A man is standing in line at the store.
He takes out his wallet to pay for his items, and a $20 bill slips through his fingers and drops to the floor.
As he bends down to pick it up, another man grabs it first and exclaims "look what I found; I found $20 and I get to keep it because it was lost and I found it."
'Technically', he is correct, it 'was' on the floor, he did 'find' it and picked it up.
So, should he get to keep the $20 that he picked up?
The answer is "of course not".
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he perfect or cure his ownership by gaining possession of the property? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he have legal possession rights to the property? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he secure the property (as required under Terms & Conditions)? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he maintain the property (as required under T&C)? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he do so much as even cut one blade of grass (as required by ordinance)? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he file a property transfer affidavit with the city (as required by law)? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he pay any property taxes before he sold it (as required under T&C)? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he have a pre-sale inspection performed (as required by law) before he sold it to to "B"? No.
* After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he do 'anything' that would complete the sale, cure, or perfect his ownership in property or satisfy the terms and conditions of sale? No.
* But, did purchaser "A" sign a quit claim deed (sell) naming purchaser "B" as the new owner? 'Technically', yes he did.
* If you are a judge on a court, do you feel that by merely signing a deed that somehow all of the issues cited above are now cured? Fixed?
* Should judge say "Well, 'technically' he 'did' find it on the ground, er, uh, rather he 'did' type up and sign a quit claim deed - so that changes everything and my hands are tied"?
* Do we really think that the intent of the statute of limitations, particularly in this type of situation, was to give a post-sale tax auction purchaser the most amount of years possible to sit on a property, do nothing with a property, and not even take possession of a property?
The answers are "no", "no", and "of course not".
I don't know about you, but in my experience judges are more astute than that - and they are acutely aware of the many sidesteps that people have attempted to use to their benefit to skirt the laws or their responsibility. If 'I'm' a judge or trier of fact in this matter, I don't see where any action had been made by purchaser "A" or purchaser "B" which changes this property from what is was on the day that the county treasure sold it in 2010: a tax-sale acquired property, still subject to all of the terms, conditions, and statute of limitations as any other tax-sale acquired property: 10 years.
More importantly, consider that:
A) The public has made serious outcry about these post-sale abandonments where people buy these cheap properties and then let them blight the neighborhood.
B) The county has been forced to respond to the public to try to enact policies which prevents these very situations of deadbeat purchasers (reverter clauses, pre-sale clauses).
C) The legislature has been forced to respond to the county to try to enact legislation which prevents these very situations of deadbeat purchasers.
D) The courts have been forced to respond to the public, the county, and the legislature to try to enforce the existing laws regarding these very situations of deadbeat purchasers.
E) If the legal question is: Since I as a citizen owner of a property cannot let a property sit around blighting the neighborhood for x many years without taking an ownership responsibility, then should the county be allowed to do so? As a citizen, I would strongly argue "no, the county should not enjoy such special privilege" - and therefore the statute of limitations begins for one entity on the day that it ends for the previous entity, regardless of whether that entity is a citizen owner or the county.
By virtue of all the above, and especially in situations where there is no clear-cut or previous ruling on this type of legal question, I would very much like my chances if this matter were to go to a court of law. It appears that I'd have a lot of support on my 'I'm-not-the-deadbeat' side.
Your pushback is appreciated.
I often try to help by giving feedback playing both sides of the table.
NOW that you've given defense, if you have a moment tell me what would be your best plaintiff argument to win such a case?
Thanks.
And just for the record, it's worthy of noting that in a matter such as this what is at issue is the purchaser's "title" in the property, not the purchaser's "deed". There is a difference.

