I rented an apartment that apparently completely failed all housing codes. I informed the land lord and she refused my rent and told me I had to move because I called code enforcement. (Recorded conversation) She served me with unlawful detainer that day. I moved out and the day we had court she dropped the case. Please help me understand my right to sue!
@fredmertzfulАй бұрын
I'm assuming that you didn't move in after all this occurred. Unless there is a specific provision in your city/county ordinance or your state statute protecting you for reporting the code violation, you will have to rely on the common-law principle discussed in the video. Not all states have adopted this principle (termed "retaliatory eviction") but many have. You will also have to be prepared to spend the time and money litigating the issue. I'm assuming that you didn't have a written lease with a fixed term. If you did, it sounds as though the landlord violated your lease. That's a breach of contract and the landlord is liable for damages, quite independently or the retaliatory nature of the eviction.
@tanyawarren6599Ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful inspection was done July 6th 2023 on July 7th an occupancy permit was issued I moved in October 2023. Found all this out febuary 2024.
@tanyawarren6599Ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful the lease was for Oct 2023 to 2024.
@fredmertzfulАй бұрын
@@tanyawarren6599 Tanya - this situation is dependent on too many issues of state law for me to give you a generic answer. You should consult an attorney familiar with L-T law in your own state, or with legal aid.
@tanyawarren6599Ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful thank you I appreciate your time
@dap23able2 ай бұрын
Thank you so very much for this video! I am studying for the bar exam and you helped me better my understanding of this topic.
@SCP096LABEL293 ай бұрын
You are the best ❤
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
In example to A for life, then to A's grandchildren. Can the Grandchildren who are alive at time of conveyance convey their contingent remainder by inter vivos transfer? What about if they should predecease A, can their their contingent remainder pass by intestacy or by will (if they are old enough)?
@fredmertzful3 ай бұрын
The common law only allowed contingent remainders to pass by intestate succession, not by will or deed. However, this restriction has now been done away with in nearly all US states. It is now reasonable to assume that one can convey a contingent remainder by deed, will, or intestate succession. But bear in mind that if the jurisdiction still follows the common law RAP, and if there are no grandchildren born to A at the time of the original conveyance, the RAP will make the contingent remainder void. Hence, there won't be anything to convey or anybody to convey it.
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful I thought the class closed at A's death, rather than at time of conveyance. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to make a devise to one's grandchildren if there are none living at the time of the conveyance. Also, in the example "to A for life, then to A's grandchildren, including those born after A dies," if A has living children at time of conveyance, why are they not counted as "lives in being" such that any child born to them would be within the RAP period?
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
Could you explain what you mean where a contract of sale is signed by only one of joint tenants, and unity of title is thus broken, the parties are no longer on equal footing? Why would they not be considered tenants in common? Is there any way the contract could be enforceable? Also, I don't understand what would happen when both joint tenants sign the contract of sale, and severance is not broken. Does this mean that they are under the same obligation to sell the property as joint tenants? Or does the outside get an equal share in the joint tenancy between the original parties?
@fredmertzful3 ай бұрын
In the case in which one of the two Jt/Ts signs a contract of sale, one of them has conveyed away his or her "equitable title" and the other has not. They now have different types or qualities of title and hence don't have "unity of title" any more. ("Unity of title" means their interests are identical.) So their Jt/T is severed and becomes a T/C. The contract is perfectly enforceable against the one who signed it, but all he or she can convey is a 50% interest as a T/C. In the case in which both Jt/Ts sign the contract, both have conveyed away their "equitable title" but both still have legal title. Their interests are exactly identical. Hence, they still have unity of title and the Jt/T remains in effect. They are both under the same obligation to sell the property under the contract. If one of them dies before the closing, the other will hold title to 100% of the property (as the surviving joint tenant) and will be obligated to convey the full title to the property to the contract purchaser at the closing.
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you!
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
In example "To A for life, then to B when B graduates," by graduating before A dies, B could cut short A's life estate. Doesn't this violate one of the rules for Remainders?
@fredmertzful3 ай бұрын
I think you are misconstruing the grantor's intent. The conveyance says "To A for life." There's no indication that anything B does can cut short A's life estate. After A dies, we look to see if B has graduated. If so, B gets immediate possession. If not, we wait to see if B graduates later. If and when B graduates, B gets possession of the land. There's potentially a time gap here, but it's not what I call a "built-in" time gap -- i.e., one that is certain to occur. There may or may not be a time gap, depending on when B graduates. That's not enough to make the future interest an executory interest. It is simply a contingent remainder until B graduates. If B graduates while A is still living, it becomes a vested remainder at that point. By the way, there is no RAP problem, since B can't graduate after B is dead (at least at any college I'm familiar with), and B is a life in being. B's interest is certain to vest or fail within B's own life.
@ellincowie15733 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you for such a clear explanation.
@laurac38044 ай бұрын
This is the first video I've watched on your KZbin and I certainly wish I would have found you sooner. You are an absolute gem! I hope your students know how lucky they are to have a property professor who can break these concepts down in a way that is incredibly easy to follow and understand. Thank you!
@chris931224 ай бұрын
Been looking at tons of your videos. Incredible depth and I greatly appreciate you putting this out for free
@NotSoBad205 ай бұрын
Thank you Professor Dale!
@zhaoc0335 ай бұрын
Mind if I ask what law school courses discuss things like judgements, confession of judgement, judgement by agreement, liens such as judgement lien , tax lien/tax deed and mechanic lien and writs? The video is extremely helpful! Many thanks for the video, Prof. Dale!
@fredmertzful5 ай бұрын
The course is usually called "Debtor and creditor" or "Creditor's rights" or perhaps just "Remedies."
@janhenke58866 ай бұрын
Can I execute a Quit Claim Deed to myself to sever the Joint Tenancy on the Warranty Deed I have with my exhusband?
@fredmertzful6 ай бұрын
Probably not. In theory a deed to ones self is a nullity. A court might accept it as an expression of your intent, but I wouldn't count on it. Better to use a deed to a "straw man" and another deed back to you.
@traceystock73526 ай бұрын
We bought a new construction home on a little acreage with natural landscape. THe house next to us sold and the new people came along and act like they own it. We fenced them out and posted signs and they have not been back. Now the lady next door comes to the property line whenever I hire contractors (fence people, tree people landscapers etc) and she interacts with them (Hi! Who are you? What are you doing? May I have your card?" etc..) Anyway one of my contractors rang my doorbell after she hired them and asked if I wanted work done in this border area and I said no. He said thanks and she fired him shortly after (indicating she likely hired our landscapers to use them on our land to show control). Anyway, can her engaging our hired help across the property line and asking questions and saying things like "OK, looks good, great job!" be used as credible Adverse Possession evidence that she controls our land even though she is across a fence on her own property?
@fredmertzful6 ай бұрын
Tracy - I can't give you legal advice about your specific situation, but I can give you some general guidance. A person seeking to acquire land title by means of adverse possession can indeed do so by means of the activities of their employees, but only if the employees' activities are open and notorious, continuous, etc. An employee who merely has a few conversations with the True Owner would not come anywhere near satisfying these requirements. Likewise, hiring people who previously worked for the True Owner would accomplish nothing toward becoming an adverse possessor. The adverse possessor's activities must be , which means that they must take place on the disputed land itself, not merely on adjacent land or nearby. - ProfDale
@fredmertzful6 ай бұрын
There's a missing word in the final sentence of my reply. It should say "The adverse possessor's activities must be ACTUAL, which means that they must take place on the disputed land itself.... -- ProfDale
@traceystock73526 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Makes sense! Thank you Professor!
@ashleychase75017 ай бұрын
Your videos are so helpful, thank you so much
@fredmertzful7 ай бұрын
I am glad you find them beneficial, Ashley.
@ninacorley74717 ай бұрын
I love your videos ProfDale. You explain things perfectly.
@jiujiu0007 ай бұрын
thanks for this!!
@user-uf9xj3wg9h8 ай бұрын
This question is about "bad faith," honesty about entry and a potential adverse possessor's ability to meet the open, actual possession requirement. Let's say a hypothetical "true land owner" suspects someone of attempting to build an adverse possession case of their land by frequent trespass and also trimming or pruning vegetation (in other words, no major, obvious structural improvements but otherwise normal use of rural, undeveloped, residential land). If the true owner confronts the suspected adverse possessor and asks them if they've been on their property and conducted any maintenance activity on the land, and the suspected adverse possessor denies it, does this negate their adverse possession claim (assuming their statement were witnessed or recorded legally somehow)? I can see it both ways. In one way, it seems denying their presence on the land in question would squash their potential adverse possession claim by failing to meet the open, actual element. Because denying their presence on the land implies the opposite of openness with the owner. The adverse possessor is supposed to "plant their flag," and "treat it as their own." No true owner would lie about being on their own land. However, many states allow for "bad faith" adverse possession and denying their presence on the land would be consistent with this type of adverse possession. One could argue that lying to the true land owner would be consistent with the "hostile" element of adverse possession. So this paradox has me confused. How open and honest does an adverse possessor have to be with a true owner who confronts them, in order to meet the element of "open?" (Note: I left the element of notorious out of my question because the adverse possessor could have testimony from 3rd parties who are aware of their clandestine efforts so notorious and open seem different to me and not necessarily one and the same). Thank you.
@fredmertzful7 ай бұрын
In nearly all states, there is no "good faith" requirement in order to be a successful adverse possessor. If the true owner asks the putative adverse possessor whether she or he has been trespassing, it just doesn't matter what the adverse possessor says in reply. Whether they admit or deny the trespass, it's their , not their words, that counts. Bear in mind also that "notorious" possession doesn't require that anyone the adverse possessor on the land. The question is whether an observer would be likely to see the AP on the land if the observer looked. If nobody happens to look, that's perfectly OK; the adverse possession can still take effect. Of course, in many cases there will be testimony from an observer who did in fact see the adverse possessor.
@user-uf9xj3wg9h7 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you Professor. Seems to me that the lesson learned is, if you as a true land owner are more than 51% suspicious of a person who you've seen on your property more than a few times, if even a year or more ago, then you as a true land owner should send them an ejectment letter (unless the true land owner is willing to offer permission and the adverse possessor is willing to acknowledge it in writing). Perhaps a nicely written one but a legal letter just the same. I think I read that sending ejectment letters are high risk because the AP can fight them. Can a true land owner send a "Thank you for your trimming or pruning on my property last year, however that permission is hereby withdrawn letter?" Thank you.
@fredmertzful7 ай бұрын
A letter withdrawing permission is fine if you really have given permission in the past. If you haven't, the letter is likely only to muddy the water, and it's better to send a letter demanding that the trespass cease and desist. But if the letter doesn't work and the trespass doesn't cease, you have to be prepared to take legal action against the trespasser.
@user-uf9xj3wg9h7 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you Professor. That makes sense.
@Vedangi_8 ай бұрын
Yes it is very confusing and silly
@fredmertzful8 ай бұрын
I'm inclined to agree. The sensible things that the doctrine accomplishes could be achieved equally well by more simple and obvious doctrines. And equitable conversion produces some results that are unexpected and nonsensical, and that all good lawyers draft to avoid. But like it or not, it is still part of our legal landscape. -- ProfDale
@donmulder80619 ай бұрын
I'm not asking for legal advice but rather pragmatic things to consider based on the facts of the situation at hand. What are some of the best ways to set a "legal trap" for surreptitious neighbors who may be trying to set the conditions for a quiet title claim of adverse possession on part of your rural residential property? Like someone who has no structures or improvements on their neighbors land but might claim it when they meet the AP timeline by stating they were there all along. Seems like the true title land owner is then in the awkward position of trying to prove a negative - that they weren't really there at all or their presence was extinguished physically through a fence or they were in reality only sporadically present and surreptitiously. Assuming they had statements from neighbors saying they were present on the land even if they weren't (like in a tacking situation where the first owner had something in that land but it has been removed). How to defend against it? And assuming the potential Adverse Possessors decline to acknowledge in writing a permission letter or license. I was just reading a case law example from this year in Wisconsin and it alarmed me at how little evidence is required to take someone's rural land if they are resourced and motivated. The court does not always yield to the true title owner in the absence of physical evidence. Are there any pre-claim actions land owners can take early on to make a future possible adverse possession claim harder for someone who is diligently trying to set the conditions to take land? It seems like any action a land owner takes serves only to enhance the hostility requirement for dedicated, surreptitious neighbors who are planning an AP claim....... Surveys, signs, ejection letters, calling the police in rural areas can all be defeated and ignored or dismissed through plausible denial while simultaneously making their hostile actual presence case for them. What to do that might work against them? Call the cops for a past trespass that you observed but have no video evidence of just to get the complaint on record?
@user-uf9xj3wg9h8 ай бұрын
What you describe is a witting, surreptitious, dark hearted adverse possessor. Lawyers won't offer much advice to you in advance of the time period maturation, I am afraid (besides giving permission which may not work if they don't want it). As a non-lawyer who has been through this I would offer the following advice to consider: if it's your land, own the heck out of it. Throw out all concerns for how you look to the neighborhood, your potential friendship with said neighbor, or even legal consequences of extreme land ownership. If there's something offensive on your land, remove it since it's your land. Permission is the easiest way to stop it but not if they refuse to acknowledge it. So own it and act like the owner is my best non-legal advice. We have done this and so far it works. We shall see in a few years if they file quiet title anyway. But they will have no possession to prove.
@donmulder80619 ай бұрын
I've been reading as much AP case law as possible. Much of the case law I have read has watered down the significance of Exclusive Use, wrapping it up with Open, Notorious and Actual. I take it to mean my physical use of my (potentially) disputed property space is not a defense from AP. Is this right? My daily use of my side yard and mowing of it or tree trimming or just walking around taking selfie video, is insufficient if someone says they have been maintaining it for the minimum continuous time period?
@fredmertzful8 ай бұрын
That's right. If the true owner is in possession (which they can probably establish merely by mowing their lawn, watering their shrubs, or letting their kids play there), you can never establish your title to that portion of their land by your adverse possession.
@donmulder80618 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you. That is a relief to hear. I have read some things somewhere that caused me to question this but still see it listed as an element of AP in most states. Glad to see an active and present owner cannot lose their land to someone who may be doing something surreptitiously. (I think it was a recent case out of Wisconsin where a judge gave a neighbor a strip of side yard that the owner was on frequently due to proximity but the adjacent neighbor claimed to have planted flowers there years before).
@user-uf9xj3wg9h7 ай бұрын
I think your question was misunderstood. The element of "Exclusive Use" is NOT overturned by the acts of the true land owner but is established by the acts of the adverse possessor. For example, let's say that True Land Owner Joe owns the portion of land behind his garage and Adverse Possessor Lori goes in that part of Joe's property for the minimum number of years required by the state, True Land Owner Joe's activity will never negate Adverse Possessor Lori's exclusive Use of Joe's land. Rather, Lori's use will have to be consistent with what a true land owner might do with that land. There is a ton of case law out there where true land owners visit their land frequently and often but still lose their land to an adverse possessor who does something more in line with the expected use of the land. Like rural wooded areas. A true land owner cannot prevent adverse possession by fencing it, posting No Trespass signs, visiting it or even going there and telling someone to leave it. Exclusive use is more a description of what the Adverse Possessor does with it. If they build a tree house or prune trees for example.
@fredmertzful7 ай бұрын
You are incorrect. "Exclusive" very much depends on the actions of the True Owner. If the True owner is in possession of the land, the putative adverse Possessor will never prevail and acquire title. In some of your examples above, it may be debatable whether the True Owner's activity is sufficient to amount to possession -- but if it is, and occurs within the required time period, it will absolutely negate the adverse possession because it will make it nonexclusive. - ProfDale
@user-uf9xj3wg9h7 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you Professor. I am amazed by the variation in case law I am reading (admittedly mostly appellate cases) where the judge sides with the adverse possessor when the true owner had clear title and an impressive list of actions and behaviors on the land in question. It's baffling to me. The elements themselves are easy to follow and understand but the logic behind the decisions is highly subjective or at least it seems.
@nargesnekooei15929 ай бұрын
Amazon videos! Thank you so much
@JCarpenter-dm1xg10 ай бұрын
I am a 1L and this is helping me better understand my property class. Thank you so much!
@traceystock735211 ай бұрын
We live in a rural area and new neighbors behave like they are aware of adverse possession laws. They seem to want the area of our property that is along a stream and woods that is close to the property line and their house. We dont want to lose it. They had some buried downspout pipes from the previous owner. I am told different things by different lawyers in Virginia. A few said they dont have a claim because the pipes were buried and we have since relocated them to exit on their side of the boundary. We also built a fence along much of the boundary with no trespass signs. Others have said that they could very well take the land by adverse possession unless we grant them permission as it is a rural area and they could say they have been maintaining it and we would not be able to prove they are not. We actually offered them permission but they did not commit to signing our letter in acknowledgement and we caught them lying about the pipes (saying they knew nothing about them but also saw them escort a contractor to one of them to clear the exit of one of them). Besides my fence, now that the pipes exit on their land, what else can we do before our 15 year period is up an they can file quiet title? It's a wooded, sloped area and not really good for building.
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
Let's assume that the downspouts were buried by your neighbor's predecessors in title. If they have been there long enough (you didn't say) and meet the requirements for adverse possession, they might already have accomplished the creation of a new AP title. But do they meet those requirements? There are several issues. First, are they possession? They might be considered merely a minor trespass, sufficient to create at most a prescriptive easement but not to cause an AP title to arise. I think this is quite likely. Second, are they open and notorious? The fact that you actually know about them doesn't answer this question. Would an objective observer viewing the surface of the ground become aware of them? If their only surface outlet is on the neighboring property, then the answer may well be no. If they are not open and notorious, they won't give rise to either title by AP or a prescriptive easement. Those are some of the issues you will need to consider and analyze.
@traceystock735211 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you so much for your response. The neighboring home is 13 years old and so the pipes are not yet 15 years in existence as required to qualify for AP. They were completely buried under their lawn and our rural/native landscape. Only after they lived there a couple years did the new neighbors open up the exit to one of the pipes by a about six inches to make it visible (she did so using a contactor at 7 Am and very carefully to avoid being seen but we did). As soon as we saw it we confronted them about it and asked them to move it and they agreed to in the future when they did some landscaping but we didnt trust them due to the fact they acted like they didnt know about it when they obviously did. We then went hunting for other buried pipes by sticking a shovel in the ground and that's how we found the other one. It took several days of hunting to find it. We dont think there are any more. Now the pipes end on their side with pop up drains we paid for just to be free and clear of the encroachment and only did so with their approval since the work was done on their property. So they dont yet qualify for prescriptive easements for the wo pipes since that is a 20 year requirement in Virginia and there are two more years for adverse possession. With the pipes being moved, we arent sure if they can still raise their prior presence since they agreed to us relocating them by a professional company at no charge. Two lawyers told us once those pipes are gone, they could sue us over moving them but not AP due to not having possession anymore. Reading about adverse possession makes me nervous. It seems that so many cases are awarded to the possessors despite anything the true owners do. We just want to take any action we can to avert any other future actions by them. We agree with you that those buried pipes are not open and notorious and a few lawyers told us that as well but if she photographed the exit of one pipe after the contractor cleared it, maybe a judge would side with them. A couple lawyers said in rural areas that judges tend to award possession to adverse possessors due to the nature of the land being wild and their use being similar to what an owner would do (put in pipes). Even though we fenced it. Would some decorative items help? Like benches or something like that?
@Smart80211 ай бұрын
File in court don’t waste time. Get resurveyed
@traceystock735211 ай бұрын
@@Smart802 file what in court? I dont even know if they are going to do anything. They might though. They no longer have anything on my property.
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
At this point there's nothing to file. The neighbors have taken no action to claim anything, and may never do so. Filing a suit against them will, in effect force them to make a claim if they have any inclination at all to do so. It's much better to let sleeping dogs lie, particularly when their potential AP claim has now been extinguished. As for a resurvey -- if there's no uncertainty as to the location of the boundary or the drains, it's unnecessary and a waste of money.
@zhaoc03311 ай бұрын
If the concurrent ownership is join tenancy wros or tenancy by the entirety, suppose the wife brings a house into marriage and the couple makes mortgage payments together (same example), how would what the wife bring in and the mortgage payments be divided at a divorce? Is there also the concept of separate property and equitable division in these states?
@profdalespropertyvideos18511 ай бұрын
The house would not be in joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety (unless the parties expressly executed a deed that converted it into such). However, it might very well be subject to equitable division, even though it was separate property of the wife and remained such during the marriage. That would depend on the law of the particular state and on the facts of the parties' relationship, and in some states on whether there was fault leading to the divorce. It's a complex determination, and each state is different.
@zhaoc03311 ай бұрын
thanks for the video! If I own an apartment complex and I were to convert that to a condominium and sell each unit separately would that also be a partition or is it something entirely different?
@profdalespropertyvideos18511 ай бұрын
No, that's not a partition. If you are the sole owner, partition is not an applicable concept. It applies only when there are two or more owners as T/C, JtT/WROS, or T/E. But conversion to a condominium would not be a partition in any event.
@zhaoc03311 ай бұрын
thanks for the video! A clarification question- which of the three types of restraints is ROFR counted as? I suppose it is not disabling because disabling is always voided but ROFR is not. Does not seem like a forfeiture either because it does not revert to the grantor. Does that mean ROFR is promissory?
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
Yes, the ROFR is a promissory restraint. It isn't "disabling" because it doesn't necessarily prevent the transfer of the owner's estate (though it may dictate to whom the transfer is made). It isn't "forfeiture" because it doesn't deprive the owner of his or her estate if the owner attempts to transfer it. So it's a promissory restraint.
@zhaoc03311 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful thanks for the clarification! sorry another very basic question from the lecture, a promissory restrain is defined as a restraint on alienation in the form of a covenant or agreement. Can I take it that a restrain in a contract is always promissory (basically is a covenant or agreement equivalent to a contract)? If this is correct, a promissory restrain is in the form of a contract, where is a forfeiture typically written? Thanks in advance!
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
A promissory restraint might be written in a contract or as a covenant included in a deed or a will. (A covenant or agreement is indeed equivalent to a contract.) A disabling or forfeiture restraint is usually written into the granting or conveying language of a deed or will. Don't get overly focused on where the language appears, though; just focus on what it says.
@zhaoc03311 ай бұрын
great lecture! Many thanks for sharing it with the public. I think I get the terminologies. The part I could not wrap my mind around is what are some usages of a fee simple defeasible title? As you mentioned in the previous video, most of the real estate being transacted has fee simple absolute.
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
In modern commercial law practice, there really are not many situations in which lawyers use fee simple defeasibles. The reason is that most people receiving title don't want it taken away from them, even if they violate some condition or promise they have made. Occasionally a FSD will be used when land is conveyed for charitable or environmental purposes, but these are specialized cases.
@babboushi11 ай бұрын
You’re the best, yet again, another very well put video. I love your work. Thank you for making property easy!
@babboushi11 ай бұрын
Thank you professor, this was absolutely enlightening and explicitly put. Thank you for making it for free public information. I am forever in your debt. I truly admire your dedication and commitment to the field of pedagogical law. I can’t wait to watch more videos from you!
@donitamann579911 ай бұрын
Wealth of information . Thank you.
@user-sw3lo3kk7e Жыл бұрын
The fusarium aspergillus mucor mold stems from the fact there's tree roots growing in our galvanized plumbing
@user-sw3lo3kk7e Жыл бұрын
My property management company was aware of the mold. Never disclosed. California toxic mold protection act
@user-sw3lo3kk7e Жыл бұрын
I'm in this situation right now! Fusarium, mucor and aspergillus mold. Roach infestation. No trash receptacle behind the apartment building deems my entire building and unit uninhabitable. While researching I have found out that although the property management company is licensed, when the owner purchased this building five years ago he never licensed it! On top of that, no one in the property management office is a licensed property manager.
@zebwalton979 Жыл бұрын
If the title is Fee Simple, which is Fee Simple Absolute... then taxes don’t apply, correct?
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
Zeb - a fee simple may be absolute or defeasible. You have to read the accompanying language to see if there are any words that make it defeasible. If there are none, it's absolute. Either way, it is subject to property taxes, assessed by local governments (usually city or county, or both, plus school districts and other special districts). The fact that it is held in fee simple absolute doesn't exempt it from taxes.
@donmulder8061 Жыл бұрын
I'm sorry if these questions come across as stupid but would appreciate any additional clarity from the Professor or anyone who has some knowledge or experience in this. 1. Regarding Part One of the video. If person A is true owner of parcel A, and Person B is true owner of the adjacent Parcel B (for simplicity), will Person A placing their Parcel A into a Life or Irrevocable Trust for transfer to a relative upon their death make it more difficult or time consuming for adjacent neighbor Person B to achieve an adverse possession claim for Parcel A? In other words, if I put my residential property into a living trust for my nephew, will it frustrate a neighbor's attempt to take title to any portion or all of my property through adverse possession? 2. Regarding Part Two of the video. Does a property owner having a mortgage for their residential property make it more difficult or more time consuming to successfully complete an adverse possession claim of that property? How about if that mortgage is a Veteran's Administration Loan? Or if the property owner is a disabled veteran holding a VA loan? I thought the video was very clear but realize this area is not my expertise. Thanks.
@fredmertzful11 ай бұрын
The answer to both of your questions is the same. Putting the property in trust, or placing a mortgage on it, won't have any protective benefit against potential adverse possession by a neighbor. In the case of the mortgage, if it is placed on the property before the AP commences, the adverse possessor will probably acquire title subject to the mortgage -- but he or she will still have title (assuming their adverse possession meets all of the legal requirements, of course).
@donmulder80615 ай бұрын
@@fredmertzful Sir, I have another related question. If Person A, the true owner, has some portion of their land that is not developable, but of potential environmental value, would placing that land into a conservation easement at least help the true owner overcome an adverse possession attempt of that land?
@wendyarce Жыл бұрын
Ive learned more watching your videos than I ever did in law school or Barbri videos!
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
So glad to be helpful, Wendy.
@wendyarce Жыл бұрын
@@fredmertzful :)
@martymaranan7191 Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@JosephHeathhotdang Жыл бұрын
This is helping me prepare to take the North Carolina bar... thank you!!
@donmulder8061 Жыл бұрын
We lived in a neighborhood where we each had a telecommunications, gas, water and electric easement running along the road in our front yards. Our next door neighbor kept coming into our front yard like he owned the place. Finally I asked him about it and he said, "we have an easement." I said "on my front yard?" He said "yes, we have the utility easement that runs from my yard into your yard which gives me unlimited access to your yard." He was sincere and firm in his belief that the utility easements that crossed our plats tied our lands together into some sort of community land but somehow it made his land dominant over mine which he could never quite explain. I challenged him and told him he was wrong. Being about 15 years older than him I was able to use the old guy card but he even had me doubting myself on that one.
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
Of course he was wrong. A utility easement gives the utility companies (gas, water, electric, etc.) access to your yard, but only for the purpose of installing and maintaining their lines and pipes. It gives your neighbor the right to receive the services of those companies, but no right at all to physically enter on your property.
@deidrabrey4043 Жыл бұрын
If Lot A has a city government storm drain on it and an associated easement that allows the city or its agents access to maintain it (thus limiting the actions of the owner in terms of improvements), and that easement includes Lot A's asphalt driveway and then runs across the property line onto adjacent Lot B, affecting that Lot the same way, can the owner of Lot B still pursue an unrelated adverse possession of Lot A's land where the easement is located? In other words, would the presence of a city easement on Lot A's (disputed) property thwart an adverse possession attempt by the adjacent owner of Lot B for Lot A's land where the easement is located including Lot A's driveway? Assuming the easement instructions are the same and that the easement runs separately with each lot of land.
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
I don't see any reason why a city-owned easement running from Lot A across Lot B would have any effect, one way or the other, on the ability of the owner of Lot B to acquire all or part of Lot A by adverse possession. The easement would not give the owner of Lot B any permission to occupy Lot A, and would therefore not thwart Owner B's attempts at adverse possession of Lot A.
@deidrabrey4043 Жыл бұрын
@@fredmertzful Thank you. How about if the easement cuts across both properties and included part of the driveway of Lot A though. I'm thinking the Lot B owner might have to file paperwork with the city to redraw the easement to run with the land differently because they could not take over the entire easement as drawn. I assume their possession would not include a driveway that they have never possessed. I have to think the easement runs with the land as is and this would almost be like the owner of Lot B taking possession of public or government property (it's just an easement but the city has dominant status of it). Thank you.
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
The city's easement won't be affected by any adverse possession activity by the owner of Lot B. The adverse possession would affect only the surface of Lot A, including the driveway on Lot A, but the city's easement will survive and be unaffected. There are two reasons for this: first, the adverse possession won't be adverse or hostile to the easement -- that is, the adverse activity of Owner B will be only on the surface of Lot A and won't interfere with the city's use of the easement. Second, the city is a unit of government, and governmental rights can't be terminated by an adverse possessor.
@deidrabrey4043 Жыл бұрын
@@fredmertzful So the lot lines would be redrawn at some point and the easement would not change at all....... and the Lot B owner can adversely possess land inside the easement and take ownership of some of the Lot A land inside the easement. The easement does not complicate it at all. THank you
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
@@deidrabrey4043 That's right. However, there's nobody to formally redraw the property boundary, unless the adverse possessor hires a surveyor to do it. The city or county that has jurisdiction may or may not recognize the change in location of the boundary, depending on their zoning and subdivision ordinances. The adverse possessor might ask them for formal approval of the change, and they may or may not grant it. There is the potential for a dispute and even litigation on this issue. So in theory the Adverse Possessor may own a strip of Lot A, but the local government may refuse to recognize that ownership. An experienced land use lawyer could be very helpful to the Adverse Possessor on such matters.
@donmulder8061 Жыл бұрын
A diligent property owner might just call the police on you and you could be charged with trespassing. I am investing in cellular cameras now to assure the neighbors that I am not putting up with their games.
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
Thank you prof dale
@deannalea1515 Жыл бұрын
Thank you!!! I am curious to know if you are available for hire to assist in drafting a complaint? I appreciate your efforts and understand this is not a typical request. The situation at hand is far from unbelievable, it is outrageous! I have recorded the majority of issues incidents, and violations, and have undeniable evidence as well. Financial gain is not my primary intention, it is the principal and sole factor of right and wrong. You cannot do "whatever" you please just because you are the property owner; especially if you are a slum lord in the first place. Then violate every protection available intentionally. Thank you for your time.
@fredmertzful Жыл бұрын
Sorry, but I don't do consulting. I'm probably not licensed in your state anyway, but I'm retired and stick to helping students with their studies.
@beef1481 Жыл бұрын
This video is so much more in depth and comprehensive than anything else that I have seen on KZbin on this subject. Thank you!
@beef1481 Жыл бұрын
This is the most clear and useful video I’ve seen on this subject by far
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
ProfDale is my hero!
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
amazing; thank you ProfDale. #1 fan!
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
Thank you, ProfDale you are amazing and I love you.
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
Absolute masterclass. Thank you ProfDale
@dawokboisgabaguys2324 Жыл бұрын
thank you prof dale
@timothystarks5053 Жыл бұрын
Thank you Dr. Dale...thank you, your videos are well down and easy to learn...thank you...