rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

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.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:01:58 -0400, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In article <j4ml94d126gelot1olqa702cv46r31nf5t@4ax.com>,
prabbit2@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

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.

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.

rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

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.

Cy Pres <c.pres@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

In article <j4ml94d126gelot1olqa702cv46r31nf5t@4ax.com>,
prabbit2@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your
rights of ownership. I'd suggest the following process:

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

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. )

In article <guld94hqm9n46tmd7uho3uesd6hlm0hft7@4ax.com>,
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
| 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

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

In misc.legal.moderated LandTrust...@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....

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) |

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)

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,

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.

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.

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 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.
…

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.

In article <pf88a4t2b1fg62nhkbsa1hdiielpud6...@4ax.com>,
Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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]
--
--Tim Smith

Cy Pres <c.pres@yahoo.com> wrote:

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?

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 <c.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?

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).

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 06:45:27 -0400, rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams)
wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
Cy Pres <c.pres@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ,,,

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 <c.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?

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

Cy Pres <c.pres@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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.

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=
....

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