Abandoned Property

its called adverse possession look this up and yes you have to pay taxes on it for a number of years untill its yours but basicly you just walk into an old house fix it up and live there then after 5 or 10 years its yours. then you can patent it. the key to this is you have to live there.

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Patents don't work that way Weis.. if a thorough search is done on the land, one would probably find that a patent has already been issued and then you would be requirred to work within the parameters estblished by the law that initiated the original patent.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by str8razor

its called adverse possession look this up and yes you have to pay taxes on it for a number of years untill its yours but basicly you just walk into an old house fix it up and live there then after 5 or 10 years its yours. then you can patent it. the key to this is you have to live there.

Hmmmmm. what about receiving mail there to prove "residence"?

[weasel]

as described in your ecclessia.org link, weishaupt, you don't have to LIVE there persay. But I'd rather not pay back taxes and prop taxes for 5 years before I can patent it(and then not pay taxes!). When I find an abandoned place, I'll just 'stand on the land.'

[wisper]

Originally Posted by weasel

as described in your ecclessia.org link, weishaupt, you don't have to LIVE there persay. But I'd rather not pay back taxes and prop taxes for 5 years before I can patent it(and then not pay taxes!). When I find an abandoned place, I'll just 'stand on the land.'

In a home I owned in the Seattle area, we were greeted early one Saturday morning, by a guy who owned a large vacant lot just west of ours. He had surveyor stakes in the ground and fence posts and was in the process of stringing a wire fence that took away a driveway half the deck attached to our house, a garden, and some beautiful trees at the rear of the lot.
I asked who he was and what in the hell he thought he was doing. He answered that he inherited the property from his recently deceased father and had the property surveyed, and said that the property lines came well into our property. I challenged his allegation and suggested that he should cease and desist, for as far as I knew he was a trespasser. He left, and I took the fence poles out of the ground and threw them over onto the vacant lot. I wanted all to know, that I gave no merit to his claim, even though he had the survey. I called the realtor from whom I had purchased the property. They were in shock and not any help ( that is they had no immediate answer for me,and I was fit to be tied). So I called the title company, and said it looked like they may have screwed up, and wanted to dump my problem in their lap, with the threat of collecting on the insurance. My education began--they said if I read the title insurance policy in detail, I would discover that if I had not ordered a survey as part of the policy application, they were not responsible.This part of the education was that my $750 for title insurance only covered the same lien search I could have gotten with a phone call to the recorders office. Since then I have refused to pay for title insurance, whether buying or selling!
I proceeded with an attorney who was an experienced adverse possession guy and we went after the poperty in adverse possession, and got quiete title
with out a trial, by gathering eye-witnesses that stated the property lines were as we enjoyed, for the past several owners, and that the open use of the property and the improvements were all done openly and over 10 years at least ( I think the Washington law said at least 8-10 years). We presented all the depositions, the law and rules surrounding *adverse possession*, and they gave up and took their lawyers advice and stopped all action and the deed was corrected giving the new legal desription to our property. No one ever brought up any property tax issues, and if they had, I would have fought it as well. The stupid thing, in retrospect, is that I probably could have just offered the guy a couple thousand, and did a title change, but as it turned out we did all the lawyers work, gathering witnesses, names and time tables for his legal aid to document, and I ended up with a $12,000 bill, oh well, now I am aware of jurisdictionary and the Graves connection!
I am not familiar with the expression "standing on the land". Is that a term of art? We were required by statutes in Washington, to show that we had openly, and I think the term was *agressively* used the property as our own(we, being all owners in the chain of titles) for the minimum period of time, with no complaint, proceedings or notices!

[weasel]

go back to the first page or 2 of this discussion. weis' posts a link to a page that explains the whole common law "standing on the land" thing.

[wisper]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I recently read that there was an option to claim land vacant of law or people under the doctrine of terrus nullius... comments appreciated

The land in the US was granted to to many different entities. Some by treaty, some by purchase, some by war acts. The grants that went to individuals by name, gave petent to such people. After the war with England, new territories and purchases placed the land under the ownership of the Fed. As people moved West, the patents were issued in homestead, and in other grant and sales. The lands that should have been the Indian's was bought by the government, and on occasion, private contracts with tribes. Terrus Nullius is petty much administered by world courts today(THE U.N.) and has only been brought up a few times ( in Australia, Japan, and areas in the near East and African desert area. Since the gov. holds title to BLM land, I don't think you could claim abandonment or any type of adverse possession, as what court could possibly have jurisdiction? The land is possibly a reserve, a park, or when in doubt, title is in the Fed. The properties identified as abandoned are usually on huge cliffs, swamps,or in the desert states, in flood and wash planes. Even the abandoned and reserved properties are tracked by the recorders and the assessors, in city and county and state jurisdictions. A thing to keep in mind is that the mineral rights, even on patented property usually is retained by the FED. Anyone can apply for leases on Blm properties for mining etc. and people will tell you if you enter a shack or the mine, you may well be shot (legally, I think). If you think about it when you purchase land, ask for the price to release all mineral rights. I met a man here in Arizona, who picked up 125 acres for tax default, got the mineral rights and some prospectors found veins of silver ,valued in potentially millions.

[weasel]

the oceans are still terrus nullius....so as soon as I figure out a way to put a home on the sea floor, I'll have it made.

[wisper]

Originally Posted by weasel

go back to the first page or 2 of this discussion. weis' posts a link to a page that explains the whole common law "standing on the land" thing.

Thanks! I went back as you suggested. I was and am quite disappointed that even though I am aware that the majority here profess belief in religions and higher power, I think that when one offers a solution to a request, that it is only polite to observe context. If some one asks about a law (in context in the real world), to send them to a site that is a front for conversion IMO, is an insult, or at least a false and deceptive response.

We don't know each other here for the most part, and I certainly do not intend offense. I too am thankfull for this website, as it is one of the few sites where non-flame debate takes place. The last thing I am interested in is a sermon, or a bible story that doesn't answer a real objective concern. That site made me think that the writers think things have not changed since the old testament descriptions. If in going to the bible, the answer to the things discussed here are answered, I'd suggest that you guys have a thread where you can provide real examples of using the bible in court helped win a case. Also , this could be a way of strengthening faith, if it worked.