Bought Land at Florida Tax deed, Sheriff is denying acess

[L***@yahoo.com]

Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.

Here is a link to an aerial view of the property for clarity;

http://maps.pascogov.com/maps/redir.asp?dest=map&parcel=1526250010026000000

The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time.

Since we have bought it we have asked these people who live near our
property to remove their sheds, pool equipment, and other belongings.
We have sent numerous certified letters requesting this. We have made
phone calls to make this request.

We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I am not sure exactly what the police are telling these people who
come to move the shed, but the shed never gets moved.

The property is not zoned for a shed. The shed is in violation of the
Pasco County Code or Ordinances.

4/20/08 (or there about) This Property is zoned 00AC according to the
Property Appraisers Wed site. I talked to Denise in zoning. She
confirmed that official zoning on this property is RMH. She said it
was definitley not zoned for a shed and likely not for fences either.
Transfered me to Code Enforcement # 727-847-8171, Spoke to Jackie,
then Ray who took my complaint and gave complaint # P200814240

5/22/09 We called Pasco Code Enforcement to check the status of
complaint # P200814240. We were told that Charles Kondek is the
investigating officer. He is out on medical leave until Tuesday. I
left a mesage for Supervisor Phillips to call me. His number is
727-536-2714.


Upon speaking to Supervisor Phillips he said to call the County
Attorneys office and speak to Attorney Christie Wooden 800-368-2411
Ext 8120. This County Attorney explained to us that Code Enforcement
had decided to not take any code enforcement action on this parcel
because of the 'dispute'.

Our perspective on this is that we on the property and we do not want
the shed there. Additionally, what does any 'dispute' have to do with
the undisputed fact that this parcel of property is not zoned for a
shed?

Although I had intended to write much more before submitting this
post, I will leave it at this for now.

Any perspective, advice, questions, feedback, or other replies are
greatly appreciated even if such does not support our position.

Please excuse any spelling or other errors as I was in a hurry.

There have been several local news stories on this situation. Lots
more info including Statutes, Case Law, and news articles can be found
at www.818LandTrust.org

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Here is a link to an aerial view of the property for clarity;
http://maps.pascogov.com/maps/redir.asp?dest=map&parcel=1526250010026000000
The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time.

I can see why. The people that live there may never have known
that they didn't own their back yard, and assume that it is their
land to use.

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.
I am not sure exactly what the police are telling these people who
come to move the shed, but the shed never gets moved.

This is the key item. Have you been there when this has happened?
You see, the police generally are not going to know anything about
lot lines and property ownership. They are just concerned about
defusing the situation. They are probably telling the contractors
to go home until they can get some kind of legal papers.

What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your
rights of ownership. I'd suggest the following process:

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

3) put up stakes on the lot line, and string orange contractors
tape around the edge (the tape that is like yellow police line
tape).

4) put up a few no trespassing signs on the lot line.

If the police are called out, have your paperwork ready. Find
out what they are telling people. Make sure that you show that
you own the land, and that there is no "dispute".

BTW, I am curious why you bought this piece of land. It has no
real value other than to the homeowners. One would think that
your only possible profit out of this deal would be to sell the
backyard chunks to each homeowner. But they have no incentive
to pay money since they have gotten it for free. That means you
have to do something ugly to give them an incentive to buy, such
as starting a smelly composting pile or parking semi-trucks on
the land.

-john-

[p***@ipal.net]

In misc.legal.moderated John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:

| BTW, I am curious why you bought this piece of land. It has no
| real value other than to the homeowners. One would think that
| your only possible profit out of this deal would be to sell the
| backyard chunks to each homeowner. But they have no incentive
| to pay money since they have gotten it for free. That means you
| have to do something ugly to give them an incentive to buy, such
| as starting a smelly composting pile or parking semi-trucks on
| the land.

I'm going to guess there are zoning restrictions that would apply
to things like that. Maybe a fence would be better/allowed.

Given that this is a development, it sure seems odd that a piece of
property got sectioned off like that. But I presume if there is an
HOA, even this property would be under its covenants and restrictions.

OTOH, maybe it was the developer or HOA itself that defaulted on taxes
and let this property go up for auction.

[Dick Adams]

Post by p***@ipal.net
Given that this is a development, it sure seems odd that a piece of
property got sectioned off like that. But I presume if there is an
HOA, even this property would be under its covenants and restrictions.

My suspicion is that this is the sewer/water/electricity/cable/phone
easement that the county required of the developer. For some reason,
the developer failed to aportion the land into the lots. Since the
developer had no need for the land, it had no reason to pay the taxes.

Just a lioness has a daily need for food, governmental units have a
daily need for revenue. Thus, the county, in this case, sold the
land for back taxes without concern/awareness of the logical
consequences.

Post by p***@ipal.net
OTOH, maybe it was the developer or HOA itself that defaulted on
taxes and let this property go up for auction.

Why would anyone pay taxes on property for which has no economic
benefit to them?

IMRHO the County is the culprit here - in part for indiscriminately
selling the land, but much more so for exacerbating the situation
by disingenuously slandering the buyer and refusing to support the
property rights of the buyer. Shame on them.

Dick - I never was an attorney

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here. The courts frown on this sort of self-help
even if the person who the shed belongs to is totally in the wrong here.

The person should document the situation and take them to court to have the
shed, etc. removed.

[Robert Bonomi]

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you came up with this
bright idea -- That adverse possession might take precedence over a tax lien
sale by the sovereign government.

"Inquiring minds want to know", applies -- with a vengeance!! The world is
simply rife with opportunities to capitalize on this technique. :))

[Cy Pres]

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you came up with this
bright idea -- That adverse possession might take precedence over a tax lien
sale by the sovereign government.

Simple. (Hypothetically) whatever entity or thing owned the
strange-shaped strip of property lost it via adverse possession to the
surrounding property owners who had believed it to be theirs, treated
it as their back yard, mowed it, built sheds on it, paid taxes on the
value of their property, which included their back yard in its
assessed value, thus paying taxes to which the taxing authority would
no longer be entitled, having already collected them.

Then the taxing authority seizes the property from whatever previously
owned it, claiming delinquent taxes. The taxing authority has not
only collected taxes for the value of the property from the
surrounding landowners, and is therefore not entitled to it, but it
has also seized the property from an "owner" which no longer owns the
property, as the property now legally belongs to the surrounding
homeowners. Therefore, the taxing authority would have had to give
notice to the ACTUAL property owners to seize it. To seize it without
having done so denies due process rights to the real owners.

So: a) taxing authority has actually collected the taxes it claims
were delinquent, via the neighboring properties; b) taxing authority
seized property against an owner who no longer owned the property.

There's also the possibility of some prescriptive or other kind of
easement over the common property of the neighborhood. In that case,
the town would have been correct to seize the property, but that
property would be so encumbered with easements or servitudes as to be
effectively worthless on its own, and the surrounding homeowners would
be within their rights to continue using it as they had been
previously, although, again, they should be paying taxes on the
enhanced value of their property, i.e. property + the value of the
easement.

[Seth]

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com
There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you came up with this
bright idea -- That adverse possession might take precedence over a tax lien
sale by the sovereign government.

Simple. (Hypothetically) whatever entity or thing owned the
strange-shaped strip of property lost it via adverse possession to the
surrounding property owners who had believed it to be theirs, treated
it as their back yard, mowed it, built sheds on it,

Does adverse possession cause ownership change, or merely enable it
(and a "quiet title" court order is required to actually _change_ the
ownership)?

Post by Cy Pres
paid taxes on the value of their property, which included their back
yard in its assessed value, thus paying taxes to which the taxing
authority would no longer be entitled, having already collected them.

Tax bills are sent by "tax lot", so even if the land was considered
someone's back yard (by whomever), the tax bill would still specify
that it was not included.

Seth

[Dick Adams]

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and
assert your rights of ownership. I'd suggest the

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating
that the item is on your property, and the date by
which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat
from a rental place and move the shed to a different
part of the property.

That is really not an intelligent tactic. Doing so
without a court order can get you into serious legal
problems.

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com
That can get the person arrested. There might even be
some sort of adverse possession issue going on here.

If there was an adverse possession issue going on, the
burden is upon the person claiming adverse possession to
bring a legal action against the owner of the property.
So if there was an adverse possession issue, the owner
would have been served notice.

Post by Robert Bonomi
I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you
came up with this bright idea -- That adverse possession
might take precedence over a tax lien sale by the
sovereign government.

It does, but since the party in adverse possession
had an opportunity to purchase the tax deed and did
not do so, that party will have to buy the disputed
part of the tax deed from the owner of the tax deed.

Contrary to the misinformation spouted by midnight to
6am television infomercials, a tax deed does not give
you absolute ownership of real property. The prior
owner is generally given a statutory period in which
to recover the property from the purchaser of the tax
deed. Anyone who wishes to assert adverse possession
has rights fairly similar to the prior owner, but must
also assert those rights within the statutory period.

The general rule is that a tax lien sale tolls the
adverse possession clock. So if you have not meet the
adverse possession time requirement at the time of the
tax sale, you have to start over again. The adverse
possession time requirement in Florida is 7 years.

The OP's situation is not as convoluted as this thread
makes it out to be. He owns the land subject to the
repurchase rights of the prior owner and anyone who
qualifies for adverse possession.

Dick - I wouldn't even know where the Law School was if
it had not been across the street from my office
in the Business School.

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Dick Adams

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and
assert your rights of ownership. I'd suggest the

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating
that the item is on your property, and the date by
which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat
from a rental place and move the shed to a different
part of the property.

That is really not an intelligent tactic. Doing so
without a court order can get you into serious legal
problems.

So far, the new owner has had a few moving companies
out there, and each time, the police come, and the moving
companies pack up and leave. And each time, the owner
doesn't know what happened.

What I want to do is have the owner recreate this step,
making it obvious that he does indeed own the land. If
it goes that far, I want the police to come so I can find
out what the police have been telling the other movers,
and find out what paperwork they need to allow the owner
to continue with the work.

I suspect that the police have simply been trying to defuse
the situation without knowing who really owns what. Now,
with the right paperwork, I suspect that there is a good
chance that the police will tell the homeowners that they
have to let the new land owner continue. If not, I at least
know what the police have been doing, and know what the
homeowners have been up to.

Notice I said to only try to move the shed to another
spot on the land, and not to tear it down or haul it away.
I just wanted to make the point that I was the owner and
I could do it if I wanted. The point here is that if
the homeowner really wanted to stop it, this was the
put up or back down point as far as legal action was
concerned.

If the new owner keeps backing down every time the police
show up, he is never going to get this situation resolved.

-john-

[Dick Adams]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Dick Adams

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating
that the item is on your property, and the date by
which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat
from a rental place and move the shed to a different
part of the property.

That is really not an intelligent tactic. Doing so
without a court order can get you into serious legal
problems.

So far, the new owner has had a few moving companies
out there, and each time, the police come, and the moving
companies pack up and leave. And each time, the owner
doesn't know what happened.
What I want to do is have the owner recreate this step,
making it obvious that he does indeed own the land. If
it goes that far, I want the police to come so I can find
out what the police have been telling the other movers,
and find out what paperwork they need to allow the owner
to continue with the work.

The OP can simply ask the other movers what the police
told them. Keep in mind that the land is in Florida
and the owner is in California.

Post by John A. Weeks III
I suspect that the police have simply been trying to defuse
the situation without knowing who really owns what. Now,
with the right paperwork, I suspect that there is a good
chance that the police will tell the homeowners that they
have to let the new land owner continue. If not, I at least
know what the police have been doing, and know what the
homeowners have been up to.

This situation has been a front page article in the local
ragsheet off-and-on for the past few months. If you read
the ragsheet articles on the OP's website, you would find
that local reporters are coming down on the OP as though
he was Atilla the Hun - and the Zoning Department and the
Police Department are ignoring the requests of the OP
by stating they will take no action until the dispute
has been settled.

Post by John A. Weeks III
Notice I said to only try to move the shed to another
spot on the land, and not to tear it down or haul it away.
I just wanted to make the point that I was the owner and
I could do it if I wanted. The point here is that if
the homeowner really wanted to stop it, this was the
put up or back down point as far as legal action was
concerned.

As Stu pointed out in an earlier post, the OP had better
get a court order before moving the shed.

Post by John A. Weeks III
If the new owner keeps backing down every time the police
show up, he is never going to get this situation resolved.

The way it stands right now, without a court order he'd
better back down.

Dick

[Cy Pres]

Post by Dick Adams
If there was an adverse possession issue going on, the
burden is upon the person claiming adverse possession to
bring a legal action against the owner of the property.
So if there was an adverse possession issue, the owner
would have been served notice.

I disagree about that, because the (hypothetical) adverse possessors
are already in possession and resisting attempts to disseise.
Apparently, the local law enforcement authorities are on their side
and refusing to assist the sleazy entity claiming to own the property
in removing the locals from their own backyard.

Therefore, they don't have to do anything. The status quo favors
them. If the "Land Trust" wishes to have its rights established, they
are the ones who will have to take it to court.

[Dick Adams]

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
If there was an adverse possession issue going on, the
burden is upon the person claiming adverse possession to
bring a legal action against the owner of the property.
So if there was an adverse possession issue, the owner
would have been served notice.

I disagree about that, because the (hypothetical) adverse
possessors are already in possession and resisting attempts
to disseise. Apparently, the local law enforcement
authorities are on their side and refusing to assist the
sleazy entity claiming to own the property in removing the
locals from their own backyard.

It might be better said that "the local law enforcement
authorities are obstructing the rightful owner from
removing squatters from the property the County sold to
him/them/it." It should also be noted that adverse
posession in Florida requires seven years and if the
adverse possession has not yet been seven years, the
statute tolled upon the sale of the tax deed. Perhaps
you are correct that the Trust who purchased the tax
deed from the sleazy County should file suit and name
the County Assessor who sold the tax deed, the Zoning
Department who will not enforce their laws, and the
Police Department who is obstructing his possession.

Dick

[Cy Pres]

Post by Dick Adams

Post by Cy Pres
Apparently, the local law enforcement
authorities are on their side and refusing to assist the
sleazy entity claiming to own the property in removing the
locals from their own backyard.

It might be better said that "the local law enforcement
authorities are obstructing the rightful owner from
removing squatters from the property the County sold to
him/them/it." It should also be noted that adverse
posession in Florida requires seven years and if the
adverse possession has not yet been seven years, the
statute tolled upon the sale of the tax deed. Perhaps
you are correct that the Trust who purchased the tax
deed from the sleazy County should file suit and name
the County Assessor who sold the tax deed, the Zoning
Department who will not enforce their laws, and the
Police Department who is obstructing his possession.

I would be glad to see such litigation, and would watch with
entertainment. I believe the police are clearly correct, as the
conduct of the "land trust" (attempt to disseise people of their own
backyards) is of a type and character likely to lead to a breach of
the peace, or actually to constitute a breach of the peace.

The only conceivable use of the property in question is to extort the
residents of the neighborhood by destroying the value of their own
property. The property is, in and of itself, useless. It was solely
purchased for this characteristic, and the "land trust" has made a
routine practice of purchasing similarly useless properties with no
positive characteristics of their own, but merely become "useful"
because, by denying the use of common areas of a neighborhood to its
residents, one can destroy the value of adjoining properties and
thereby extort the residents out of money. The "land trust" has
consistently acted in bad faith, suggesting the use of the property
for such things as inviting undesirable characters to it simply to
create a nuisance.

Such conduct is entitled to no consideration in a court of equity. To
the extent that the law may sanction it, that can be tested in court.
In any case, I believe those currently in possession of the property
have every right to maintain their possession. The police agree.
Whether or not they ultimately are correct, the police action in this
case is that least likely to result in a breach of the peace. They
are doing their jobs. It can and should take action by a court to
dispossess them.

The conduct of the "land trust" is not of a sort that deserves any
special advantages under the law, in terms of being able to invoke
direct executive action by law enforcement authorities to seize
property, without having a court order. At best, it is a parasitic
abuse of the law by a party acting in bad faith, attacking those who
in good faith did nothing but occupy their homes, intending to force
them to disgorge money. At best, they are barely legally entitled to
do this (i.e. demand the neighborhood buy out their tax deed). At
worst, it is plain extortion, abuse of process, and a sham by people
who have no legal right to what they're demanding (i.e. they've
already adversely possessed on it).

In any case, I would be thrilled to see the "land trust" expend
resources in suing a police department which is almost certainly
immune in its reasonable exercise of its discretion and a zoning
department whose issuance of regulations is unlikely to gives rise to
any private cause of action should they choose not to enforce them.
This would cut into any ill-gained profits by this parasitic entity
and discourage future behavior of this sort. They might even be
sanctioned for frivolous litigation.

As to the County Assessor, if they did indeed sell a land deed which
entitles the purchaser to no rights to the land in question, as I
suspect is the case, then if they misrepresented what they were
selling, they should be forced at least to refund the purchase price.
However, as tax deeds are generally known to be dodgy purchases, not
necessarily entitling the purchaser to full possession, and in fact,
the "land trust" appears to have been entirely aware of the
circumstances of what it was purchasing, and indeed, chose the
property precisely for those characteristics, I think the County
Assessor has a pretty good argument for not having to refund anything.

Some evidence from the OP;

"The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time."

Also, he describes what the established use of the property by the
neighbors: "Since we have bought it we have asked these people who
live near our property to remove their sheds, pool equipment, and
other belongings."

I.e. multiple people have been using the property for "some time," for
uses as diverse as building sheds, moving pool equipment to it, and
"other belongings." Why would people build a shed on land that they
didn't believe they effectively owned? That represents the kind of
openly adverse use of land which gives rise to an adverse possession
case. Notorious? Clearly. The entire neighborhood was aware of it.
They could look in their own backyards and directly onto their
neighbors' property and see it. Obviously nobody thought their use of
the land was anything but possessory. You don't put money into
building structures on land you know isn't yours.

Here's an aerial map of the property:

http://tinyurl.com/5kv473

I am somewhat surprised that people who act as reprehensibly as this
organization has would set up a website ( http://818landtrust.org/ ),
apparently to trumpet their antisocial conduct, which mainly appears
to consist of denunciations from local media outlets in areas
subjected to their malicious behavior, the names and addresses of
their victims, and potentially defamatory allegations against these
people.

Note: as should be fairly obvious, I'm biased against the OP's
position and arguing against it based on my personal opinion. I think
my arguments are rather good. However, the strict letter of the law
could be with the OP, even if I think the equities aren't. To the
extent that hypothetical litigation arising out of these transactions
focuses on the equities, the "land trust" should lose.

[Tim Smith]

Post by Cy Pres
The only conceivable use of the property in question is to extort the
residents of the neighborhood by destroying the value of their own
property. The property is, in and of itself, useless. It was solely

The property is obviously not useless. It clearly can be used for
storage, for example, as proven by the fact that nearby residents are
currently using it for that.

Another use that comes to mind is as vegetable garden plots. With the
recent rise in food prices, plus increasing desire of many people to eat
healthier, there has been a big increase in interest in home grown
vegetables. In many cities, little bits of unused land are being made
available for people to use for that (e.g., apartment dwellers who do
not have any place for a garden at their place), on a first come, first
served basis. There are often more people interested than there are
available plots. I bet, at least in some cities, you could make some
decent money with a strip of land like the one in question here, if you
divided it into smaller plots and rented them.

The strip is 580 x 21. That's over 1/4 of an acre. Put in 4x4 raised
bed gardens, filled with a good soil to get people started (Google for
"square foot gardening" for ideas), with a layout something like this:

-------- -------- -------- ...
| 4x4 | | 4x4 | | 4x4 |
| | 3 | | 3 | |
-------- -------- -------- ...
3 3 3
-------- -------- -------- ...
| 4x4 | | 4x4 | | 4x4 |
| | 3 | | 3 | |
-------- -------- -------- ...

6 6 6

-------- -------- -------- ...
| 4x4 | | 4x4 | | 4x4 |
| | 3 | | 3 | |
-------- -------- -------- ...

This will give you 246 4x4 plots to rent, with plenty of room around
each plot to allow the renter to work it, and with a 6 foot wide path
making it easy to get a cart or wheelbarrow in (or a wheelchair or
scooter, for the disabled gardeners). I bet you could get $5 a month
per 4x4 plot (at least in some cities...I don't know what the
demographics are in the city in question).

(And you could get more than 246 plots out of it. If a given 4x4 plot
can be accessed from two opposite sides, it does not need access to the
adjacent sides. Many of my spaces could be eliminated, allowing for
more plots).

(Or course, ideally, they would have to provide water and drainage, so
some space would be taken up by that. It might also be profitable to
provide rentable space to store garden equipment and supplies).

[grendal]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Cy Pres
The only conceivable use of the property in question is to extort the
residents of the neighborhood by destroying the value of their own
property. The property is, in and of itself, useless. It was solely

The property is obviously not useless. It clearly can be used for
storage, for example, as proven by the fact that nearby residents are
currently using it for that.

[SNIP the silly stuff]

Post by Tim Smith
--
--Tim Smith

Tim,

While yeah you could always put raised bed gardens on anything
(including paved parking lots or roof tops), the point that Cy Press
was trying to make was that from an investment standpoint, the
purchase of this land was solely with the intent of selling it to the
neighboring home owners at an inflated price.
The land as is, is not zone for any structures or "improvements of
any kind. The fact that someone put up a shed on the land without
getting the proper permits is a different issue.

[Seth]

Post by Cy Pres
I would be glad to see such litigation, and would watch with
entertainment. I believe the police are clearly correct, as the
conduct of the "land trust" (attempt to disseise people of their own
backyards)

It isn't "their own backyards", it's land on which they've been
trespassing. Perhaps the owner can tell the trespassers "The rent for
the land you're using is $X/month. You have 30 days to remove any of
your property if you don't want to rent it, otherwise the rent will be
due in advance." and then, if they don't remove their property and
don't pay, sue them for the rent.

When a price has been quoted for something, using it can be deemed
agreement.

Post by Cy Pres
The only conceivable use of the property in question is to extort the
residents of the neighborhood by destroying the value of their own
property.

There are many other conceivable uses. The fact that you are choosing
not to conceive of them is legally irrelevant.

Post by Cy Pres
The property is, in and of itself, useless.

Surely that's a decision for the owner to make. It seems plenty big
enough to set up, e.g., a skateboard course.

Post by Cy Pres
It was solely purchased for this characteristic,

How is the purpose for which it was purchased legally relevant to the
rights of the owner?

Can you prove the owner's state of mind?

Post by Cy Pres
and the "land trust" has made a routine practice of purchasing
similarly useless properties with no positive characteristics of
their own, but merely become "useful" because, by denying the use of
common areas of a neighborhood to its residents,

Can I make _your_ privately-owned property into a "common area"? Or
does that apply only when _you_ think it should?

Post by Cy Pres
The "land trust" has consistently acted in bad faith, suggesting
the use of the property for such things as inviting undesirable
characters to it simply to create a nuisance.

Use of property by the owner, as the owner wishes, is not bad faith,
absent an agreement to do otherwise.

Post by Cy Pres
Such conduct is entitled to no consideration in a court of equity.
To the extent that the law may sanction it, that can be tested in
court. In any case, I believe those currently in possession of the
property have every right to maintain their possession.

The law specifies explicit rules to determine when that's true,
including requirements for such possession/use to have been continuous
for a specified period, and to have paid the taxes for that property.
In this case, the latter condition was clearly not met.

Post by Cy Pres
The police agree.

The police don't determine the law.

Post by Cy Pres
Whether or not they ultimately are correct, the police action in this
case is that least likely to result in a breach of the peace. They
are doing their jobs. It can and should take action by a court to
dispossess them.

So if I start using your front lawn, you should have to go to court to
stop me?

Post by Cy Pres
The conduct of the "land trust" is not of a sort that deserves any
special advantages under the law, in terms of being able to invoke
direct executive action by law enforcement authorities to seize
property, without having a court order.

The land trust isn't trying to seize anybody else's property, it's
trying to get others to stop seizing its property.

Post by Cy Pres
At best, it is a parasitic abuse of the law by a party acting in
bad faith, attacking those who in good faith did nothing but occupy
their homes,

Why do you claim it's "good faith" to use property you don't own as if
it's your own, and "bad faith" to tell others to stay off your
property?

Post by Cy Pres
intending to force
them to disgorge money. At best, they are barely legally entitled to
do this (i.e. demand the neighborhood buy out their tax deed). At
worst, it is plain extortion, abuse of process, and a sham by people
who have no legal right to what they're demanding (i.e. they've
already adversely possessed on it).

Adverse possession requires (in that state) the payment of taxes on
the land being adversely possessed. Since that land was sold at tax
auction, it seems quite clear that taxes were _not_ paid on it.
Therefore, adverse possession did not take place.

Post by Cy Pres
In any case, I would be thrilled to see the "land trust" expend
resources in suing a police department which is almost certainly
immune in its reasonable exercise of its discretion and a zoning
department whose issuance of regulations is unlikely to gives rise to
any private cause of action should they choose not to enforce them.

I'd suggest it sue the trespassers for both rent for the use of its
property, and specific performance to stop using its property until a
lease is signed.

Post by Cy Pres
However, as tax deeds are generally known to be dodgy purchases,

That isn't what title insurance companies think.

Post by Cy Pres
not necessarily entitling the purchaser to full possession,

That's a matter of state law. In some states, the foreclosed-upon
owner has the right to redeem for sufficient payment for a specific
amount of time. In other states, he doesn't. (In New York, I've seen
a town auction off tax lien notes for the lowest interest rate to the
buyer, with the property owner having the right to pay off the lien
for the term of the note; after that, the property is seized and the
right of redemption has passed.)

Post by Cy Pres
and in fact, the "land trust" appears to have been entirely aware of
the circumstances of what it was purchasing, and indeed, chose the
property precisely for those characteristics, I think the County
Assessor has a pretty good argument for not having to refund
anything.

If the County Assessor _claimed_ it was selling the land free and
clear (as happens with such sales), then it has no such argument.

Post by Cy Pres
Some evidence from the OP;
"The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time."

It is unspecified whether that time would suffice for adverse
possession, even if the other criteria (in particular, payment of
taxes) had been met.

Post by Cy Pres
Also, he describes what the established use of the property by the
neighbors: "Since we have bought it we have asked these people who
live near our property to remove their sheds, pool equipment, and
other belongings."
I.e. multiple people have been using the property for "some time," for
uses as diverse as building sheds, moving pool equipment to it, and
"other belongings." Why would people build a shed on land that they
didn't believe they effectively owned?

Because it's convenient, and they thought they could get away with
it. Or maybe they originally expected to use it temporarily, until
the owner objected.

Post by Cy Pres
That represents the kind of openly adverse use of land which gives
rise to an adverse possession case.

But whether or not that suffices is a matter of state _law_. It
requires seven years (unspecified whether that has happened), and one
of:

(1) having a written document genuinely believe to be correct (even if
faulty), or paid property taxes.

and

(2) for at least seven years, cultivating or improving (maybe a shed
counts, but storing stuff alone wouldn't); protecting by enclosing
(e.g. a fence); using it for food or timber supply (not done).

Post by Cy Pres
I am somewhat surprised that people who act as reprehensibly as this
organization has would set up a website ( http://818landtrust.org/ ),
apparently to trumpet their antisocial conduct, which mainly appears
to consist of denunciations from local media outlets in areas
subjected to their malicious behavior, the names and addresses of
their victims, and potentially defamatory allegations against these
people.

I don't see any defamatory allegations.

Seth

[Cy Pres]

Post by Seth

Post by Cy Pres
That represents the kind of openly adverse use of land which gives
rise to an adverse possession case.

But whether or not that suffices is a matter of state _law_. It
requires seven years (unspecified whether that has happened), and one
(1) having a written document genuinely believe to be correct (even if
faulty), or paid property taxes.
and
(2) for at least seven years, cultivating or improving (maybe a shed
counts, but storing stuff alone wouldn't); protecting by enclosing
(e.g. a fence); using it for food or timber supply (not done).

The Dennewitz property lists a shed (perhaps the one in question)
since 2000. It's included in the property value. There's no
indication as to what basis the land assessor used in valuing the land
itself.

I also haven't looked yet at the origin of this neighborhood and the
plots of land that were created at the time, and why this odd strip of
land was left out, who would have owned it at the time, and from whom
it was seized by the tax authorities, and whether any of the people
actually affected had any notification of the impending tax sale.

[Dick Adams]

Post by Cy Pres
I would be glad to see such litigation, and would watch with
entertainment. I believe the police are clearly correct, as the
conduct of the "land trust" (attempt to disseise people of their
own backyards) is of a type and character likely to lead to a
breach of the peace, or actually to constitute a breach of the
peace.
The only conceivable use of the property in question is to extort the
residents of the neighborhood by destroying the value of their own
property. The property is, in and of itself, useless. It was solely
purchased for this characteristic, and the "land trust" has made a
routine practice of purchasing similarly useless properties with no
positive characteristics of their own, but merely become "useful"
because, by denying the use of common areas of a neighborhood
to its residents, one can destroy the value of adjoining properties
and thereby extort the residents out of money. The "land trust" has
consistently acted in bad faith, suggesting the use of the property
for such things as inviting undesirable characters to it simply to
create a nuisance.
…

Did the land trust suggest "use of the property or such things as
inviting undesirable characters to it simply to create a nuisance"?
Or was that what some home town hack wrote in a local paper?

Can you cite a legal definition of "acting in bad faith"?
Can you cite a legal precedence for depriving someone of the
property without due process based on flippant statements they
are reported to have made?

Post by Cy Pres
As to the County Assessor, if they did indeed sell a land deed
which entitles the purchaser to no rights to the land in question,
as I suspect is the case, then if they misrepresented what they were
selling, they should be forced at least to refund the purchase price.
However, as tax deeds are generally known to be dodgy purchases,
not necessarily entitling the purchaser to full possession, and in fact,
the "land trust" appears to have been entirely aware of the
circumstances of what it was purchasing, and indeed, chose the
property precisely for those characteristics, I think the County
Assessor has a pretty good argument for not having to refund anything.

Can you cite FL statutes stating that the sale of a land deed "entitles
the purchaser to no rights to the land in question"?

IMRHO the County Assessor sold the OP the equivalent of the
Brooklyn Bridge and the police are preventing the OP from putting
up toll booths. This is an awesome scam by the County Assessor.

I have to stop here as your vehemence against the land trust
exceeds my contempt for the County government. I'm sitting
here in my wheelchair in the "Land of the damnyankee Snow"
and my only interest is fair play for he who gets flim-flammed
by a County.

Your vehemence causes me to question your interest here. Does
your handle "Cy Pres <***@yahoo.com>" perhaps stand for
County President? Are you perhaps the presiding officer of the
county in question? Or are you some other interested party?

Dick

[Cy Pres]

Post by Dick Adams
Did the land trust suggest "use of the property or such things as
inviting undesirable characters to it simply to create a nuisance"?
Or was that what some home town hack wrote in a local paper?

---

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article497708.ece

However, the letter also noted what it said were other potential
buyers with interests ranging from recreational vehicle storage to a
ministry for the homeless. (Those uses are not possible under county
zoning requirements, said Lee Millard, assistant zoning
administrator.)

---

If you look at the map of the surrounding properties, there is no way
such threats are in good faith.

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite a legal definition of "acting in bad faith"?

No, but like Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." Here is some
of it:

---

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article636164.ece

Their lawyer was talking to a lawyer for the 818 Land Trust, which
owns the 20-foot-wide strip of land running behind their homes. The
residents offered $1,146 — the same price the land trust had paid in
March for the delinquent tax property — then waited on a counteroffer.

It came: $1.5-million.

---

I defy anybody to call that good faith with a straight face.

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite a legal precedence for depriving someone of the
property without due process based on flippant statements they
are reported to have made?

The "land trust" has been deprived of nothing. It has never been in
possession of a useless strip of property. It purchased whatever
legal rights a tax deed to this strip of property entitles one, given
the history of the property. IMO, that is, or should be, no rights at
all.

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite FL statutes stating that the sale of a land deed "entitles
the purchaser to no rights to the land in question"?

It entitles them to whatever rights the seller of the property had. A
seller can't sell rights he does not have. If the tax assessor had no
right to seize the property in the first place then the tax assessor
can't sell it.

Post by Dick Adams
IMRHO the County Assessor sold the OP the equivalent of the
Brooklyn Bridge and the police are preventing the OP from putting
up toll booths. This is an awesome scam by the County Assessor.

If the County Assessor had no rights to the property, they can't sell
it. The police also are the ones on the ground, and they've seen the
property and its use. There is absolutely no justification for
uprooting the current residents and inconveniencing them when the
purported "owner" has not even demonstrated ownership of the property.

If the police did this, and then, as seems likely at least to me, the
land trust loses its bid to use the threat of wrecking the
neighborhood as a crowbar to pry money out of the neighbors, then
everyone would be out the costs of moving all this stuff, then moving
it all back. There is no justifiable reason for causing such harm
pending the so-called "owner" even making a showing of likelihood of
prevailing on the merits.

Why wouldn't the "land trust" have already done this, instead of
attempting to humiliate the residents of the neighborhood and posting
disjointed rants to the Internet?

Post by Dick Adams
I have to stop here as your vehemence against the land trust
exceeds my contempt for the County government. I'm sitting
here in my wheelchair in the "Land of the damnyankee Snow"
and my only interest is fair play for he who gets flim-flammed
by a County.
Your vehemence causes me to question your interest here. Does
County President? Are you perhaps the presiding officer of the
county in question? Or are you some other interested party?

I have no personal interest in the property and no knowledge beyond
that anyone else has.

The nick is from the cy-près doctrine.

[Seth]

Post by Cy Pres
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article636164.ece
Their lawyer was talking to a lawyer for the 818 Land Trust, which
owns the 20-foot-wide strip of land running behind their homes. The
residents offered $1,146 — the same price the land trust had paid in
March for the delinquent tax property — then waited on a counteroffer.
It came: $1.5-million.
---
I defy anybody to call that good faith with a straight face.

How much is land worth in that county? If, typically, 10,000 square
feet sells for $40,000-50,000, then it seems the land trust's offer
was high by about the same factor that the residents' bid was low. So
who is acting in bad faith?

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite a legal precedence for depriving someone of the
property without due process based on flippant statements they
are reported to have made?

The "land trust" has been deprived of nothing. It has never been in
possession of a useless strip of property.

It has _ownership_ of that property. It purchased said ownership from
the government.

Post by Cy Pres
It purchased whatever legal rights a tax deed to this strip of
property entitles one, given the history of the property. IMO, that
is, or should be, no rights at all.

The law is not based on your opinion.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite FL statutes stating that the sale of a land deed "entitles
the purchaser to no rights to the land in question"?

It entitles them to whatever rights the seller of the property had. A
seller can't sell rights he does not have.

Correct.

Post by Cy Pres
If the tax assessor had no right to seize the property in the first
place then the tax assessor can't sell it.

If the owner didn't pay taxes, then the county had the right to seize
the property and sell it. Are you asserting that the previous
(defaulting) owner paid the taxes?

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
IMRHO the County Assessor sold the OP the equivalent of the
Brooklyn Bridge and the police are preventing the OP from putting
up toll booths. This is an awesome scam by the County Assessor.

If the County Assessor had no rights to the property, they can't sell
it.

In which case, the County committed Fraud. Are you claiming that's
what happened?

Post by Cy Pres
The police also are the ones on the ground, and they've seen the
property and its use. There is absolutely no justification for
uprooting the current residents and inconveniencing them when the
purported "owner" has not even demonstrated ownership of the property.

The owner has a deed. The local residents do not have deeds. If a
deed is not sufficient to demonstrate ownership, what is?

Post by Cy Pres
If the police did this, and then, as seems likely at least to me, the
land trust loses its bid to use the threat of wrecking the
neighborhood as a crowbar to pry money out of the neighbors, then
everyone would be out the costs of moving all this stuff, then moving
it all back.

If the land trust doesn't sell the property, then nobody gets to move
stuff back onto the land trust's property without the land trust's
permission.

Post by Cy Pres
There is no justifiable reason for causing such harm pending the
so-called "owner" even making a showing of likelihood of prevailing
on the merits.

Ownership of the property generally provides a sufficient likelihood
of prevailing.

Post by Cy Pres
Why wouldn't the "land trust" have already done this, instead of
attempting to humiliate the residents of the neighborhood and posting
disjointed rants to the Internet?

Who knows what they're doing? Lawsuits take time to be heard.

Seth

[Dick Adams]

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Did the land trust suggest "use of the property or such things as
inviting undesirable characters to it simply to create a nuisance"?
Or was that what some home town hack wrote in a local paper?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article497708.ece
However, the letter also noted what it said were other potential
buyers with interests ranging from recreational vehicle storage to a
ministry for the homeless. (Those uses are not possible under county
zoning requirements, said Lee Millard, assistant zoning
administrator.)

So it was written by a home town hack reporter. Also included
in the article was the following statement "the starting price
on the land is $25,000 but that the trust would be willing to
negotiate with neighbors."

Post by Cy Pres
If you look at the map of the surrounding properties, there is
no way such threats are in good faith.

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite a legal definition of "acting in bad faith"?

No, but like Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article636164.ece
Their lawyer was talking to a lawyer for the 818 Land Trust,
which owns the 20-foot-wide strip of land running behind their
homes. The residents offered $1,146 the same price the land
trust had paid in March for the delinquent tax property then
waited on a counteroffer. It came: $1.5-million.
I defy anybody to call that good faith with a straight face.

Your legal definition of bad faith appears to be in bad faith.
The offer by the residents is in bad faith on its face as it
does not take into consideration any of the trusts expenses
and denies them a reasonable profit on the transaction.
Given such a spit-in-the-face, a retort of $1.5-million may
have been unwise, but was not inappropriate.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite a legal precedence for depriving someone of the
property without due process based on flippant statements they
are reported to have made?

The "land trust" has been deprived of nothing. It has never been in
possession of a useless strip of property. It purchased whatever
legal rights a tax deed to this strip of property entitles one, given
the history of the property. IMO, that is, or should be, no rights at
all.

But you have yet to cite a legal precedence to support your claim

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Can you cite FL statutes stating that the sale of a land deed
"entitles the purchaser to no rights to the land in question"?

It entitles them to whatever rights the seller of the property had.
A seller can't sell rights he does not have. If the tax assessor
had no right to seize the property in the first place then the tax
assessor can't sell it.

Once again you have no legal precedence to support your claim.
I respectfully suggest you read up on the rights of tax assessors
to sell land, property, etc. for which the taxes have not been
paid. You will find that the tax assessor not only has a right
to do so, but alos has a fiduciary obligation to collect all
unpaid taxes.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
IMRHO the County Assessor sold the OP the equivalent of the
Brooklyn Bridge and the police are preventing the OP from
putting up toll booths. This is an awesome scam by the County
Assessor.

If the County Assessor had no rights to the property, they
can't sell it.

Problem is they did have the right to sell it because it was
tax delinquent.

Post by Cy Pres
The police also are the ones on the ground, and they've seen the
property and its use. There is absolutely no justification for
uprooting the current residents and inconveniencing them when
the purported "owner" has not even demonstrated ownership of the
property. ,,,

Excuse me, but they have demonstrated ownership by the possession
of the tax deed.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
I have to stop here as your vehemence against the land trust
exceeds my contempt for the County government. I'm sitting
here in my wheelchair in the "Land of the damnyankee Snow"
and my only interest is fair play for he who gets flim-flammed
by a County.
Your vehemence causes me to question your interest here. Does
County President? Are you perhaps the presiding officer of the
county in question? Or are you some other interested party?

I have no personal interest in the property and no knowledge
beyond that anyone else has.

Your knowledge appears to be more detailed than anyone other
than the OP. Fortunately this will not be decided in this
newsgroup.

I find comfort in a reasonable certainty that if the County
Assessor is an elected public office, the incumbent Assessor
will need a ladder on which to stand should he/she run for
reelection - in order so his/her lips can rise above the
pile of manure he/she has created.

Dick

[Cy Pres]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:47:19 -0400, ***@panix.com (Dick Adams)
wrote:

[Snip preliminary attack on my source, apparently because it is a
newspaper article, therefore written by a "hometown hack reporter,"
whatever that is.]

Post by Dick Adams

Post by Cy Pres
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article636164.ece
Their lawyer was talking to a lawyer for the 818 Land Trust,
which owns the 20-foot-wide strip of land running behind their
homes. The residents offered $1,146 the same price the land
trust had paid in March for the delinquent tax property then
waited on a counteroffer. It came: $1.5-million.
I defy anybody to call that good faith with a straight face.

Your legal definition of bad faith appears to be in bad faith.
The offer by the residents is in bad faith on its face as it
does not take into consideration any of the trusts expenses
and denies them a reasonable profit on the transaction.

I defy you to find any right to a reasonable profit on a bad
investment. There is no such thing. You have the right to whatever a
purchaser will pay. If you buy something and then nobody wants to pay
you for it, you made a bad investment.

You have no right to a profit, reasonable or otherwise, any more than
you have a right for people to fold to your bluffs in poker.

Post by Dick Adams
Given such a spit-in-the-face, a retort of $1.5-million may
have been unwise, but was not inappropriate.

The original offer was more than reasonable. I see no possible set of
circumstances in which, refused a purchase offer, the "land trust"
gets any more than purchase price, minus their legal fees, which are
likely to greatly exceed any worth of a 20 foot wide utility easement.

[David Chesler]

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Your legal definition of bad faith appears to be in bad faith.
The offer by the residents is in bad faith on its face as it
does not take into consideration any of the trusts expenses
and denies them a reasonable profit on the transaction.

I defy you to find any right to a reasonable profit on a bad
investment. There is no such thing. You have the right to whatever a
purchaser will pay. If you buy something and then nobody wants to pay
you for it, you made a bad investment.
You have no right to a profit, reasonable or otherwise, any more than
you have a right for people to fold to your bluffs in poker.

Cy Pres, you're taking it out of context. The Land Trust has a right
to what it bought. They do not have an absolute right to make a profit,
and none have claimed that they do, but an offer to buy the land from
them at an effective loss and at less than the going rate for land in
that area, is not good faith.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Given such a spit-in-the-face, a retort of $1.5-million may
have been unwise, but was not inappropriate.

The original offer was more than reasonable.

Why?

Things to see:
Kelo
House of Sand and Fog
Any movie about people buying land because it might rise in value,
including Chinatown and Blazing Saddles. (Or, including something else
besides land, The Maltese Falcon.)


The Land Trust isn't owed a profit, but neither is the guy we admire
more, the one who actually adds value to society directly by building a
better mousetrap. Sometimes they'll buy property that is worth more
than they paid for it; other times they'll have paid good money to the
County for useless land that nobody wants. But having bought the cake,
it's their choice whether to eat or have it still.
I'm with Dick Adams and Andre Dubus here, it seems like the county
messed up. In general, the Land Trust can declare No Backsies. There
are extraordinary means to deprive them of what is theirs because they
bought it, but and post-Kelo they can be deprived of it to transfer it
to private use, but they still are entitled to just compensation in that
case.

[Stuart Bronstein]

Post by David Chesler

Post by Cy Pres
You have no right to a profit, reasonable or otherwise, any more
than you have a right for people to fold to your bluffs in poker.

Cy Pres, you're taking it out of context. The Land Trust has a
right to what it bought. They do not have an absolute right to make
a profit, and none have claimed that they do, but an offer to buy
the land from them at an effective loss and at less than the going
rate for land in that area, is not good faith.

That has nothing to do with good faith or bad faith. As they say, it
never hurts to ask.

Bad faith entails an intent to be deceptive, to intentionally and
maliciously do something you are not supposed to do, or to not do
something you are supposed to do. This is a long way from simply
offering less than a "reasonable" value for property.

Post by David Chesler
I'm with Dick Adams and Andre Dubus here, it seems like the
county messed up.

There is definitely that possibility, though there has been nothing
presented that indicates that is actually what happened.

Stu

[Dick Adams]

Post by Stuart Bronstein
,,,,

Post by David Chesler
I'm with Dick Adams and Andre Dubus here, it seems like the
county messed up.

Welcome to the club!

Post by Stuart Bronstein
There is definitely that possibility, though there has
been nothing presented that indicates that is actually
what happened.

Let me present the following. The County held one or more
tax sales. The OP bought a private road and sold it to
the residents. Then the OP bought this easement strip.
Most, if not all, Counties sell tax deeds simply because
the taxes are unpaid and they have given sufficient notice
to the property owner to pay the taxes. But after the sale
of this easement, the County learned that they had acted
without evaluating the consequences and instead of supporting
the buyer (who does not vote in their county), they have
organized in support of the voters affected by the sale.

Dick

[Seth]

Post by Cy Pres
I defy you to find any right to a reasonable profit on a bad
investment. There is no such thing. You have the right to whatever a
purchaser will pay. If you buy something and then nobody wants to pay
you for it, you made a bad investment.

Yes, and I continue to own it for as long as I want to.

I bought a book, thinking the price would go up. It hasn't, and I
can't sell it at a profit (this week). That doesn't mean I have to
let anybody else buy it for a low price, or even look at it. I own
it, I get to control it.

Post by Cy Pres
You have no right to a profit, reasonable or otherwise,

But they have no right to get my stuff without me agreeing to the
transaction.

Post by Cy Pres

Post by Dick Adams
Given such a spit-in-the-face, a retort of $1.5-million may
have been unwise, but was not inappropriate.

The original offer was more than reasonable.

The original offer represents a loss. How is that "more than
reasonable"? What is the typical price for land per square foot in
that neighborhood?

Post by Cy Pres
I see no possible set of circumstances in which, refused a purchase
offer, the "land trust" gets any more than purchase price, minus
their legal fees,

They get more if somebody pays more. It's just that simple.

Post by Cy Pres
which are
likely to greatly exceed any worth of a 20 foot wide utility easement.

What you, or I, think the land is worth is irrelevant. What matters
is any price the seller and a buyer can agree on. Their reasons for
their actions are also irrelevant.

If I happen to hate one of the people living near there and want to
plant flowers in a pattern that reads "You're an idiot" then perhaps
I'd pay a lot more for that land than anybody sane thinks it's worth.
So what? That's still the price.

Seth

[Robert Bonomi]

Post by Seth
The original offer represents a loss. How is that "more than
reasonable"?

Maybe because the buyers paid _more_ than the parcel was 'really' worth.
<grin>

Post by Seth
What is the typical price for land per square foot in
that neighborhood?

Correction, the appropriate question is what is the typical price for
_similar_ (i.e. "unbuildable", *unimproved*, _without_ utilities, and
otherwise =unusable=) property in that neighborhood?"

The land parcel in question is _zoned_ for a specific type of use. The size
of the parcel is of insufficient size for a permitted use -- if said "use" is
strictly within the bounds of _that_ parcel.

the 'land trust' is in the unenviable position of having to continue to
spend money -- to maintain the condition of the parcel, to the standards
required by the municipality, county, and state -- while being unable to
put the property to any 'constructive' use. Since the same situation applies
to _any_ buyer, other than an _adjacent_ landowner, land trust would seem to
have a grand total of _three_ options in the situation:

1) continue to pour money into the black hole, in the "hope" that they
might someday recover it.
2) cut their losses, and sell to the only _available_ buyer, *at*the*buyers*
offered price.
3) _BUY_ sufficient adjacent property such that they can meet the zoning
requirements for the use the currently owned parcel is zoned for.

A hypothetical 4th possibility -- getting the zoning changed, to match one
of their other 'proposed' (nuisance-value) uses -- is *NOT* viable, because
such zoning changes require public hearings _AND_, usually, the agreement of
the neighboring property owners -- who are, in =these= circumstances, highly
*unlikely* to give their consent to any changes favoring the 'land trust'.

[David Chesler]

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by Seth
What is the typical price for land per square foot in
that neighborhood?

Correction, the appropriate question is what is the typical price for
_similar_ (i.e. "unbuildable", *unimproved*, _without_ utilities, and
otherwise =unusable=) property in that neighborhood?"

Wayne Mitchell wrote similarly.

I submit the correct analysis is regression. What is the difference
in price between a typical similar-sized house on a 5500 square-foot lot
(the existing size) with a disputed strip behind it, and a house on a
6700 square-foot lot that abuts the neighbors; also consider how much
the strips would help the value of the Tiki Drive lots, increasing them
from a house on 3750 square feet (less than a tenth of an acre) to 4800
square feet.

These houses barely have yards. I see that the house on Almond Drive
has a pool, maybe the others would like to put in pools.

The owners seem to be claiming squatters rights, but it looks like
none except that second house on Tiki Drive has made much use of the
strip, of the kind that asserts ownership. ("Enjoying it as a buffer"
doesn't count; here in the Northeast people sometimes use nearby vacant,
wooded lots as dumps [only for mulch and clippings if they're nice],
that doesn't either.) If the green lines on the PascoGov site are
accurate, the builders were otherwise very clear where the lot lines
were situated.

And what about that little paved wedge that separates Almond Drive and
Bentley Lane?

Not part of this contentious parcel, but in the neighborhood, what's
up with that strip, about 30 feet wide at its narrowest between Kauna
Point Drive and Golf Trace Boulevard? Or that little orange-wedge-shaped
parcel on Kauna Point Drive near Bentley Lane? It looks like Lot 0750 is
land-locked.

[Seth]

Post by Robert Bonomi
2) cut their losses, and sell to the only _available_ buyer, *at*the*buyers*
offered price.

The map makes it look like there are _two_ possible buyers: the owners
of the properties on Tiki Dr. also abut that parcel, and might like to
have larger back yards.

If sheds are allowed, they could build them (or garages) there. If
they aren't allowed, the present ones violate the zoning code and
should be removed.

They also have nuisance possibilities within the zoning code: for
instance, they could grow herbs or flowers that look and/or smell bad.

Seth

[Seth]

Post by Dick Adams
Contrary to the misinformation spouted by midnight to
6am television infomercials, a tax deed does not give
you absolute ownership of real property. The prior
owner is generally given a statutory period in which
to recover the property from the purchaser of the tax
deed.

Doesn't that depend on the state?

Seth

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by Robert Bonomi

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by John A. Weeks III
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

Post by John A. Weeks III
1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.
2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you came up with this
bright idea -- That adverse possession might take precedence over a tax lien
sale by the sovereign government.

If there was a screwup in the paperwork, then that could have happened.
Also, don't some areas allow adverse possession without needing to be paying
the taxes on the property? But basically my point was "self-help is
unadvised."

Post by Robert Bonomi
"Inquiring minds want to know", applies -- with a vengeance!! The world is
simply rife with opportunities to capitalize on this technique. :))

[David L. Martel]

Land,

You've purchased a long narrow parcel of land which apears to be the
backyard of a number of homes. You purchased this land from the County
government though you do not say how control of this land passed to the
County. The residents of the homes that abut your property are using this
land as "backyards" by havig sheds and other stuff on your property. You
have attempted to remove this stuff from the land but have been stopped by
the police since this is not your stuff. Neither the police orthe local DA
are willing to help you take control of this property. You ask for advice.
Buying this parcel of land may have been a mistake. You really can't due
much to develop this land and it only has value to the neighbors. You will
be paying paxes on it and they will continue to use it. You claim that you
can't fence it off and the police absolutely do not want to get involved. I
don't get it, why'd you buy this nuisance?
Anyway, you can hire a lawyer and try to get an injunction allowing you
to clear your land. I'd expect the neighbors to just more put stuff out
there, though. Go speak with a lawyer who specializes in real estate.
Hopefully your neighbors do not have an adverse possession claim or any
other claim. I find it odd that the developer did not do something with this
land and worry that you do not have clear title.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[p***@ipal.net]

In misc.legal.moderated ***@yahoo.com wrote:

| Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
| parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
| The Parcel is 580' by 21'.

Of what use is a narrow strip of land like that? Are you an owner or
resident on the opposite side (Tiki Dr) of the strip? What is your interest
in having acquired this?

Is the white rectangle directly behind the 2nd house from Bentley Lane on
the south side of Tiki the shed of interest? This is being used by Mr.
Dennewitz, correct? This URL is centered on the object I refer to:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.19778,-82.759404&spn=0.00178,0.002103&t=h&z=19

I'm wondering if eviction process is appropriate here. I'll wait for the
lawyers and other experts to followup to see what they say. But my guess
is you'll need a court order to get the police to step aside when someone
is disputing (ownership or leased rights).

There was a previous owner of this land that defaulted in taxes?

[Tim Smith]

Post by p***@ipal.net
| The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Of what use is a narrow strip of land like that? Are you an owner or

He could build a house on it. Here's a 5 foot wide house:

<http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON005.htm>

and a 7 foot wide house:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/travel/escapes/29away.html>

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by p***@ipal.net
| The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Of what use is a narrow strip of land like that? Are you an owner or

<http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON005.htm>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/travel/escapes/29away.html>

Many places that are zoned for actual houses and a lot around them have
restrictions on how close to the edges of the lot the house can be. so if
the setback is 10', then the house could only be 1' wide.

[L***@yahoo.com]

Okay, to clarify. Folks who are saying that we need a court order are
incorrect. Incorrect legally and sensibly. Since when does anyone need
a court order to clear their own land?

If you have a shed on your property, do you need a 'court order' to
remove it? I think not.

The cops and other county officials are implying that we need a court
order. I surmise they are doing this for a couple reasons. First, they
just feel sorry for the people that 'thought' they could use the land
for free. They feel sorry for the people who have erected fences, put
up sheds, planted beautiful grass, Etc.

Another reason they implying that the burden of getting a court order
lies with us, the '818 Land Trust' is that they really wish they had
not have sold the land to us.

The fortunate or unfortunate truth to this is that the clerk of court
rightly, or wrongly DID sell us this land.

Lets take a quick look at Florida law.

First, let’s look at statute 197.562 Entitled 'Grantee of tax deed
entitled to immediate possession'

This would certainly lead one to believe that WE, the Grantee of the
tax deed are entitled to possession immediately.

Let’s look at this statute sentance-by-sentance.

The first sentence in this statute reads;

****Any person, firm, corporation, or county that is the grantee of
any tax deed under this law shall be entitled to the immediate
possession of the lands described in the deed.*****

Okay, seems pretty clear to me.

If there is anyone of the opinion that we, the holder, the grantee of
this tax deed is not entitled to possession of the land, please let me
know.

The second sentence in the statute;

****If a demand for possession is refused, the purchaser may apply to
the circuit court for a writ of assistance upon 5 days' notice
directed to the person refusing to deliver possession.*****

In our interpretation of this sentence we have written letters to the
people on Bigelow Drive as we perceive these are some of the people
who are refusing to deliver possession. Some of the other people
refusing to deliver possession would be the Sheriffs Dept in Pasco
County, Florida.

Based on this, it seems it would be advisable to write a letter to the
Sheriff's dept giving THEM 5 days notice. This will likely be one of
our next steps.

The third sentence of this statue;

****Upon service of the responsive pleadings, if any, the matter shall
proceed as in chancery cases.****

Help us out on this one. What is a 'Chancery' case? We think this
means that if the people on bigelow are contesting our tax deed for
any reason, if they think we should NOT be granted possession.

From what we understand, this is not the venue to challenge the
validity of our tax deed. We are not sure what issues may be
considered in our neighbors responsive pleadings, if there are any.

Again, if anyone has any knowledge of this circumstance having
happened before, we'd be happy to hear about it.

We did a fairly exhaustive search of Florida case law, and found some
interesting stuff which we may address later, but nothing directly on
this point.

The fourth sentence of this statute;


*****If the court finds for the applicant, an order shall be issued by
the court directing the sheriff to put the grantee in possession of
the lands.****

Pretty clear, huh? The applicant would be we, the 818 Land Trust
because we would be the ones 'applying' for the writ of assistance as
outlined in the second sentence of the statute.


LOOK FOR FUTURE POSTS DISECTING THE PERECRIPTIVE EASEMENT AND ADVERSE
POSSESSION STATUTES, AS WELL AS OTHER STATUTES AND CASE LAW.

Post by p***@ipal.net
| Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
| parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
| The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Of what use is a narrow strip of land like that?  Are you an owner or
resident on the opposite side (Tiki Dr) of the strip?  What is your interest
in having acquired this?
Is the white rectangle directly behind the 2nd house from Bentley Lane on
the south side of Tiki the shed of interest?  This is being used by Mr.
Dennewitz, correct?  This URL is centered on the object I refer to:http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=28.19778,-82.759404&spn=0.00178,0....
I'm wondering if eviction process is appropriate here.  I'll wait for the
lawyers and other experts to followup to see what they say.  But my guess
is you'll need a court order to get the police to step aside when someone
is disputing (ownership or leased rights).
There was a previous owner of this land that defaulted in taxes?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked.  Due to ignorance |
|         by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked.  If you post to  |
|         Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP.        |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

[David Lesher]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

You need a real estate attorney, one who knows the local rules, and
people there.

[David Chesler]

Post by David Lesher
I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

Spaghetti factory.

[Mike Jacobs]

Post by David Chesler

Post by David Lesher
I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

Spaghetti factory.

LOL

Snake farm. It's Florida, remember?

Mike Jacobs

(no legal content, but I couldn't help it)

[L***@yahoo.com]

Post by David Lesher

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....
You need a real estate attorney, one who knows the local rules, and
people there.
--
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

I am thinking that eventually these people will want to sell their
houses and the fact that they do not own the whole backyard will be a
disclosure item. Our Land Trust and the Board of Directors is based in
California. Our Trustee is a lawyer is in Pinellas County Florida and
has quoted us a fair price to get involved in this. We may opt to go
that route in the near future. If one of these homeowners puts their
house on the market that may be the point at which we get the lawyer
involved. We may send another wave of people out there to clear the
land, take the shed. This time the people will have a certified letter
from our Trustee authorizing them to do what they came to do. We will
also have a 'questionaire' for any police that show up with direct
questions like 'What law or statute would this contractor be voilating
if they take the shed? and 'Will you make any arrest if the shed is
taken?'

The police know and are very clear on the fact that the shed is on
our property.

We also want to have MULTIPLE video cameras recording the whole
incident including the actions of the cops and the people removing the
shed. We hope to sue the cops for LOTS of cash if they just want to be
Pasco Cowboys and enforce their whims rather than the laws.

[d***@practical.org]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
I am thinking that eventually these people will want to sell their
houses and the fact that they do not own the whole backyard will be a
disclosure item.

Among other possibilities, unless, of course, they have well founded
reason to claim then do effectively claim that they own the land in
question notwithstanding your status as holder of deed obtained from a
tax foreclosure sale auction because they acquired ownership or in
future years depending how long you wait to take action later will
have acquired it by way of adverse possession and related principles
of prescription.

[Dick Adams]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
I am thinking that eventually these people will
want to sell their houses and the fact that they
do not own the whole backyard will be a disclosure
item. Our Land Trust and the Board of Directors
is based in California.

Do you really want to wait that long while paying
property taxes and putting up with a disingenuous
County government?

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We may send another wave of people out there to
clear the land, take the shed. This time the
people will have a certified letter from our
Trustee authorizing them to do what they came to
do. We will also have a 'questionaire' for any
police that show up with direct questions like
'What law or statute would this contractor be
violating if they take the shed? and 'Will you
make any arrest if the shed is taken?'

Do you really expect a police officer to respond
to a questionnaire?

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We also want to have MULTIPLE video cameras
recording the whole incident including the
actions of the cops and the people removing the
shed. We hope to sue the cops for LOTS of cash
if they just want to be Pasco Cowboys and enforce
their whims rather than the laws.

I would hope your attorneys advise you against such
action as it will only serve to publicly exacerbate
the situation. A more efficient strategy would be
to bill the shed owner for your actual costs of
attempted removal of shed and when it is not paid,
to turn the unpaid bill plus collection charges over
to the collection agency of Ketchum Squeezem & Bleedem.

If this matter does go to court, you should have the
upper hand. Although IMRHO the County has been dealing
from the bottom of the deck, I find it difficult to
believe that the State courts will side them. Given
the meretricious behavior of the County, I would
suggest you go after them for punitive damages.

Dick - I never was an attorney

[kastnna]

Post by David Lesher

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

Numerous local newspaper reports allege that the land trust has bought
mutliple properties like this one. The trust attempts to sell the
properties back to the disseisors at an inflated price.

According to the articles, the county commissioners, attorney's
office, tax collector, et al. feel the land trust is abusive and has
even accused the trust of extortion. Supposedly, if the Bigelow Drive
residents don't buy the property back, the trust has threatened to
setup a homeless encampment or similar annoyance. Perhaps our OP is
getting no help from "the authorities" because they vehemently oppose
the trust's actions.

[Cy Pres]

Post by kastnna

Post by David Lesher

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

Numerous local newspaper reports allege that the land trust has bought
mutliple properties like this one. The trust attempts to sell the
properties back to the disseisors at an inflated price.
According to the articles, the county commissioners, attorney's
office, tax collector, et al. feel the land trust is abusive and has
even accused the trust of extortion. Supposedly, if the Bigelow Drive
residents don't buy the property back, the trust has threatened to
setup a homeless encampment or similar annoyance. Perhaps our OP is
getting no help from "the authorities" because they vehemently oppose
the trust's actions.

It sounds to me like the local commission committed grave errors of
judgment in this matter. I'd be quite surprised, for instance, if the
local authorities haven't been charging Dennewitz the assessed value
of his property including the shed which the "trust" claims to have
purchased the land under. I don't see why the police would intervene
when Dennewitz is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have
a good adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

Since these common areas of the neighborhood are not supposed to be
taxed in any case (their value is already taken into account in the
assessed values of the adjoining properties), the county had no right
to seize them or sell them.

An analagous example in a much different jurisdiction would be New
York City's attempt to tax the private, gated Gramercy Park:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E0CEFDA1439E733A25755C0A9649C946897D6CF&oref=slogin
http://tinyurl.com/6mxmnh (if longer link is broken).

Depending on how the property was broken up, easements for access
roads and uses contemporaneous with the division could exist.[*]

In a less gentle age, anyone from the "trust" with the nerve to show
his face to attempt to assert similar rights would have had it removed
with a nice sized load of buckshot.

The preceding is in my opinion, which is somewhat clouded by my utter
abhorrence of the conduct of the "land trust," which causes me to
yearn for a less gentle age.


[*]
In a similar case in York County, Pennsylvania, when I lived there,
neighbors were forced to pursue an adverse possession claim against
the centuries-dead William Penn concerning the ownership of a similar
thin strip of land abutting their properties, as it had never been
included in subsequent subdivisions, and Penn owned the land via a
grant from King Charles II in 1681. Penn not having any fixed address
at present, they served him via publication.

[Dick Adams]

... I don't see why the police would intervene when Dennewitz
is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have a good
adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

Adverse possession requires continuous and open usage for x
number of years. In Florida, it is seven years so his adverse
possession claim may not be good.

Since these common areas of the neighborhood are not supposed to be
taxed in any case (their value is already taken into account in the
assessed values of the adjoining properties), the county had no right
to seize them or sell them.

You and I are in absolute agreement. The County was wrong to
sell the strip in the first place.

Dick - I never was an attorney

[Stuart Bronstein]

Post by Dick Adams

... I don't see why the police would intervene when Dennewitz
is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have a good
adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

Adverse possession requires continuous and open usage for x
number of years. In Florida, it is seven years so his adverse
possession claim may not be good.

I don't practice in Florida, but a quick review of cases indicates that
for adverse possession (as opposed to a prescriptive easement) the
claimant may have had to pay taxes on the property in question. That
apparently didn't happen, so it is unlikely that the adjoining
landowners got adverse possession of the property OP purchased.

Now it's possible that the county charged the adjoining landowners
property tax on the property that OP purchased, if assessors came out
and appraised the properties including that property. If so the tax
sale was illegitimate and OP should get his money back.

Stu

[Seth]

Post by Cy Pres
I don't see why the police would intervene
when Dennewitz is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have
a good adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

Whether or not he has a _good_ adverse possession claim depends on how
long he's been using the property (and the exact local laws on the
subject).

Seth

[L***@yahoo.com]

Post by kastnna

Post by David Lesher

Post by L***@yahoo.com
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

I'm not sure what you plan to do with a 21' wide plot, but....

Numerous local newspaper reports allege that the land trust has bought
mutliple properties like this one. The trust attempts to sell the
properties back to the disseisors at an inflated price.
According to the articles, the county commissioners, attorney's
office, tax collector, et al. feel the land trust is abusive and has
even accused the trust of extortion. Supposedly, if the Bigelow Drive
residents don't buy the property back, the trust has threatened to
setup a homeless encampment or similar annoyance. Perhaps our OP is
getting no help from "the authorities" because they vehemently oppose
the trust's actions.

Yes, the trust has bought 4 parcels like this to date. One was a road
that we sold to the residents who live on the road for a $2700 profit.

Yes, we have been called abusive extortionists. We just saw a good
investment, bought it (them). Now we own the property and do not want
people to use it for free. We offered to lease the land to the people
who live along Bigelow for $5 per month each. In out book, that is not
extortion.

Yes, we suspect that the County Authorities oppose us owning the land
and wanting to use it, but, remember, the County is who sold us this
parcel.

[kastnna]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Yes, the trust has bought 4 parcels like this to date. One was a road
that we sold to the residents who live on the road for a $2700 profit.
Yes, we have been called abusive extortionists. We just saw a good
investment, bought it (them). Now we own the property and do not want
people to use it for free. We offered to lease the land to the people
who live along Bigelow for $5 per month each. In out book, that is not
extortion.

You don't need to justify it to me. I understand completely that
others erred and your "trust" took advantage of it. Nothing like good
ol' capitalism. But you don't get to pick and chose your examples.
Threatening to invite the homeless over for pizza (as one article
alleges) and various other property devaluing nuissances could be
construed as extortive acts.

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Yes, we suspect that the County Authorities oppose us owning the land
and wanting to use it, but, remember, the County is who sold us this
parcel.

Legal matters partially aside, I don't think your company is as adept
at spotting "good investments" as you believe. So far, the profits
both you and the articles mention are nothing compared to the expenses
you're going to encounter when someone(s) stands up to fight you in
court. Investment profitability should incorporate ALL the reasonably
expected risks/expenses and legal fees should have been an obvious one.

[Timothy]

Post by kastnna
Legal matters partially aside, I don't think your company is as adept
at spotting "good investments" as you believe. So far, the profits
both you and the articles mention are nothing compared to the expenses
you're going to encounter when someone(s) stands up to fight you in
court. Investment profitability should incorporate ALL the reasonably
expected risks/expenses and legal fees should have been an obvious one.

They have spent some money on the Bigelow Drive/Tiki Drive piece
already. They wrote and sent out certified letters, which is
probably almost a hundred bucks right there. They hired a contractor
with as many as 20 workers in the crew to remove the sheds. They are
preparing to hire a video crew next time they send the contractor
back. They have run up some legal bills. And doubtless there are
other expenses. None of these expenses increases the sales price of
the property, if indeed they are actually trying to flip the property
for a profit rather than just making a point of some sort.

[Timothy]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
[snip]
There have been several local news stories on this situation. Lots
more info including Statutes, Case Law, and news articles can be found
atwww.818LandTrust.org

Googling the name of the trust turns up a number of news stories, such
as:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/5/6/346051.html

It sounds like you simply priced the land too high, since one of the
abutters actually offered you $500 for the portion behind his house.
(There are 11 houses which abut your sliver.) I reccomend marking it
down to the market-clearing price--- which seems to be about $5000---
take the cash, and get out of the neighborhood.

[L***@yahoo.com]

Post by Timothy

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
[snip]
There have been several local news stories on this situation. Lots
more info including Statutes, Case Law, and news articles can be found
atwww.818LandTrust.org

Googling the name of the trust turns up a number of news stories, such
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/5/6/346051.html
It sounds like you simply priced the land too high, since one of the
abutters actually offered you $500 for the portion behind his house.
(There are 11 houses which abut your sliver.) =A0I reccomend marking it
down to the market-clearing price--- which seems to be about $5000---
take the cash, and get out of the neighborhood.

The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

[grendal]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

1.5 million? LOL that's going to be your downfall.

Someone pointed out eminent domain. (That may happen, or it may not.
Depends on the city and how hard you want to fight it. Worst case you
could just get your money back.)

The bottom line, you walk in to court, saying that the property is
worth 1.5 million (not what you paid for it) and you want these people
off your land.
Now a judge. He may agree, the people move their stuff off their back
yards. But you're now sitting on worthless land. You can't build on
it.
You can't sell it, not for the price you're asking. And there may even
be an issue if you try to sub divide the parcel and sell off a portion
of it.

The bottom line. You can either dump the land, sell it to home owners
at a price that makes sense to them, or keep paying taxes on it.
If you stop paying the taxes, or stop maintaining the land, you're
going to end up losing the land.

IANAL, but your business partner in Florida is one. Seems you invested
in a bad deal.


You're in a no win situation on this piece of land.

BTW 510' by 20' would make a great series of garden plots.

[Tim Smith]

Post by grendal
The bottom line, you walk in to court, saying that the property is
worth 1.5 million (not what you paid for it) and you want these people
off your land.

Why would he tell the court what he thinks the property is worth? I
don't recall any exception to trespass law that says trespass is OK if
the land is not worth a lot. It should be sufficient in court for him
to want them off his land, and for him to show proof that it *is* his
land.

[TheMightyAtlas]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by grendal
The bottom line, you walk in to court, saying that the property is
worth 1.5 million (not what you paid for it) and you want these people
off your land.

Why would he tell the court what he thinks the property is worth? I
don't recall any exception to trespass law that says trespass is OK if
the land is not worth a lot. It should be sufficient in court for him
to want them off his land, and for him to show proof that it *is* his
land.
--
--Tim Smith

Only if the ownership is not disputed. The deed is evidence of
ownership, not absolute proof. Then comes the battle over whether or
not the county had a good title to convey in the first place, and
whether the land trust knew that the title was at best cloudy. When
the homeowners bring up the demand for $1.5m, out goes any favorable
disposition the judge might have to order any evictions prior to the
resolution of the claims by the homeowners that they have some claim
to use the property.

I'll give you an example from my personal experience. My neighbor
discovered that my driveway passes over a tiny sliver of his land
(like a 2 ft X 10 ft piece) right where it meets the street. He
threatens to put a fence across my driveway, unless we come up with
some (to our minds) unreasonable sum of money. Three lawyers (ours,
our title insurance company's and his) tell him that he could get into
serious legal trouble if he did so, civil AND criminal if he did so. I
didn't inquire into the specifics, but very soon after he talked with
his lawyer, we negotiated an easement for about 5% of the original
demand. He owned the land, he had the deed, he had the surveys (ours
and his) to show that he owned the land, but somehow the lawyers
reached a concensus that if the cops came over, they would come over
to stop him or even arrest him, apparently, if he tried to put up a
fence. I suspect that if he had asked for the a more reasonable
amount, he might have found the judge more sympathetic.

[Seth]

Post by TheMightyAtlas
I'll give you an example from my personal experience. My neighbor
discovered that my driveway passes over a tiny sliver of his land
(like a 2 ft X 10 ft piece) right where it meets the street. He
threatens to put a fence across my driveway, unless we come up with
some (to our minds) unreasonable sum of money. Three lawyers (ours,
our title insurance company's and his) tell him that he could get into
serious legal trouble if he did so, civil AND criminal if he did so. I
didn't inquire into the specifics, but very soon after he talked with
his lawyer, we negotiated an easement for about 5% of the original
demand. He owned the land, he had the deed, he had the surveys (ours
and his) to show that he owned the land, but somehow the lawyers
reached a concensus that if the cops came over, they would come over
to stop him or even arrest him, apparently, if he tried to put up a
fence. I suspect that if he had asked for the a more reasonable
amount, he might have found the judge more sympathetic.

How were the various properties created? When?

If you (or your predecessors) had been using the driveway for long
enough, you own it free and clear.

If both properties were created by being partitioned from a single
larger property, then an easement for the owner of your property to
reach the street would have been created (at least in the states with
rules I'm aware of, creation of a landlocked property automatically
creates an easement by necessity).

If the property is sufficiently recent, and your driveway could have
been re-routed across your own property to meet the street, then your
neighbor probably had the right of it.

Seth

[John Mianowski]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

JM

[Seth]

Post by John Mianowski

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.

Seth

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by Seth

Post by John Mianowski

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.

The extortion would, possibly, come into play where the trust is saying "pay
us this amount or we'll do X" (where X is some act that the homeowner would
find objectional.) Since the trust is not doing X simply because they want
to do X but is doing it in order to force the homeowner to pay something,
that seems to qualify as extortion even when X is legal.

It's much like if I said "pay me $5,000 or I'll tell your neighbors about
the affair with the school marm." Telling them about the affair is legal.
Threatening to tell them about the affair simply to get money from you is
extortion. Setting up a homeless shelter on the property is legal (assuming
it's with-in zoning, etc.) Setting up a homeless shelter in order to get
people to pay an inflated price for some worthless land sure sounds like
extortion.

[Tim Smith]

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by Seth

Post by John Mianowski
IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.

The extortion would, possibly, come into play where the trust is saying "pay
us this amount or we'll do X" (where X is some act that the homeowner would
find objectional.) Since the trust is not doing X simply because they want
to do X but is doing it in order to force the homeowner to pay something,
that seems to qualify as extortion even when X is legal.

By your argument, Comcast is extorting me. They will take away most of
the TV channels I receive if I don't pay them. This is something that I
would find objectionable. It seems to meet all your criteria for
extortion, assuming Comcast's removal of my TV would be to try to get me
to pay, rather than because they simply do not want me to watch TV.

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by Seth

Post by John Mianowski
IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.

The extortion would, possibly, come into play where the trust is saying "pay
us this amount or we'll do X" (where X is some act that the homeowner would
find objectional.) Since the trust is not doing X simply because they want
to do X but is doing it in order to force the homeowner to pay something,
that seems to qualify as extortion even when X is legal.

By your argument, Comcast is extorting me. They will take away most of
the TV channels I receive if I don't pay them. This is something that I
would find objectionable. It seems to meet all your criteria for
extortion, assuming Comcast's removal of my TV would be to try to get me
to pay, rather than because they simply do not want me to watch TV.

No, it wouldn't meet the criteria. They would be threatening to NOT do
something for you if you didn't pay "Don't pay us and we won't provide you
programming.") There is a difference.

[Tim Smith]

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com

Post by Tim Smith
By your argument, Comcast is extorting me. They will take away most of
the TV channels I receive if I don't pay them. This is something that I
would find objectionable. It seems to meet all your criteria for
extortion, assuming Comcast's removal of my TV would be to try to get me
to pay, rather than because they simply do not want me to watch TV.

No, it wouldn't meet the criteria. They would be threatening to NOT do
something for you if you didn't pay "Don't pay us and we won't provide you
programming.") There is a difference.

"Don't pay us and we won't provide you with land to support your shed".
Seems pretty much the same to me.

[Seth]

Post by p***@shamrocksgf.com
It's much like if I said "pay me $5,000 or I'll tell your neighbors about
the affair with the school marm." Telling them about the affair is legal.
Threatening to tell them about the affair simply to get money from you is
extortion. Setting up a homeless shelter on the property is legal (assuming
it's with-in zoning, etc.) Setting up a homeless shelter in order to get
people to pay an inflated price for some worthless land sure sounds like
extortion.

Now explain why Donald Trump didn't go to prison for extortion when he
did essentially that (forced rent-controlled tenants to move out of a
building he wanted to tear down by, among other things, letting
homeless people use the apartments he'd already emptied).

Seth

[grendal]

Post by Seth

Post by John Mianowski

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.
Seth

It is extortion.

This issue is pretty much a moot point.

The landowners trust can do nothing but attempt to make life difficult
for the neighbors.
They can't build on the land. They can't really do anything that would
require a permit to change the land.
They can't subdivide the land.
All they can do is pay money to maintain the land and pay property tax
on the land.

All assuming that the county's tax sale was legal in the first place.
If not, then they can only get back the amount that they paid for the
land.

This "landowners association" has no upside potential with this land
other than to sell it to the residents who thought that the land was
part of their property.

The reason you can call it extortion is that the landowners
association has only one option for the land. Selling it back to the
landowners at an inflated price. They are also using intimidation
tactics as a way to get their deal done. "Threatening to try and build
a homeless shelter or use it for parking construction vehicles...."

Sorry but the best thing to happen would be for the county to rescind
the sale.

[Seth]

Post by grendal

Post by Seth

Post by John Mianowski

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

IOW, they want to extort about $71,500 from each of the 21 adjoining
homeowners for their minuscule portion of it.

Where do you get "extort"? It isn't extortion to demand a high price
for property you own.

It is extortion.

That's not a very convincing argument.

Post by grendal
This issue is pretty much a moot point.

Why?

I have a book (that's probably worth maybe $3,000 at most according to
an appraiser, probably a lot less). I won't sell it for less than
$30,000. Is that extortion?

Post by grendal
The landowners trust can do nothing but attempt to make life difficult
for the neighbors.
They can't build on the land.

Why not? Does zoning prevent any building on that land? (Then whey
didn't it stop the trespassers who built on it?)

Post by grendal
They can't really do anything that would
require a permit to change the land.
They can't subdivide the land.

Why not?

Post by grendal
All they can do is pay money to maintain the land and pay property tax
on the land.

They can grow stuff on the land. They can sit on the land in lawn
chairs and get a suntan.

Post by grendal
All assuming that the county's tax sale was legal in the first place.
If not, then they can only get back the amount that they paid for the
land.

If you sell me something fraudulently, I can probably get back more
than I paid directly in damages.

And I haven't seen any reason to believe that the county's sale was
invalid.

Post by grendal
This "landowners association" has no upside potential with this land
other than to sell it to the residents who thought that the land was
part of their property.

Selling it for more than they paid is an upside.

But you claimed, above, that they couldn't subdivide it.

Post by grendal
The reason you can call it extortion is that the landowners
association has only one option for the land.

Wouldn't that be extortion on the part of the _other_ party?

Post by grendal
Selling it back to the landowners at an inflated price.

The could sell it (not "back") to nearby landowners at whatever price
was agreed on, not necessarily "inflated".

Post by grendal
They are also using intimidation
tactics as a way to get their deal done. "Threatening to try and build
a homeless shelter or use it for parking construction vehicles...."

What if, instead, they "threatened" to plant flower?

Post by grendal
Sorry but the best thing to happen would be for the county to rescind
the sale.

Best for whom? Does the county have the right to rescind the sale?

Seth

[kastnna]

Post by Seth
I have a book (that's probably worth maybe $3,000 at most according to
an appraiser, probably a lot less). =A0I won't sell it for less than
$30,000. =A0Is that extortion?

Strawman. The asking of the inflated price is not the extortive act.
Taking actions that have no apparent purpose but COERCE the purchaser
to comply against his/her free will is extortion.

Post by Seth
And I haven't seen any reason to believe that the county's sale was
invalid.

All ready mentioned previously in this thread...
http://www.818landtrust.org/legalletter1.htm

Post by Seth
Best for whom? =A0Does the county have the right to rescind the sale?

Potentially. It is probably for a court to decide.

[Seth]

Post by kastnna

Post by Seth
I have a book (that's probably worth maybe $3,000 at most according to
an appraiser, probably a lot less). =A0I won't sell it for less than
$30,000. =A0Is that extortion?

Strawman. The asking of the inflated price is not the extortive act.
Taking actions that have no apparent purpose but COERCE the purchaser
to comply against his/her free will is extortion.

There's no more coercion in letting someone use my land to put his
stuff on than in letting someone read my (limited edition, long out of
print) book.

Post by kastnna

Post by Seth
And I haven't seen any reason to believe that the county's sale was
invalid.

All ready mentioned previously in this thread...
http://www.818landtrust.org/legalletter1.htm

That's the opinion of a lawyer for the other side.

Since the county, board of county commissioners, county tax
department, etc. are all agencies of the State of Florida, a case
could be made that one department of an entity sold stuff that ought
to have been handled by a different department, but the entity (State
of Florida) is still bound by the actions of its parts.

Post by kastnna

Post by Seth
Best for whom? =A0Does the county have the right to rescind the sale?

Potentially. It is probably for a court to decide.

Everything is for a court to decide, if it gets that far.

Seth

[TheMightyAtlas]

Post by Seth
Everything is for a court to decide, if it gets that far.
Seth

But the entire issue here is what can/should be done in the interim,
or what the "land trust" can do without a court order. Some of us are
saying, very little without a court order, others are say pretty much
anything, it is their land.

[Timothy]

Post by Timothy
It sounds like you simply priced the land too high, since one of the
abutters actually offered you $500 for the portion behind his house.
(There are 11 houses which abut your sliver.) =A0

I am not sure what the OP is up to but the 818LandTrust,com web site
indicates that he is up to something more than just flipping a small
parcel of land for a small profit. It even looks this is more than
just plain old low-level extortion. In this case on Tiki Drive he
seems to be going to extraordinary (and not exactly zero-cost) lengths
to annoy the abutters.

In any case, it sounds like we know roughly what the land is worth to
the neighbors (i.e, 11 times $500 or perhaps a little more.) If it's
just about the money, my (off-the -cuff) advice is sell it for the
market price and move on to another tax auction. If there's a matter
of principle involved, I would advise getting a good lawyer.

[Dick Adams]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Here is a link to an aerial view of the property for clarity;
http://maps.pascogov.com/maps/redir.asp?dest=map&parcel=1526250010026000000
The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time.

It took me a few minutes to understand why this is a problem.
Your land trust purchased the 21' x 580' strip of land between
the houses on Bigelow Drive and the houses on Tiki Drive. Any
rational person without the aid of boundary markers (which are
not present) would not be unreasonable in infering that this is
either their land or an easement.

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Since we have bought it we have asked these people who live near our
property to remove their sheds, pool equipment, and other belongings.
We have sent numerous certified letters requesting this. We have made
phone calls to make this request.
We have contracted with people to remove the shed near 2643 Bigelow
Drive, Holiday, FL 34691. At least 10 people, maybe as many as 20 have
been there to remove this shed. The police always end up on the scene
and the shed never gets moved.

They obviously do not believe you or they believe you, but believe
they have squatters' rights.

Post by L***@yahoo.com
I am not sure exactly what the police are telling these people who
come to move the shed, but the shed never gets moved.

They are telling them to go away.

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The property is not zoned for a shed. The shed is in violation
of the Pasco County Code or Ordinances.
<Zoning Department experience deleted)

And you expected a Zoning Department to actually do something?

Post by L***@yahoo.com
There have been several local news stories on this situation.
Lots more info including Statutes, Case Law, and news articles
can be found at www.818LandTrust.org

Those articles depict you as a wealthy, transient mercenary who
is extorting from the poor. This is in spite of the fact that
you aren't even an elected public official <sarcasm>.

What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
take the land from you by emminent domain.

Is there enough money involved to justify a PR campaign
against the County for selling off these parcels in the
first place. "Why did they sell it if they didn't expect
it to be used?"

Dick - I never was an attorney

[p***@ipal.net]

In misc.legal.moderated Dick Adams <***@panix.com> wrote:

|> The property is not zoned for a shed. The shed is in violation
|> of the Pasco County Code or Ordinances.
|>
|> <Zoning Department experience deleted)
|
| And you expected a Zoning Department to actually do something?

At the very least, the "818 Land Trust" would want to be sure THEY are not
liable for the zoning violation. If they send a letter to the zoning
department that they attempted to remove the sheds, but were blocked by
law enforcement, that should help defend them from being accused of the
zoning violation.

OTOH, a zoning violation for a shed? What kind of place is this?


| What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
| tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
| from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
| of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
| you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
| and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
| homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
| take the land from you by emminent domain.

Maybe "818 Land Trust" could offer to sell it back to the county. But asking
1.5 million for the whole thing is just way off into absurdity. If I were one
of the adjacent land owners, I'd just back off the land and tell the OP where
to stuff it (after _maybe_ giving him an offer that was 10% over what he paid
the county, proportioned for the part directly behind mine, valid for 30 days).


| Is there enough money involved to justify a PR campaign
| against the County for selling off these parcels in the
| first place. "Why did they sell it if they didn't expect
| it to be used?"

Maybe they were not aware at the time of sale of the intention to sell it at
such a high price.

I can understand high prices where there is also a high risk that it would
not be sold. If I were an adjacent property owner, I'd act to ensure that
there is indeed a high risk that it would not be sold.

I'd also hunt down the developer who originally sectioned it off to find out
why that was done (but it might be something benign like an intent to build
an alley that was never followed through). I'd also explore my original deed
and land history to see if anyone made mistakes.

[Dick Adams]

Post by p***@ipal.net

Post by Dick Adams

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The property is not zoned for a shed. The shed is in violation
of the Pasco County Code or Ordinances.
<Zoning Department experience deleted)

And you expected a Zoning Department to actually do something?

At the very least, the "818 Land Trust" would want to be sure THEY
are not liable for the zoning violation. If they send a letter to
the zoning department that they attempted to remove the sheds, but
were blocked by law enforcement, that should help defend them from
being accused of the zoning violation.

It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning Department
to take action against the squatter as opposed to protecting
themselves from inheriting a zoning violation. According to the OP,
the Zoning Department took the position that they would take no
action until the dispute was resolved.

My experiences with zoning boards is that refuse to be a party to
disputes between landowners even if there is a blatant zoning
violation - unless one of the landowners is politically
well-connected.

Post by p***@ipal.net
OTOH, a zoning violation for a shed? What kind of place is this?

The shed is legally referred to as an out-building and is generally
a hot topic.

Post by p***@ipal.net

Post by Dick Adams
What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
take the land from you by emminent domain.

Maybe "818 Land Trust" could offer to sell it back to the county.
But asking 1.5 million for the whole thing is just way off into
absurdity. If I were one of the adjacent land owners, I'd just back
off the land and tell the OP where to stuff it (after _maybe_ giving
him an offer that was 10% over what he paid the county,
proportioned for the part directly behind mine, valid for 30 days).

IMRHO 10% is as absurd as 1.5 million. (See below)

Post by p***@ipal.net

Post by Dick Adams
What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
take the land from you by emminent domain.

Maybe "818 Land Trust" could offer to sell it back to the county.
But asking 1.5 million for the whole thing is just way off into
absurdity. If I were one of the adjacent land owners, I'd just back
off the land and tell the OP where to stuff it (after _maybe_ giving
him an offer that was 10% over what he paid the county,
proportioned for the part directly behind mine, valid for 30 days).

IMRHO 10% is as absurd as 1.5 million. (See below)

Post by p***@ipal.net

Post by Dick Adams
Is there enough money involved to justify a PR campaign
against the County for selling off these parcels in the
first place. "Why did they sell it if they didn't expect
it to be used?"

Maybe they were not aware at the time of sale of the intention
to sell it at such a high price.

They should have. (See below)

Post by p***@ipal.net
I can understand high prices where there is also a high risk that
it would not be sold. If I were an adjacent property owner, I'd
act to ensure that there is indeed a high risk that it would not
be sold.

Tax deed sales occur when attempts to collect the tax have
failed. It is, therefore, a valid presumption that the
new owner is assuming the risk of selling worthless property.
In such cases, there is a high risk and a profit of 500% does
not seem unreasonable to me.

I missed the 1.5 million offer and suspect it was flippant
comment to a house job reporter rather than a written offer.
I did catch the rental offer of $5/month or $60/year. But
selling it piecemeal is a very high risk scenario for the
new owner because it splits up the land and leaves the new
owner with the responsibility of maintaining disconnected
pieces of property.

Post by p***@ipal.net
I'd also hunt down the developer who originally sectioned
it off to find out why that was done (but it might be
something benign like an intent to build an alley that
was never followed through). I'd also explore my original
deed and land history to see if anyone made mistakes.

That is excellent advice.

Dick

[p***@ipal.net]

In misc.legal.moderated Dick Adams <***@panix.com> wrote:

| It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning Department
| to take action against the squatter as opposed to protecting
| themselves from inheriting a zoning violation. According to the OP,
| the Zoning Department took the position that they would take no
| action until the dispute was resolved.

What I would want to be sure if, if I was the owner of the land, is to
be sure I am not the one fined for having the shed on the property in
violation of zoning.


|> OTOH, a zoning violation for a shed? What kind of place is this?
|
| The shed is legally referred to as an out-building and is generally
| a hot topic.

I know that things like this are often prohibited in covenants. But
it seems odd that zoning would disallow it. Aside from the uppity
neighborhoods that tend to restrict everything through covenants, it
is a common thing to have a shed out-building for storing things like
gasoline for the lawn mower. I've also heard of very small towns that
make zoning rules much like covenants. Is this what we have here?


| Tax deed sales occur when attempts to collect the tax have
| failed. It is, therefore, a valid presumption that the
| new owner is assuming the risk of selling worthless property.
| In such cases, there is a high risk and a profit of 500% does
| not seem unreasonable to me.

When I looked at the location via Google satellite, it looked like at least
some homeowners had nothing of significance on the land. The shed was on
the part with the street access. If that one owner becomes willing to buy
and the others do not, then "the trust" is stuck with inaccessible land.

So it might be how long the lot owners are willing to hold out against a
profit of 500%.


|> I'd also hunt down the developer who originally sectioned
|> it off to find out why that was done (but it might be
|> something benign like an intent to build an alley that
|> was never followed through). I'd also explore my original
|> deed and land history to see if anyone made mistakes.
|
| That is excellent advice.

Unless the developer has filed bankruptcy, maybe the lot owners can find
some error on the part of the developer (like having represented the land
all the way to the residents on Tiki Drive was what was being sold) and
get him (through court action) to cough up what gets paid to "the trust"
to restore the land. But, again, this all depends, and probably needs a
lawyer for the lot owners involved.

[p***@shamrocksgf.com]

Post by p***@ipal.net
I know that things like this are often prohibited in covenants. But
it seems odd that zoning would disallow it. Aside from the uppity
neighborhoods that tend to restrict everything through covenants, it
is a common thing to have a shed out-building for storing things like
gasoline for the lawn mower. I've also heard of very small towns that
make zoning rules much like covenants. Is this what we have here?

It's also VERY common for zoning laws to say how close to the property line
an outbuilding can be (but not so common to ban them outright.) If the plot
is only 21' wide, then any building would be within 5' or so of one side or
the other and thus would, very possibly, be in violation. For example, here
in my county (not even in a city) they have to be more than 10' from the
property line.

[Stuart Bronstein]

Post by p***@ipal.net
| It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning
| Department to take action against the squatter as opposed to
| protecting themselves from inheriting a zoning violation.
| According to the OP, the Zoning Department took the position that
| they would take no action until the dispute was resolved.
What I would want to be sure if, if I was the owner of the land,
is to be sure I am not the one fined for having the shed on the
property in violation of zoning.

I'm not a zoning expert, but my guess is that if there's a violation
and it's on property you own, it's your responsibility.

That doesn't mean you can just remove it, though. To be safe you
should have a court order. Possibly an abatement order by the county
would suffice, but it would be good to check with a local land planning
lawyer just to be sure.

Stu

[Dick Adams]

Post by Stuart Bronstein

Post by p***@ipal.net

Post by Dick Adams
It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning
Department to take action against the squatter as opposed to
protecting themselves from inheriting a zoning violation.
According to the OP, the Zoning Department took the position
that they would take no action until the dispute was resolved.

What I would want to be sure if, if I was the owner of the land,
is to be sure I am not the one fined for having the shed on the
property in violation of zoning.

Since it's not your shed, you are not in violation.
your attorney could have told you that. Plus you
can't be fined unless you refuse to correct a zoning
violation after being given notice or you are an
habitual violator.

Post by Stuart Bronstein
I'm not a zoning expert, but my guess is that if there's
a violation and it's on property you own, it's your
responsibility.

Think about this. You own a store with a large parking
lot adjacent to a residential area. You live 5 miles
from the store. You open the store at 9am and close it
at 6pm Mon-Fri. Without your knowledge or consent
someone parking a semi in your lot from 8pm to 6am and
doing so is a zoning violation. Are you responsible for
the zoning violation?

At most you should put up signs stating "No Parking after
6pm - Violators will be towed at their own expense" and
contract with a ruthless mercenary towing company to haul
the truck away. But still you did not create the violation.

My experience with Zoning Boards in three States is that
they are reluctant to do anything for fear of being sued
and perfer to have parties in dispute settle their
differences privately or in court.

Dick - I never was an attorney, but I have played one
in saloons when inebriated.

[grendal]

On Aug 7, 6:13 am, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
rice.

Post by p***@ipal.net
I can understand high prices where there is also a high risk that it would
not be sold. If I were an adjacent property owner, I'd act to ensure that
there is indeed a high risk that it would not be sold.

They, the adjacent home owners don't have to do anything.

BTW, I'd be suspect about a HOA being involved in this, then the home
owners would have known about the common land and would have been
responsible for the back taxes.

But the point I was trying to make is that a worst case scenario is
that the "land owner" goes to court and a judge agrees with them to
force the removal of the shed.
That would mean that the shed's owner had lost his position that he
owned the land (adverse possession?)

So now the land trust has their 20' by 580' lot that they can do
nothing with. They are required to maintain the property. They are
required to pay taxes on the property. Failure to do either, they
could forfeit the property back to the county.

All the home owner has to do is sit back and wait.

The land trust can't really break the property up because this may
then create "land locked properties" and there would be the need for
an easement, along with the county letting them subdivide the parcel.
(The county could decide not to let them subdivide the parcel and then
its an all or nothing deal.)

The best thing the land trust could do is to stop maintaining the
land. Stop paying taxes on the land, and write the whole thing off.

[kastnna]

Post by L***@yahoo.com
Earlier this year our land trust, the 818-239-2215 Land Trust bought a
parcel of Land in Pasco County Florida. It is in the town of Holiday.
The Parcel is 580' by 21'.
Here is a link to an aerial view of the property for clarity;
http://maps.pascogov.com/maps/redir.asp?dest=3Dmap&parcel=3D1526250010026=

...

Post by L***@yahoo.com
The 8 or so people who live on Bigelow Drive have been using this
parcel as part of their yards for some time.

Apparently, a lawyer representing one of the neighboring landowners
contends that under section 197.502(8) of the Florida Statutes the
property should have been free and clear of any tax leins and should
have been conveyed to the board of county commissioners. Given this,
he draws the conclusion that the Dept. of Rev. had no right to sell
the land to the "land trust".

Does anyone know if this argument has any merit, and if so, what
happens then?