History repeats itself...

[Forever_frost]

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.

[lowthreeohz]

How can you pay for that which has no cost associated?

Assessed, not associated.

[Scott Mc]

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.

[YALE]

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!

[Forever_frost]

tax value not assessed ≠ no tax value.

How can you pay for that which has no cost associated?

[lowthreeohz]

tax value not assessed ≠ no tax value.

[Forever_frost]

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.

[YALE]

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.

[Forever_frost]

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.

http://www.garfieldhecht.com/2013/06/garfield-hecht-p-c-wins-adverse-posession-case/

[Forever_frost]

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

CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-011.html

CHAPTER 326 - POSSESSORY ACTIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LANDS

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-326.html

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)

[Forever_frost]

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.

[Trip McNeely]

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

CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-011.html

CHAPTER 326 - POSSESSORY ACTIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LANDS

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-326.html

CHAPTER 328 - FEDERAL LANDS

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-328.html

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

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-361A.html

CHAPTER 568 - GRAZING AND RANGING

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-568.html

[YALE]

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.

[Sean88gt]

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

[YALE]

By your own statement, you agree it's his land. Public land is for public use, he's a taxpayer and an American so he's public therefore A + B =C.

A: Taxpayer
B: American Citizen
C: Member of public.

I'm so glad to hear you don't have an issue with sending armed forces against a rancher. I mean courts ruled against German Americans and Italian Americans and Japanese Americans during WW2 and said it was kosher to take their stuff and put them into camps so that was peachy keen with you right?

Your math would work if you bothered to check into any laws concerning the use of public land. It isn't a free for all, and you have to stick to your allotment. It used to be a free for all, and a lot of land got wrecked hard. I'm not against the government seizing property lawfully. That's a function they have. Your comparison is cute, but it isn't relevant, or even related. It's also pretty unlikely that he has prescriptive rights. Nevada became a state before his family got there, so it was public land then, unless they sold it to the government at some point.