Land Patent Instructions

Greetings all, I recently bought an old patented homestead in the national forest and did a search to find info on land patents and found this thread. First I want to thank all of the posters to date, increadible education, spent all day yesterday holed up reading it and related links. I'll be starting my paper work this week but in my ponderings a question appeared. There is an easement on the property that has become a bit of a thorn between me and a neighbor. If the easement was granted by a non patent holder is it still legally enforceable?

I will be getting my certified copies of the patent on Monday and will find out then if the grantor of the easement was in fact a patent holder or not.
Thanks
R

[citizensoldier]

Whether a patent holder or non-patent holder agreed to the easement or not is irrelevant. A previous owner of the land and the entity using the easement entered into a contractual agreement that you, as the new owner, are not a party. Once title to the property changes ownership, the contractual agreement ceases. It will be up to you to decide if you want to enter into a new contractual agreement with said entity so they can continue to use the easement or not.

Wouldn't it be nice to charge the Water Utility for Crossing your property?

Henry Franklin

I gather from the discussion that a land patent must be granted -

That means a grant deed. But tell me, what if I have assembled a patent for my property per the instructions in this thread? Do I grant it to myself? Or how do I put the patent in my name?

[summergarden]

Henry...Maybe the water company originally paid a one time fee to the owner of the land when the pipes were laid. I know that in Colorado, an oil company did it when they crossed land belonging to my mother.

On the land patent issue.... I'm in California, and in about '75 or '76 volunteered to go around to houses ( used to sell real estate ) and get petitions signed for Prop. 13 to releive property owners of the astonomical taxes. The measure got on the ballot, was voted on and won. Thank goodness. The organization was the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. He has since passed away.

In '93, I first learned about the Summa Case. Sent away to BLM for the original grant... also got other copies from County Recorder and the original surveyors map from Dept. of Public Works.. My grant dates back to 1851 when the Act to ascertain the private land claims was enacted. In my particular grant Maria Rita Baldez was the petitioner. It took 20 years for the grant to finally be confirmed for her 1441+ acres by Ulysses S. Grant.

After learning about all this, my son and I called the Attorney, Jon Coupal, for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association with all the information from the Summa case and talked to him at length. He never even heard of the word "allodial" before, let alone the Summa case. I sent the case and all other information pertinent to him. Weeks later, telephoned. He never returned the call. Called again. No return call. Even called in Nevada where Summa was located and their attorney's never called back.

You would think that the attorney working for the man who was dedicated to reducing property taxes would have used this information and gone further... well, he evidently got further by not using it. After all, if the 10 million acres of land in California that was acquired through the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, were free of servitude, such as the land in Venice penninsula by the Ballogna Lagoon which was owned by the predecessors in interest of the Summa Corp, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO HIS JOB ?

Mr. Coupal, is now the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association.This Treaty is unlike any other of the treatys entered into by the United States. I wish that all of you who own land in California would read the Summa Case. The case cite has been posted numerous times above.
The court said that, that land, that was acquired by this Teaty never passed to the State when California was admitted into the runion of states under it's constitution 1849.

When the claims were made by the inhabitants on those lands, anyone, and the State of California was given an opportunity to also make a claim in it's sovereign capacity. There was a time limit to submit those claims. The judge in the Summa case specifically points out that the State of California failed to make a claim and is forever barred. Both the City of Los Angeles and the State of California were barred from claiming the land eminent domain.
Additionally, the grants were free of servitude according to the same conditions as previously held under the Mexican government.

Summergarden

[summergarden]

Henry...Maybe the water company originally paid a one time fee to the owner of the land when the pipes were laid. I know that in Colorado, an oil company did it when they crossed land belonging to my mother.

On the land patent issue.... I'm in California, and in about '75 or '76 volunteered to go around to houses ( used to sell real estate ) and get petitions signed for Prop. 13 to relieve property owners of the astonomical taxes. The measure got on the ballot, was voted on and won. Thank goodness. The organization was the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. He has since passed away.

In '93, I first learned about the Summa Case. Sent away to BLM for the original grant... also got other copies from County Recorder and the original surveyors map from Dept. of Public Works.. My grant dates back to 1851 when the Act to ascertain the private land claims was enacted. In my particular grant Maria Rita Baldez was the petitioner. It took 20 years for the grant to finally be confirmed for her 1441+ acres by Ulysses S. Grant.

After learning about all this, my son and I called the Attorney, Jon Coupal, for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association with all the information from the Summa case and talked to him at length. He never even heard of the word "allodial" before, let alone the Summa case. I sent the case and all other information pertinent to him. Weeks later, telephoned. He never returned the call. Called again. No return call. Even called in Nevada where Summa was located and their attorney's never called back.

You would think that the attorney working for the man who was dedicated to reducing property taxes would have used this information and gone further... well, he evidently got further by not using it. After all, if the 10 million acres of land in California that was acquired through the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, were free of servitude, such as the land in Venice penninsula by the Ballogna Lagoon which was owned by the predecessors in interest of the Summa Corp, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO HIS JOB ?

Mr. Coupal, is now the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association.This Treaty is unlike any other of the treatys entered into by the United States. I wish that all of you who own land in California would read the Summa Case. The case cite has been posted numerous times above.
The court said that, that land, that was acquired by this Teaty never passed to the State when California was admitted into the runion of states under it's constitution 1849.

When the claims were made by the inhabitants on those lands, anyone, and the State of California was given an opportunity to also make a claim in it's sovereign capacity. There was a time limit to submit those claims. The judge in the Summa case specifically points out that the State of California failed to make a claim and is forever barred. Both the City of Los Angeles and the State of California were barred from claiming the land eminent domain.
Additionally, the grants were free of servitude according to the same conditions as previously held under the Mexican government.

Summergarden

[KITCHIE]

I was reading through these posts yesterday and cought that someone had mentioned a MASTER TITLE PLAT.

So I went to the county records office and asked the clerk if I could look at the MTP. She looked at me like my hair was on fire and turned to the other clerk and she just said I never heard of that. (The whole time the clerk was VERY pleasant and accomodating) She said let me go ask my Supv. and her Supv knew what it was because "mining companies are the only ones that use those"

So she took me to the big book and it was interesting and there were several companies that indeed had brought the patent or grant forward.

So my next stop tomorrow is the state land office. This is going to be very interesting. My purpose you see is to bring my land grant forward and then help all of my neighbors get theirs on the record as well.

Here in Nevady we are in a battle for our water rights and our land. My neighborhood (Which covers about 600 sq miles) is THE target and I am to stop it.

Kitchie

Kitchie... does this involve a recent change in Law as it affects one of the indian nations of your locale? If it does, let me know, and I will send you the link to the reference on the new law.

Jerry.

[KITCHIE]

Jerrypitts...

No this doesn't affect the Piute Indians, however the county is trying very hard to include them.

The Piute Tribe sold off the valley I live in about 52 years ago to Rocketdine. Then Rocketdine sold it to a developer who created this giant subdivision and they sold the parcel to the Brady's and I boutgy from them.

I am Hoping that there were ag water rights also granted cuz they'll have to return those to me!

Thanks JerryPitts for the additional help!

Kitchie

[idknow]

Originally Posted by lizardhaven

63 C Am Jur 2d PUBLIC LANDS
section 105:
if title to public land has passed under federal law the property is subject to state law including that relating to liens. an owner may create a lein and the lein may be enforced by forclosure. THE LIEN OF A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT IS NOT, HOWEVER, SUCH A VOLUNTARY LIEN.

I also found a legal basis for taxing land patents held in adverse posession (squatters) this does not affect homesteading grants, i am still looking
NOTICE THAT PAYING TAXES IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE GRANT, BUT IF THE TERMS IN THE GRANT DO NOT INCLUDE OBLIGATION TO PAY PROPERTY TAX, WOULD IT TECHNICALLY APPLY?

:
43 usc 1068:

1068. Lands held in adverse possession; issuance of patent;
reservation of minerals; conflicting claims

Release date: 2005-03-01

The Secretary of the Interior
(a) shall, whenever it shall be shown to his satisfaction that a tract
of public land has been held in good faith and in peaceful, adverse,
possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or
color of title for more than twenty years, and that valuable
improvements have been placed on such land or some part thereof has been
reduced to cultivation, or
(b) may, in his discretion, whenever it shall be shown to his
satisfaction that a tract of public land has been held in good faith and
in peaceful, adverse, possession by a claimant, his ancestors or
grantors, under claim or color of title for the period commencing not
later than January 1, 1901, to the date of application during which time
they have paid taxes levied on the land by State and local governmental
units, issue a patent for not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres of
such land upon the payment of not less than $1.25 per acre: Provided,
That where the area so held is in excess of one hundred and sixty acres
the Secretary may determine what particular subdivisions, not exceeding
one hundred and sixty acres, may be patented hereunder: Provided
further, That coal and all other minerals contained therein are reserved
to the United States; that said coal and other minerals shall be subject
to sale or disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and
mineral land laws, and permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United
States shall have the right to enter upon said lands for the purpose of
prospecting for and mining such deposits: And provided further, That no
patent shall issue under the provisions of this chapter for any tract to
which there is a conflicting claim adverse to that of the applicant,
unless and until such claim shall have been finally adjudicated in favor
of such applicant.

according to the second section of the quote of Act above, any patent given by this section would be encumbered because the UNITED STATES reserves to itself coal and other mineral rights!

This sucks!