Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I am not going to argue the point. I gave you my opinion that your SOL runs for 15 years from the date that the state transferred the land to your buyer A. You should now get an opinion from an attorney.
    I don't know what part of the statute you are not reading correctly, but you even quoted the statute yourself:

    MCL 600.5801(2)
    (2) When the defendant (purchaser "A")
    claims title (received his deed to the property)
    under some deed made by an officer of this state or of the United States (received his deed from the county)
    who is authorized to make deeds upon the sale of lands for taxes assessed and levied within this state (because the county is allowed by law to foreclose properties for nonpayment of property taxes)
    the period of limitation is 10 years. (the statute of limitations is 10 years; You have 10 years in which to go to court to get possession of the property; After that 10 years, you no longer have legal right to gain legal possession of the property.)


    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    You should now get an opinion from an attorney.
    My position "is" the opinion of an attorney.... Ironically, it's the statement from one of the members of corporation counsel - the department within the county seat which litigates the annual tax foreclosures of several thousand (sadly) tax delinquent properties every year. We weren't debating that point; it seems so basic and clear. We were discussing a different element of the tax foreclosure process and she just happened to mention the 10 year SOL.

    "Even though there is a statute of limitations of 10 years for these properties sold at auction, that's still too many years ... it 'is' a big problem ... by the time 10 years have passed a lot of those houses are falling over or somebody has vandalized them..." [approximate quote - regarding the "reverter clause" which the county started printing on the deeds that they issue starting in 2011... but for some reason it was 'not' printed on the deed that purchaser "A" received for this property when he received that deed in 2011. Likely, we theorized, it was not on the deed because his 'actual' purchase was through the "2010" tax auction. But, because the reverter clause was not printed on the deed that purchaser "A" received in 2011, the county could not do anything about the property in 'that' regard.]

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,230

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Because of the various issues here I again suggest you consult a real estate lawyer familiar with adverse possession law in your state. That bit of investment may help you avoid mistakes that could cause you to lose your adverse possession claim. You'll have just one shot at this; once the owner knows you're planning to take the property through adverse possession he'll eject you if the action fails and you'll not get an opportunity to fix the problems and try again. These things are very state law specific and to my knowledge no one here is a lawyer in your state that would know this stuff well enough to give you any firm assurance of what the rules are.

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    Let's see if I have this straight. You're a deadbeat who lost his house in foreclosure, squatted in it for ten years and now you want to steal it from the current owner. That's about as low as you can get.

    Yeah, yeah, TM, I know it's not stealing if there is a legal loophole that allows it.
    Not only is it not stealing, it is also not a low thing to do. The law is set up to try to promote economic use of property. This property owner has made no effort over the last 10 years to do anything with his property. Hasn't even bothered to eject the OP who has been getting a free ride from him over all those years. When the SOL period for the homeowner runs out (whether it is the 10 or 15 years) and he's done literally nothing with his property in that time despite being constructively on notice through the statute that he could lose it then he deserves to lose it. Property sitting unused and vacant is a blight in many cities. Best to get that property in the hands of someone who will make some productive use of it or, at the very least, will at least take the minimal steps needed to protect his own rights.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    (2) When the defendant (purchaser "A")
    claims title (received his deed to the property)
    The problem here as I see it is that your defendant is not A now. It is B, who took the property by deed from A via the quit claim deed. B claims his title from A, not from the county. Thus, on the face of it, subsection (2) would not seem to apply to you. I've not researched the case law to see if that particular point has been specifically addressed.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    My position "is" the opinion of an attorney.... Ironically, it's the statement from one of the members of corporation counsel - the department within the county seat which litigates the annual tax foreclosures of several thousand (sadly) tax delinquent properties every year. We weren't debating that point; it seems so basic and clear. We were discussing a different element of the tax foreclosure process and she just happened to mention the 10 year SOL.
    The problem with this is that she is NOT your attorney and, moreover, it does not sound like she was addressing directly the situation of what SOL applies when the purchaser at a tax sale then turns around and conveys the property to someone else. If it turns out she was wrong, you'd have no recourse against her because she's not your lawyer and you cannot rely on what she told you as legal advice.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,590

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Michigan has some laws on the books relating to squatting, trespassing, eviction, etc. with which the OP should become more familiar, specifically PA 223 and PA 224 of the 2014 session.

    The OP seems to feel that the owner would need to go to court to evict and re-take possession of the property. That is true in most states, and in Michigan prior to 2014. The situation is now changed.
    Resistance is not futile; it is voltage divided by current.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The problem here as I see it is that your defendant is not A now. It is B, ......
    I was addressing the statement that budwad made:

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I gave you my opinion that your SOL runs for 15 years from the date that the state transferred the land to your buyer A.
    It is relevant that the correct SOL be ascertained because if the SOL for purchaser "A" actually was 15 years to begin with, then my entire claim would be moot and void. Fortunately, the correct SOL for purchaser "A" 'is' 10 years, not 15.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The problem with this is that she is NOT your attorney...
    Again, I was providing a basis for the position that the SOL is 10 years for tax sale properties. Although, regarding 'that' aspect, I would take her opinion of this relevant statute over any attorney in the tri-county area. (Cumulatively, she and the rest of the CC have listed, petitioned, litigated between 100,000 and 200,000 tax delinquent properties in just the last 20 years. I don't know how long she worked for CC before that.) She and her staff eat, breathe, sleep, and have nightmares about every aspect of the General Property Tax Act and the relevant statutes. I'm very confident in her authority as it pertains to at least those aspects of tax foreclosed properties in Michigan.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    and, moreover, it does not sound like she was addressing directly the situation of what SOL applies when the purchaser at a tax sale then turns around and conveys the property to someone else.
    Correct, of course no she wasn't addressing the SOL issue (nor giving legal advice) for the same reason that neither you nor I could address that aspect: Because it doesn't appear that this exact set of circumstances has been litigated before in this state.* Again, I have not done a deep dive on this phase of this matter yet; hell, I haven't spent 'any' real time on the legal aspects of this matter yet. The 10 year SOL only just recently expired, and to be honest I am giving a grace period for the reason that this whole pandemic and state ordered moratorium on evictions from April thru July could be an offset for a defendant in a case like this; something that defendant could use to his advantage.

    Might a judge be sympathetic to a defendant who didn't bring an action to recover possession of his property.... for the reason that the state told him that he was not allowed to bring any actions (evictions) to recover his property during this time period? Might a sympathetic judge grant an extra couple of months for defendant to "get it together"?

    Perhaps; and perhaps.

    *NOTE: Although as I stated earlier:
    A) The courts can be erratic and inconsistent in their rulings and jurisprudence;
    B) That said, it is not an ambiguous concept under the law: That when you purchase a property, you do not inherit, gain, accrue, receive, benefit, or acquire any rights, interests or benefits that did not already exist in the property at the time that you bought the property. That is a fundamental concept. And because there is so much case law and precedent to support that fundamental concept, I think it would be my strongest position to adopt in the long shot event that this matter ever did make it that far up the chain (or if it ever even makes it to step one: the circuit court).

    Because the legal interest of purchaser "A" in the property was never perfected - in essence never completed - the 'status' of the property never changed. It was still a tax-sale acquired property, still bound by the rules, binders, covenants, devices, terms, conditions, restrictions, and statutory provisions as the original purchase. As stated earlier, otherwise everybody could use that "transfer to someone else" loophole (and yes, it's been tried exhaustively throughout history) to skirt the laws. The courts are acutely aware of tactics.

    * If a property is in foreclosure, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'not in foreclosure.
    * If a property has liens, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'no liens'.
    * If a property has had an adverse possessor, then just because "A" sells to "B" at year 14 does not change the status of the property to 'unencumbered'.
    * And if the property has never gained possession by someone "claiming" ownership nor ever survived a legal challenge in court as such during such an action, then just because "A" sells to "B" does not change the status of the property to 'valid', 'perfected', 'completed', or 'no longer bound by the terms and conditions'.

    (FYI, it should also be noted that several other defects exist as it pertains to purchaser "A" - one example being that by policy of the county, it was a violation of the terms and conditions of sale to "sell, convey or transfer [the property] unless all taxes are paid in full" during the first 2 years. The taxes were delinquent; he did sell to purchaser "B" anyway. etc. By virtue of that defect, and a few others, 'unclean hands' could be argued to attempt to establish that defendant cannot bring a valid defense of his claims.

    But, yes... I come here first to get some challenges. Then, that can help put me in the frame of mind of which holes I might need to plug - and I can get to work plugging.

    I do appreciate all of the angles and input.

    I'd have to ask

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,042

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    I was addressing the statement that budwad made:
    I gave you my opinion that your SOL runs for 15 years from the date that the state transferred the land to your buyer A.
    That is because what buyer B's predecessor (buyer A) did or did not do is relevant. The SOL started when A took title and that time is tacked onto the time that B owned the property. It is called Tacking.

    Buyer A is not your defendant nor is the county. It is a private person, buyer B. Buyer B did not receive a title from the county. Had your buyer A kept the property and you were claiming against him then the SOL would be 10 years. But that is not the case. Buyer B did not receive title from the Tax Assessor. He received title from buyer A.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    That is because what buyer B's predecessor (buyer A) did or did not do is relevant. The SOL started when A took title and that time is tacked onto the time that B owned the property. It is called Tacking.

    Buyer A is not your defendant nor is the county. It is a private person, buyer B. Buyer B did not receive a title from the county. Had your buyer A kept the property and you were claiming against him then the SOL would be 10 years. But that is not the case. Buyer B did not receive title from the Tax Assessor. He received title from buyer A.
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,042

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Did you own the property when it was foreclosed for delinquent taxes or were you a tenant? And your timeline in post #1 doesn't make sense under Michigan tax foreclosure law.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he perfect or cure his ownership by gaining possession of the property? No.
    What deed are you speaking of? The tax deed bought at auction or a fee simple deed? When the taxes are one year in arrears, the state will foreclose in the second year and auction the property. The high bidder gets a tax deed. That deed does not give him the property because the foreclosed owner has one year to redeem the property and the SOL on AP tolls for that year because the trespasser has permission to stay. And if not redeemed, the owner of the tax deed must notify all interested parties that he is transferring ownership. Did that happen or not?

    So if the tax deed was auctioned in 2010, the owner had one year to redeem thus the transfer of the title to buyer A in 2011. Now that raises the question of when did buyer A actually take possession, doesn't it?

    And what theory of law or statute makes you think that a person who holds title to property must perfect or cure his ownership by gaining possession? The deed gives him that ownership.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * After purchaser "A" received a deed for the property, did he have legal possession rights to the property? No.
    That depends on what deed you are speaking of and if he notified all interested parties i.e. any mortgage co. or lien holders, or owners. BTW, there is Michigan case law that says that even if the tax deed holder doesn't notify all the other parties in interest, the deed is still valid.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * 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.
    The terms and conditions of what exactly? Are you speaking of a purchase contract between A & B? If so, it has nothing to do with you claim for AP.


    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * 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.
    Not one of the issues you raise would effect your AP claim.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * But, did purchaser "A" sign a quit claim deed (sell) naming purchaser "B" as the new owner? 'Technically', yes he did.
    And now the owner is buyer B. That is your defendant on a claim of AP.

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    [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.
    And title to property is granted when the grantor issues a deed to the grantee conveying the title. So assuming the deeds are valid, what's your point?

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    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?
    I don't know where you are coming up with these quazi-legal theories. It looks like just wishful thinking.

    I don't have an argument for you because I don't think you would have a claim for AP until the year 2016. But I'm not a lawyer.

    Obviously a typo. The year would be 2026.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post

    I don't have an argument for you ... But I'm not a lawyer.
    Uhhhhhh .......
    Ok.
    I wouldn't know where to begin in reply to your comment. Your comment - I say respectfully as I can - kinda looks like spaghetti, but with strands of spinach mixed in, and threads of blue jeans or somethin. It seems that you are conflating some pieces of tax lien law [which Michigan is no longer a tax lien state - so, whatever you Googled it is waayy out of date] and I'm not sure where your other stuff comes from.

    When purchaser "A" bought the property, he received a deed. As it pertains to this matter, the type of deed is irrelevant [but for the record, in Michigan it is a quit claim deed]. It is irrelevant because since he bought the property from the county through tax foreclosure, 600,5801(2) applies - which I tried to explain as basically as possible earlier [see previous comment].

    How about I give you a real-world example illustrating the difference between real property "deed", and real property "title":
    In Michigan, the law used to be that if the deed to a property changed hands, then the property tax amount was uncapped.
    So, when a parent transferred the house into the name of their child (through a quit claim deed, for example), the property taxes would often increase.
    This seemed unfair and did not capture the intent of what the family was trying to do.
    So, eventually the law was changed - and it no longer changes the property tax amount under those same circumstances.
    Why? Because although the "deed" is still being transferred into someone else's name (the child), "title" is not substantively changing. A 'deed' is a piece of paper which does not in and of itself grant rights in the property. Anyone can type up a deed and call it a 'quit claim deed, or a 'warranty deed', or a 'statutory warranty deed', or say that it is fee simple title or include a covenant of seisin. Just because they typed it on the paper does not make it so.

    "Title" to real property is determined by actual real-world circumstances that have occurred which actually vest certain rights in the property. And there is plenty of case law and precedent to demonstrate that just because someone typed up a quit claim deed, the paper itself of that deed does not determine the true title or the true legal interests attributed to that property. Could 'I' type up a quit claim deed right now.... for 'your' house and I sell your house to someone? Of course I could. And then they would have a "deed" to your house, which means they have 15 years of statute of limitations, or they have the right to evict you since they now have the deed to your house right? Of course not.

    Lastly, one other real-world example:
    As mentioned earlier, the county now includes a reverter clause on the quit claim deeds in these tax-sale acquired properties. This means that regardless of whatever other ownership laws or statute of limitations clauses exist on the books - if the purchaser does not maintain certain requirements after the sale the county regains ownership without having to go through a long legal process. Why is this allowed? Because "title" is what the courts are concerned with in this context, not what is the name of the "deed" that was signed, or what scam was used such as selling or transferring the property into another person's name. This is not legal theory, this is real-world happenings. As of 2014, by virtue of the reverter clause the county sought to foreclose 78% of the properties that it sold through tax auction between 2011 and 2014. It just so happens that my property was sold at the 2010 tax auction, and the reverter clause was not printed on that quit claim deed. (Note: Just because the clause wasn't printed on that deed does not mean that the intent of the statute is unclear, nor are the hands of the court tied as such.)

    AND JUST SO THAT NO ONE ELSE GETS MISINFORMED:

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    When the taxes are one year in arrears, the state will foreclose in the second year and auction the property.
    INCORRECT. In Michigan, taxes in arrears for two years will initiate the foreclosure process; the state will foreclose in the third.
    2018 property taxes are due in 2018; Currently, now in 2020, 2018 delinquent property taxes are being listed on the county's Petition for Foreclosure; hearings will be held in January 2021, contested cases will be heard in 2021; judgments of foreclosure will be entered for those properties in 2021; those properties will be listed for auction in Sep. and Oct. 2021.

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The high bidder gets a tax deed.
    INCORRECT. In Michigan, purchaser receives a quit claim deed issue by the foreclosing governmental unit (i.e. the county).

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    That deed does not give him the property because the foreclosed owner has one year to redeem the property
    INCORRECT. I already, essentially, pointed this out earlier:
    MCL 211.78k (5)
    (5) The circuit court shall enter final judgment on a petition for foreclosure filed under section 78h at any time after the hearing under this section but not later than the March 30 immediately succeeding the hearing with the judgment effective on the March 31 immediately succeeding the hearing for uncontested cases or 10 days after the conclusion of the hearing for contested cases. All redemption rights to the property expire on the March 31 immediately succeeding the entry of a judgment foreclosing the property under this section, or in a contested case 21 days after the entry of a judgment foreclosing the property under this section.

    budwad, I do appreciate your input... But, if you're going to be chiming in on a law website, I might suggest being somewhat conservative in the opinions that you give. If you're reading the wrong Google entry, just like Google Earth you can be way out in lost lands somewhere. Also, textbooks and courtrooms can be two very different places, and there is quite a bit of real evidence that shows that they often produce very different outcomes.

    *NOTE: The above '2018 / 2021' foreclosure is an example timeline. Due to COVID-19, the county is not processing property tax foreclosures this year.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,590

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    I wonder if sometime in the near future, before the OP "perfects" his claim to the property, he returns home after work, shopping, etc. and discovers:

    1. The owner or his agents have entered the house.
    2. All of the locks have been changed.
    3. All of the OP's personal property has been removed.

    A law officer awaits the OP on his return to charge him with "squatting", carrying a top fine of $5000 in Michigan (first offense), and to arrest him for trespassing.

    Far fetched? Not at all under current Michigan law. Widely discussed since implementation in 2014.
    Resistance is not futile; it is voltage divided by current.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,230

    Default Re: Are There Any Holes in My Adverse Possession Case - Before I Take It to Court

    [QUOTE=RXBrown;1149530]

    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    * 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".
    You misunderstand what the judge does with a statute of limitations defense. He or she will look to the language of the statute to determine what SOL applies. If the statute sets a clear rule, the judge has to follow that rule, regardless of whether the judge thinks some better public purpose would be served by a different rule.

    Your defendant in this case would be B, as A transferred all his rights and interests in the property to B. The statute states clearly that if the defendant got his title from the government that the SOL period is 10 years. If he did not get it from the government, the SOL period is 15 years. B didn't get the title from the state. His title is from A. So he should have the benefit of the 15 year rule. That A never took possession, never cut the grass, etc, etc, are not factors that the statute specifies as being relevant to the determination of the SOL. The 10 year time frame turns on just one thing: does the DEFENDANT claim title from the government as a result of a tax sale? The answer here is no, the defendant — B — did not get title from the government in a tax sale. His claim to title is by a deed from A, a private person. So it seems to me that the 15 year limit is the one that applies here, simply by applying the statute as written. Which is what the judge is supposed to do when the statute is clear.

    The argument that "you are not a deadbeat" is not itself a winner because that factor is not one contained in the statutes. And, moreover, since you were apparently the homeowner who failed to pay the property taxes on the home that resulted in that tax sale, in a sense you are a deadbeat in that you didn't pay the taxes on the property as you were required to do. I point that out not to beat you up over it but to point out that if being a deadbeat was a factor the defendant could say you don't exactly have perfectly clean hands here either in that you failed to follow the law and pay the taxes as you were supposed to do.


    Quote Quoting RXBrown
    View Post
    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.
    I disagree. As regards to which SOL applies, the 10 year or 15 year time frame, it appears that the deed very much matters:

    (2) Defendant claiming title under tax deed. When the defendant claims title under some deed made by an officer of this state or of the United States who is authorized to make deeds upon the sale of lands for taxes assessed and levied within this state the period of limitation is 10 years.

    Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 600.5801 (bolding added). Note that what matters is whether the defendant claims title under a tax deed. But B's claim to title is not from a tax deed. His claim to title is from the deed he got from A.

    If you are going to try taking the route that B has no claim to title because A had no title to give to him, then that means A also did not have a claim to title from the tax deed, either. Which would leave you asserting a claim against the city/county. And as the city/county didn't get a deed to the property from a tax sale the SOL period there would be 15 years, too.

    Again, I strongly urge you to consult a local real estate lawyer on this. You get just one shot at this and if the SOL issue goes against you, the owner almost certainly will move to eject you and you'll be done.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Adverse Possession: Claiming Adverse Possession to a Different Area After Losing in Court
    By lawfacts in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-02-2016, 05:45 AM
  2. Adverse Possession: Whether or Not to Settle an Adverse Possession Case
    By Rigel in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2015, 09:40 PM
  3. Adverse Possession: Property Sold While Adverse Possession Case Was Being Litigated
    By scott9771 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 10:06 PM
  4. Adverse Possession: Could This Be a Case of Adverse Possession
    By RedScare in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 07:07 AM
  5. Adverse Possession: Adverse Possession
    By darlin1959 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 11:13 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources