Private property versus Estate

[andrewmitch]

I am starting to think that most of the ideas folks are posting are valid. However, will they hold up in court?

Given that all courts are merely an extension of the corporate governments I can't see how the battle can be won. Having said that, I think the crux of most of our battles begins w/ getting our cases tried in Common Law Court; and I have no idea of how to make that happen....

[gldskr]

farmer

There is one issue I keep harping on and that is jurisdiction. The de jure and de facto cannot be mixed. Once they are, the inferior of the two controls.

Real estate is something that means the same in both jurisdictions. How it is applied in each is where the differences occur. One is regulated by statute the other by contract.

In the de jure jurisdiction the contract is the law. In the de facto jurisdiction the contract is merely an addendum to a much larger contract that includes statutory requirements. It exits out of the operation of law, a quasi-contract.

Originally posted by farmer
It comes down to- take the scenario posed by Lawdog: the sheriff shows up looking to evict you from your property so you contest this in court. Will it fly?

There is a doctrine of "gaining possession in the ordinary course of business, which Lawdog refers to as "notice".

Notice is a statutoy construct that only applies to entities. If you look at the history of real estate transfers before recordation, you will find that the abstract of the property (the originals of the chain of title) followed its new owner. It is part of the property. Today, what you get are certified copies from the recorders office. Not from the de jure recorder, but from the de facto real estate division that has been established to handle statutory transactions.

Why do you suppose that land and real estate are required to be recorded? Because there is a permanancy factor that other commodities do not retain. More importantly is the control factor. Control the land and you control the man. It works perfectly, don't you think?

In Lawdog's scenario where the sheriff comes knocking, there can only be one defense, jurisdiction. If you have possession and title to the land with a properly accepted land patent, there can be no question as to who is the rightful absolute owner. The sheriff is without jurisdiction, as are any potential plaintiffs or supposed courts. They all presume that an entity is the subject of their actions.

Once you've stepped beyond jurisdiction you're in statutory territory and it is uphill from there.

Originally posted by andrewmitch
Given that all courts are merely an extension of the corporate governments I can't see how the battle can be won. Having said that, I think the crux of most of our battles begins w/ getting our cases tried in Common Law Court; and I have no idea of how to make that happen....

No, the crux of the battle begins with keeping youself out of de facto courts.

gldskr

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

gldskr's post above just gave me an idea:

gldskr

Notice is a statutory construct that only applies to entities. If you look at the history of real estate transfers before recordation, you will find that the abstract of the property (the originals of the chain of title) followed its new owner. It is part of the property. Today, what you get are certified copies from the recorders office. Not from the de jure recorder, but from the de facto real estate division that has been established to handle statutory transactions.

How about record the transfer this way- a default judgment in court! Make the contract, sue on it, get judgment, record the notice...but not a new deed.

There is still "how to eliminate property taxes"- the problem as I see it is that the current registration is 'presumptive'. So short of a method that causes the record to be eliminated or canceled: it's a question of establishing "foreign" property vs "subject" property.

Having once endorsed a de facto status, how to redeem to de jure...

[rottweiler]

Start with this.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...nty/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...ons/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...rms/index.html

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

I am starting to think that most of the ideas folks are posting are valid. However, will they hold up in court?

Given that all courts are merely an extension of the corporate governments I can't see how the battle can be won. Having said that, I think the crux of most of our battles begins w/ getting our cases tried in Common Law Court; and I have no idea of how to make that happen....

[andrewmitch]

I think there could be something to this. In other words, you want to be considered foreign to the taxing jurisdiction.

And to the point about courts, yes it is always better to stay out of court. So do you think this issue could be won via the Affidavit process w/o having to go to court?

[Lawdog]

OK, for those of you who persist in being knuckleheads on this issue, here's the word from a standard reference work. I refer to The Law of Property, (2nd Edition, West Pub. 1993), by Roger A. Cunningham (Professor Emeritus, U. of Michigan School of Law), William B. Stoebuck (Professor, U. of Washington School of Law), and Dale A. Whitman (Professor, Brigham Young Univ. School of Law). Any good law library should have a copy. From section 11.9 thereof:

"Ownership of land can exist only because it is recognized and enforced by the legal institutions of the state. Hence, it is not surprising that virtually all modern governments have developed and operate systems which permit interested persons to discover who owns any parcel." p. 823

"If the owner of land purports to make two competing or inconsistent conveyances, their priority is ordinarily determined by the chronological order of their delivery. To illustrate, suppose O, who owns the land, delivers a deed to A. The next day O delivers another deed of the same land to B. A will have the title to the land and B will have nothing except a possible claim against O for fraud or on any covenants of title in the O-B deed. The same principles apply if O delivers leases, grants of easements, or any other sorts of conveyances. For example, if O gives mortgages to both A and B, the first mortgage in time will have priority, and the second in time will be junior to it.

The recording system has the rather extraordinary ability to reverse, in some situations, the results described above. The recording acts give O and his or her successors a power, under certain circumstances, to give B a conveyance which has priority over A's. If both conveyances are deeds, this means that B will have the land and A will have nothing. For this surprising result to occur, two factors must be present. First, A must have failed to record the first deed; a conveyance which is properly recorded can never be divested by the operation of the recording acts. Second, B's behavior must be such as to qualify for the protection of the act. On this point there is a good deal of variation among the states, but their statutes can be divided into three general groups. About half of the statutes protect B if he or she is a bona fide purchaser for value; they are usually called "notice" statutes, although the term is somewhat misleading since both lack of notice [of the prior conveyance] and payment of value are usually essential to B's protection. Whether B records is irrelevant under this approach. Roughly the other half of the statutes impose the same bona fide purchaser qualification, but add to it the further requirement that B record before A's deed is recorded. Since this conjures a mental picture...of A and B racing one another to the courthouse, this second group of statutes is usually called "notice-race" [or "race-notice"]. A third type of statute pays no attention to B's bona fide purchaser status, but simply defeats A if B records first. Only three states, Delaware, Louisiana and North Carolina, have acts applying this pure "race" approach to the general run of conveyances, although a few others employ it for mortgages or other special types of conveyances.

In general, no one is obliged to record anything, and there is no direct penalty if a conveyance goes unrecorded....But the recording acts provide a strong incentive for every grantee to record, for one who fails to do so is taking the risk that his or her grantor will make a subsequent conveyance that will diminish or destroy the efficacy of the prior transfer." pp. 825-826

So don't take moronic risks. Record your deed.

As to the tax issue: I defy anyone to cite me any legal authority (statute, case law, etc.) that stands for the proposition that the ability of the government to tax your land is contingent upon you first recording it with them.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

As to the tax issue: I defy anyone to cite me any legal authority (statute, case law, etc.) that stands for the proposition that the ability of the government to tax your land is contingent upon you first recording it with them.

Land is not taxed. Value is taxed. It is an ad valorum tax.

Land is not sold. It is granted. Buildings and improvements are sold.

According to Texas law the owner is the one who pays the tax.

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by palani

Land is not sold. It is granted. Buildings and improvements are sold.

WHO grants the land? The town? What makes the town have the authority to grant land? Town's don't create the land. Do towns have permission from the creator of the land to grant the land to the rest of us?

Also, if I were to buy a house lot or parcel of land, am I purchasing a grant? I thought "grants" were free of charge. Or am I simply purchasing the "rights" to use the land?

Please do not take these questions as an attack, Palani, I'm just trying to figure out the logic here.


I'm beginning to think that the only way to truly get out of paying property tax is to convince the town to abolish the property tax all together.

[andrewmitch]

At least in Connecticut, the term used in the statutes is "Personal Property" (something to the effect that all personal property is subject to taxation).

So define personal property and define personal. As far as I know, I am not a person; therefore I have no personal property.

[gldskr]

Originally posted by Lawdog

"Ownership of land can exist only because it is recognized and enforced by the legal institutions of the state. Hence, it is not surprising that virtually all modern governments have developed and operate systems which permit interested persons to discover who owns any parcel." p. 823

Note the statutory jurisdiction. I agree that this is how it works in these instances, but that has not been my point.

Originally posted by Lawdog
In general, no one is obliged to record anything, and there is no direct penalty if a conveyance goes unrecorded....But the recording acts provide a strong incentive for every grantee to record, for one who fails to do so is taking the risk that his or her grantor will make a subsequent conveyance that will diminish or destroy the efficacy of the prior transfer." pp. 825-826

The recording acts provide the carrot and stick to statutory transactions, effectively circumventing the Law of Contracts and the Statute of Frauds. It must be so if the "government" is going to insure the title. My point stands though, that the main purpose of recordation is to indemnify the lenders, as the victims of fraud are on their own. To condone such a system is pure heresy from a de jure POV. Thankfully we have alternatives, regardless of what Lawdog or others may say to the contrary.

gldskr