Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History repeats itself...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Frost, I posted the case holding in the other thread. Wasn't his land.

    Comment


    • I'll add one qualifier, Frost. I think the way they went about it was dead wrong, and I think the motivation for selecting that tract of land was dead wrong. That being said, he should've been removed from it a long time ago. Any other business that requires property is paying either rent, or property taxes and a mortgage. He tried to get out of either, and it bit him. You take your chances in this life, and he made the wrong call on that one.
      ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

      Comment


      • For all of your Nevada Legal defs. on Land Laws. Before anyone wants to play armchair lawyer.

        CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS


        CHAPTER 326 - POSSESSORY ACTIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LANDS


        CHAPTER 328 - FEDERAL LANDS


        CHAPTER 361A - TAXES ON AGRICULTURAL REAL PROPERTY AND OPEN SPACE


        CHAPTER 568 - GRAZING AND RANGING
        Last edited by Trip McNeely; 04-16-2014, 07:14 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by talisman View Post
          Why are you ignoring my question, Frost?
          Sorry, which one? I try not to ignore questions but I do miss some from time to time when I'm rolling along.
          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trip McNeely View Post
            For all of your Nevada Legal defs. on Land Laws. Before anyone wants to play armchair lawyer.

            CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS


            CHAPTER 326 - POSSESSORY ACTIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LANDS


            CHAPTER 328 - FEDERAL LANDS
            http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-328.html
            Could have a case. He was paying Nevada until they stopped taking his checks:

            NRS 11.140  What constitutes adverse possession under claim of title not founded on written instrument.  For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession, by a person claiming title, not founded upon a written instrument, judgment or decree, land shall be deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases only:

            1.  Where it has been protected by a substantial enclosure.

            2.  Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.

            [1911 CPA § 17; RL § 4959; NCL § 8516]

            NRS 11.150  Additional requirements for adverse possession: Occupation continuously for 5 years; payment of taxes.  In no case shall adverse possession be considered established unless it be shown, in addition to the requirements of NRS 11.120 or 11.140, that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of 5 years, continuously, and that the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, which may have been levied and assessed against the land for the period mentioned, or have tendered payment thereof.

            [1911 CPA § 18; A 1937, 26; 1931 NCL § 8517]—(NRS A 1957, 321)
            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

            Comment


            • Originally posted by talisman View Post
              I didn't ask for a definition, I know what it is. I asked for an example of it ever actually being successful. All that says is it "can" happen.
              Is this the question Tali? Sorry I missed it.


              GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. WINS ADVERSE POSSESSION CASE

              by hking on June 26, 2013

              On June 17, 2013, Judge Denise K. Lynch of Pitkin County District Court entered an order quieting title in a disputed parcel of riverfront property in Pitkin County to one of Garfield & Hecht, P.C.’s clients. The Court found that the client satisfied all the elements of Colorado’s adverse-possession law. The Court also declared the client to be the prevailing party in the five-year litigation, entitling him to an award of costs.

              The ruling by the trial court followed remand from a Colorado Court of Appeals’ Opinion vacating the trial court’s Judgment in the adverse possession case litigated by Chris Bryan in the Aspen office of the Colorado law firm of Garfield & Hecht, P.C.

              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

              Comment


              • No, he wouldn't have a case. He tried to send his grazing payments to his county assessor instead of the federal government. Under the additional requirements section you posted, he would've had to have been paying taxes, which it would be easy to presume would mean he would have to be current on them. I'd bet that section of land doesn't even have a tax value assessed against it for him to be currently paid up on.
                ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YALE View Post
                  No, he wouldn't have a case. He tried to send his grazing payments to his county assessor instead of the federal government. Under the additional requirements section you posted, he would've had to have been paying taxes, which it would be easy to presume would mean he would have to be current on them. I'd bet that section of land doesn't even have a tax value assessed against it for him to be currently paid up on.
                  Since it has no tax value it can be argued that he was up to date on all debts to the 'state and city'. I didn't see anything about federal in that statute.
                  I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                  Comment


                  • tax value not assessed ≠ no tax value.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lowthreeohz View Post
                      tax value not assessed ≠ no tax value.
                      How can you pay for that which has no cost associated?
                      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                        How can you pay for that which has no cost associated?
                        How can you presume that attempting to satisfy a tax obligation that doesn't exist to your state by redirecting funds you owe the federal government for what amounts to a leasing fee and attempting to get your county tax assessor to take them instead is a reasonable attempt to satisfy that obligation? Should I start trying to pay my water bill at the redbox machine at the grocery store, and throwing a fit when it gets shut off, then proclaiming that, "I tried to pay it, but the redbox at the grocery store wouldn't take it! Revolution!"? Stop moving the goalpost!
                        ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                        Comment


                        • I haven't even read this last page but serious debates on here always remind me of a jury coming to a conclusion lol. Please continue, I will read all this tomorrow.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                            How can you pay for that which has no cost associated?
                            Assessed, not associated.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by YALE View Post
                              How can you presume that attempting to satisfy a tax obligation that doesn't exist to your state by redirecting funds you owe the federal government for what amounts to a leasing fee and attempting to get your county tax assessor to take them instead is a reasonable attempt to satisfy that obligation? Should I start trying to pay my water bill at the redbox machine at the grocery store, and throwing a fit when it gets shut off, then proclaiming that, "I tried to pay it, but the redbox at the grocery store wouldn't take it! Revolution!"? Stop moving the goalpost!
                              Doesn't match. The property in question is within the state boundary of Nevada. The federal government laid claim to it but despite taking Mr. Bundy to court, made no attempt to collect on the past due bills. It's going to be an interesting case but the argument will be made that the federal government abandoned the property and refused to provide services promised under the agreement and IF he has to pay anything, it will be only the fees incurred with the state stepping in to offer to collect for the federal government and sent to them.
                              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                              Comment


                              • You may have a point on the abandonment front, but I doubt it's that simple. Fucking Harry Reid better not get re-elected after this clusterfuck.
                                ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X