Replies

I am always amazed at journalists and their attempts to deceive. This writer says at the beginning of the article that the homeowners always thought they owned the lakefront....so it came as quite a shock when they saw a fence being erected. He carefully omits the fact that there had been negotiations and offers during the intervening period. He doesn't even question that someone would buy a 300K piece of property by the water without asking a lawyer if they own up to the water. Is anyone buying a 300,000 house that naive? No.

What the owners *thought* was that they could have the benefits of waterfront living without the taxes and perhaps over time acquire it by adverse posession. (Is that what you lawyers call it?) Actually they sound pretty stupid. Waterfront houses increase in value more than by 10%. They let a good deal slip through their fingers and now it's going to cost them 500k by the time they pay the lawyers.Hope none of them have to sell in the next few years. Property involved in litigation is impossible to sell at market value. Sounds like a bunch of angry old rich retirees.

Sounds like a bunch of angry old rich retirees.
688 posted on 5/14/02 11:49 AM Pacific by ladyjane

YES, We have a WINNER!

Can't Drive, follow directions OR read Property Descriptions. MORONS! Next thing they'll expect is for some poor slob to have to pay for their medical coverages while they live in those half million dollar "cottages"! (/sarcasm)