Adverse Possession and Payment of Property Taxes

[spydrworks]

My question involves real estate located in the State of: CA

Can a written agreement between the owner of the property and a resident stating earnings from working would be allocated towards taxes on the property as a condition to live there be enough to prove the resident paid the taxes on the property?

This agreement was written in 2001.

Considering all other criteria are satisfiable for adverse possession...

There is a default recorded on the property and a trustee sale listed prior to a short sale, but without a sale and the short sale option has expired. Apparently the property is said to be pending auction, but the owner is still the recorded owner.

What needs to be done if resident is claiming adverse possession? Who do they notify to stop the auction?

It's to my understanding (correct this if it's wrong) that since the owner was still the recorded owner as of the date resident can claim adverse possession, then the claim should be valid.

[LandSurveyor]

Sounds as if the 2001 agreement may have created a situation of permissive use of the property. If so, no claim of adverse possession can start while the agreement is in effect.

[spydrworks]

Sounds as if the 2001 agreement may have created a situation of permissive use of the property. If so, no claim of adverse possession can start while the agreement is in effect.

The work covered property taxes all these years, but the time for adverse possession began years later.

Permissive use ended in 2005, but the earliest that can be shown (in writing) is 2006 and employment was not terminated. He breached the agreement by not paying some bills while increasing work load and deducting between $3,000 and $4,000 in yearly wages as to keep the tax burden of the agreement intact and then repeatedly expressed wishes for the person to leave by means of extortion.

Considering other factors too it seems the owner wants to avoid legal repercussions (there are reasons to believe the owner is involved with tax evasion and mortgage fraud).

[jk]

Permissive use ended in 2005, but the earliest that can be shown (in writing) is 2006 and employment was not terminated.

Can a written agreement between the owner of the property and a resident stating earnings from working would be allocated towards taxes on the property as a condition to live there be enough to prove the resident paid the taxes on the property?

does the person claiming AP have a receipt showing they paid the property taxes? If not, they were not paying the property taxes. They were no more paying the taxes than a tenant in a house is paying the taxes. Of course some of the money they pay towards living there is used to pay the taxes but that does not mean they were paying the taxes. But beyond that, as long as the money was being withheld in exchange for them being allowed to live there, there is no AP.

Who do they notify to stop the auction?

You're kidding, right? If they file a quiet title suit, the auction may be suspended due to the pending legal action but other than that, there is no reason to and no ability to halt the auction.

What needs to be done if resident is claiming adverse possession?

they need to file a suit against the owner at the moment

[LandSurveyor]

Permissive use ended in 2005, but the earliest that can be shown (in writing) is 2006 and employment was not terminated. He breached the agreement by not paying some bills while increasing work load and deducting between $3,000 and $4,000 in yearly wages as to keep the tax burden of the agreement intact and then repeatedly expressed wishes for the person to leave by means of extortion.

So how did permissive use end? Did one of you sue the other for breach of contract? Continuing your employment would imply acceptance by both parties of whatever the situation actually was. My guess is that the contract might well still be in effect. You are the one who will have to go to court and prove that the use became hostile to the holder of recorded title, and you will have to prove that you were the direct payer of the taxes for the statutory period of five years.

If you were wronged in some way under the contract, you can sue for breach and damages. That would be your remedy.

[spydrworks]

does the person claiming AP have a receipt showing they paid the property taxes? If not, they were not paying the property taxes. They were no more paying the taxes than a tenant in a house is paying the taxes. Of course some of the money they pay towards living there is used to pay the taxes but that does not mean they were paying the taxes. But beyond that, as long as the money was being withheld in exchange for them being allowed to live there, there is no AP.

There's the written agreement that details property tax as room and board. Lease agreements do not have that in contract and the person is not a tenant in a landlord/tenant relationship. Permission to reside here was denied since 2005.

You're kidding, right? If they file a quiet title suit, the auction may be suspended due to the pending legal action but other than that, there is no reason to and no ability to halt the auction.

Auction is supposedly pending. It's not active or listed for pending auction.

From what I understand the title awarded to the claimant of AP is a new title. This basically says the record owner would still be in debt and the bank would have to file suit against the owner rather than foreclosure, because the lender loses the property too.

they need to file a suit against the owner at the moment

According to the literature here:

http://www.stimmel-law.com/articles/...re%20Land.html

"...the cases are clear on the right of the adverse possessor not to bring action but to let time pass hoping that the title holder will continue to ignore the possession. "California law does not require a plaintiff to bring an action to perfect his or her claim of adverse possession. Rather, it is the record owner--not the intruder--who must bring an action within five years after adverse possession commences in order to recover the property."

Action against the "intruder" was made several times, but the owner did not continue actions in court, but rather through his own means of extortion.

[jk]

spydrworks;543478]There's the written agreement that details property tax as room and board.

then he is paying room and board, not property taxes.

Lease agreements do not have that in contract and the person is not a tenant in a landlord/tenant relationship

. then explain the situation. From what I read it is.

Permission to reside here was denied since 2005.

is money still being paid to allow him to live there?

Auction is supposedly pending. It's not active or listed for pending auction.

you make no sense. Either there is an auction scheduled or there isn't. It still doesn't change what I said.

From what I understand the title awarded to the claimant of AP is a new title.

there is no "new title" because title is simply a term used to express a chain of holders of ownership and other sorts of interest.

This basically says the record owner would still be in debt and the bank would have to file suit against the owner rather than foreclosure, because the lender loses the property too.

Until the person claiming AP files suit, he has nothing other than a claim. Unless the quiet title action is completed prior to the foreclosure, the bank then becomes the owner of the property and the suit would have to be amended to include them as holder of title.

"...the cases are clear on the right of the adverse possessor not to bring action but to let time pass hoping that the title holder will continue to ignore the possession. "California law does not require a plaintiff to bring an action to perfect his or her claim of adverse possession. Rather, it is the record owner--not the intruder--who must bring an action within five years after adverse possession commences in order to recover the property."

he does not have to take an action to have a claim but to have it acknowledged, he does. Until he files suit, there will be no change of record as to the holder of title and as such, no proof of ownership by the person claiming AP.

Action against the "intruder" was made several times, but the owner did not continue actions in court, but rather through his own means of extortion.

I have no idea what that means or what relevance it has to the situation.

[spydrworks]

So how did permissive use end? Did one of you sue the other for breach of contract? Continuing your employment would imply acceptance by both parties of whatever the situation actually was. My guess is that the contract might well still be in effect. You are the one who will have to go to court and prove that the use became hostile to the holder of recorded title, and you will have to prove that you were the direct payer of the taxes for the statutory period of five years.

He just pestered and threatened the person to leave, yet made it impossible for the person to leave by means of extortion. There are emails, notes, and business receipts showing extortion, eviction notices and a voice recorded threat against the person's life spanning from 2005 to present.

If you were wronged in some way under the contract, you can sue for breach and damages. That would be your remedy.

There were a lot of wrongs done. Just not sure which direction to take it all with zero $$$ at the moment. The owner is in some deep trouble and it's just getting deeper and it's only a matter of time before authorities catch up to him. There are gambling problems, tax problems, medical problems, business problems...the man is near $300,000 in mortgage debt alone and purposely allowing personal, state and federal tax liens to pile up from the business onto the property. He's swindled other employees and those who he has hired for renovations some years ago. It's a mess.

It is doubtful the owner is mentally capable of handling the situation properly. For the resident employee to argue him while living under the same roof seems would surely result in physical injury.

This has been the problem for the resident employee when it comes to leaving or filing suit. All this person has been able to do is continue taking care of the place and hope for ownership to change hands, so he can be escorted out without placing themselves in immediate danger. The resident is flat broke, because the owner extorted it all.

Adverse possession may be an avenue to preserve the safety and well being of the resident employee, so this guy could be removed from the property without fear of him legally returning to the property and without the resident becoming homeless, so this person could be free to do what is needed to record a new title on the property or find a way to vacate without becoming homeless.

[LandSurveyor]

He just pestered and threatened the person to leave, yet made it impossible for the person to leave by means of extortion.

Well, to quote my old friend Paul Simon, "you get out of the shack, JacK'.

This story is getting more and more bizarre, with extortion, threats of bodily harm, gambling problems, tax problems, medical problems, swindling, etc.

It's sounding like reality TV at this point. There may be terrible wrongs involved, but who here can right them?

If the "subject" of the post has no $$$ then there is no hope of AP as it will require a five figure investment just to get it started.

If there are actual threats of bodily harm, it costs nothing to ask for protection from the police or the authorities. Don't tell us that there are other problems about which you do not want the police to know which prevent this.

[spydrworks]

then he is paying room and board, not property taxes.

The note states:

"It is understood work done by (employee) will cover food and bills and cover property taxes as room and board for and while living at (address)."

It is specified. It was part of the terms of residency as an employee.

is money still being paid to allow him to live there?

Only through means of extortion and at the present moment only certain utilities. The owner does still demand work and continues to use artwork for the business that belongs to the resident employee...but at the same time pressuring the resident employee to leave and yet making it impossible for the resident to leave.

You might want to read the replies to LandSurveyor.

you make no sense. Either there is an auction scheduled or there isn't. It still doesn't change what I said.

The resident employee was told there's an auction pending, but records fail to show one actually scheduled.

There is a notice of a trustee sale recorded in December last year, but without a sale and it was done prior to a short sale, which has expired. The only new records at the county assessor's database are tax liens.

there is no "new title" because title is simply a term used to express a chain of holders of ownership and other sorts of interest.

According to the what the law firm's website has published:

"WHAT TITLE DO YOU GET?

Unlike when you buy property and get a title insurance policy showing uninterrupted sales to the current holder, adverse possession creates a new beginning: in effect, you are starting title all over again. The reader is advised to read our article Real Estate Ownership and Transactions in the United States.

Adverse possession is a means of acquiring title to property, after lapse of time, by continued possession. (See C.C. 1007; see 7 Powell § 1012; 3 Am.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession § 1 et seq.; 1 Ogden § 4.6 et seq.; 3 Miller & Starr § 19:1 et seq.; 1959 A.S. 480; 1963 A.S. 511; 1964 A.S. 559; 1967 A.S. 450; 18 A.L.R.3d 678 [adverse possession by government]; 1 P. of F., Adverse Possession, Proof 1 et seq.; 39 P. of F.2d 261.)

The title so acquired is absolute. (C.C. 1007.) It is a new title, founded on the disseizin, and not the old estate of the former owner, although it is of the same nature and extent. (Williams v. Sutton (1872) 43 C. 65, 7.

Adverse possession differs from prescription, which relates to acquiring a right (such as an easement) after lapse of time, by use. (See Thomas v. England (1866) 71 C. 456, 458, 12 P. 491; Cleary v. Trimble (1964) 229 C.A.2d 1, 6, 39 C.R. 776, citing the text; 7 Cal. L. Rev. 65; 3 Cal. L. Rev. 415; 7 Powell § 1012; infra, § 462.) The Property Restatement (§ 221) uses the term statutory period to mean the time stated for the acquisition of an estate in land by adverse possession, and period of prescription as the time for acquiring easements and profits by prescription."

Until the person claiming AP files suit, he has nothing other than a claim. Unless the quiet title action is completed prior to the foreclosure, the bank then becomes the owner of the property and the suit would have to be amended to include them as holder of title.

How does one file for a quiet title?

I have no idea what that means or what relevance it has to the situation.

Read response to LandSurveyor. This seems to bear great significance considering the resident employee has been threatened to leave and yet extorted making it impossible to leave. This may be the balance between a valid claim (residing without permission) and one that is not valid (residing with permission).

Well, to quote my old friend Paul Simon, "you get out of the shack, JacK'.

This story is getting more and more bizarre, with extortion, threats of bodily harm, gambling problems, tax problems, medical problems, swindling, etc.

It's sounding like reality TV at this point. There may be terrible wrongs involved, but who here can right them?

If the "subject" of the post has no $$$ then there is no hope of AP as it will require a five figure investment just to get it started.

If there are actual threats of bodily harm, it costs nothing to ask for protection from the police or the authorities. Don't tell us that there are other problems about which you do not want the police to know which prevent this.

How can the resident employee protect themselves from the owner posting bail and returning to the property while the resident employee is still there?

One promising factor...the resident employee is making plans with family...either borrowing money to vacate or a relative retire and use the pension to move here. Family is out of state. The relative is very ill and needs to retire, so plans are being made to take care of that situation and in a way to I guess for the two to compile resources to help each other out. This is a mother/daughter effort. There might be some money to cover costs for AP depending on family decisions.

It's going to be AP or vacate, but time is needed to secure safety for the time the resident employee cannot vacate if they cannot claim AP.

Yes, the situation is bizarre and getting out of control, if not already. The resident employee really wants to put an end to it all and move on with their life. Perhaps this person can someday write a book and someone would want to turn it into a reality series lol. Shouldn't laugh, but there are situations in real life that bizarre and worse. This is one of them.