner's kids wandered into it and drowned. Who do you suppose they would sue -- the evil lake owner who refused put up a fence around his "attractive nuisance"?

[ThinkingMan]

IT IS BUSINESS! The guy is making a buck by playing by the rules. There is no law against being a clymer, and sometimes you have to be one to get business done. Do you think that without the fence, the homeowners would have ever bought the lake access property? NO! They would not need to as they would have all the free access that they wanted, just as they had for years. He has simply invoked the law of supply and demand- take away the supply, the price goes up. Yes the guy is a jerk, but don't the homeowners bear quite a bit of the responsibility as well? I am sick of people complaining about "unfairness" caused by their own complacency. I am willing to bet that if they post an offer high enough, the guy would have his own mother remove the fence.

[Fresh Wind]

Uh, isn't that lake a "wetland"? What will happen when the environmental gestapo gets involved? Perhaps Mr. Connolly will not get the last laugh, after all.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Understood. :^)

[1234]

an old russian proverb: you don't buy your home, you buy your neighbors.
almost nuttin's free; gotta expect costs and legalities for all amenities related to 'ye old homestead' ...and be painstaking in your homework. i guess....

[AppyPappy]

Then why would he remove the fence for $30k?

[Quilla]

Interesting story. There are two exclusive residential neighborhoods in my city where the rear of the houses face a large lake. The sub-division with the million dollar homes owns the lake and these residents can fish, swim, or whatever in the lake. Those who live in other development with half a million dollar homes can 'look but not touch'. Although I am sure this is perfectly legal, it seems as tacky as this pink fence.

[Poohbah]

Because he's offering to sell them the land and all of the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities that come with it.

After he sells it, it ain't his problem.

[freedomcrusader]

Because then he wouldn't own the land and thus would no longer be legally liable. See, he is offering the land for $30K, not just the removal of the fence. From the articele:

The speculator, 44-year-old Don Connolly of Valrico, now is offering to sell the land behind each of the homes for $30,000 per homeowner.

[NittanyLion]

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

My favorite hobbies are golfing and hunting, but I would forego both this year if you paid me $30,000. You can both enjoy an activity and at the same time forego said activity for the right price. Now, I'm not claiming he's erected this fence for any reason other than to get his $450,000; however, it is his right to do as he wishes with his property. The homeowners can either put up with his pink fence, or pay the $30,000 to buy the property and tear it down.

He may be a jerk, but that doesn't entitle others to violate his right to do as he wishes with HIS OWN property.

[Wurlitzer]

I wonder if any of the homeowners have looked into any violation of "Wet Land" legislation. There are many things you cannot do around water. I don't know if this applies but it would be worth the effort.

If all this sleeze ball had was the perimiter rights, how did his work crews gain access to build the fence?

[freedomcrusader]

Exactly, folks say they aren't buying, so maybe he'll lower his price.

[ContemptofCourt]

Nice job, professor. Reminds me of my first year of law school.

[TheRightGuy]

Then why would he remove the fence for $30k?

He would be selling the lakeside property to the homeowner, not just removing the fence, and would have no further liability.

[stevio]

I possibly see a similar situation where I live coming. We live on 11 acres and across the street, are several 1 acre lots overlooking our property to get a view of the mountains. My wife and I are planting trees to block the "suburbanites" obnoxious houses and give us some privacy. These are nothing but a bunch of whiny socialists. Good advice from a friend was, "If you want the view, buy the view."

In that same development, the realtor sold the same lot to 2 different people. Actually, the one couple bought the lot next to the "best" lot but didn't check the boundaries. Buyer beware.

[AppyPappy]

He still owns the lake so he still carries the liability.