On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:50:00 AM UTC-7, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
YOu keep claimin "in some states tax payment is needed" but there is a distinct lack on your part to give a cite.
One major problem with your "belief" is that a squatter has no way of beginning to pay the taxes. The only way to start getting a tax bill is to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY to begin with.
So tell us how a squatter can pay the taxes.
My case where I got a lot by paying taxes was a lump sum payment for 7 years of back taxes and 7 years of mowing/spraying weeds on the lot.
On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:27:46 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
Too lazy to use google? How about a huge state, CA:
"A California Appellate Court clarified that it's easier to steal acquire land from a religious organization than from some other private entity.
That's because an adverse possessor snagging a religious organization's property doesn't have to meet the standard five-year tax requirement."
Very easy. I don't know how it works where you live,
but here in NJ where I live, all you have to do is walk
in to the tax collectors office and say "I want to pay my
tax bill" They say, name, address? Or lot and block #?
If you choose to use the former, you can give them the name
of the person that shows up on the tax records as the owner.
They don't ask for ID. They tell you the current amount
due and you pay it. They don't care who's name is on the
check or you can pay in cash if you like. You could do that
once a year.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:04:30 PM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:
Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.
All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 9:55:14 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
cite you did give.
to go to the county office handling taxes and PROVE THAT YOU OWN THE PROPE
RTY to begin with.
Good that you finally figured out how to use Google. And why
didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and wh
ich you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:
"PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES
Some states require the trespasser to have paid the taxes on the property f
or the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met except
the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use
the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse posses
sion. (See "Easements," below)."
As for it being "all one wanted to know about adverse possession",
it's titled "California Adverse Possession", from a CA govt DOT website, du
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:11:11 AM UTC-7, email@example.com wrot
<snip a whole bunch of your refusal to provide a cite until finally pushed
into doing what is standard protocol in usenet, i.e,, person claiming needs
to provide the cite.>
And your fingers were having a problem that you couldn't find that 'oh, so
simple' search string and post and actual on point cite rather than an obsc
ure cite to an appellate court ruling?
Since it was simple to read and came near the top, why bother. I posted it
as it is a very excellent discussion of many of the sub conversations in th
is thread. You could have done it if you weren't so apparently google handi
t the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to us
e the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse poss
ession. (See "Easements," below)."
Hey! I see you know how to C&P!
Yep and it discusses the subject in general not just California. You did s
ee the "Some states"? It is obvious from the start that it is not Californ
Now if you are done with your ad hominems.
Clue: You can avoid all this chit chat in the future by just provided a ci
te to the next claim you make when it is asked for.
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
ds to provide the cite.>
I readily do that if it's something obscure or that's hard to find.
But I think it's a good idea for people like you to learn hot to
use google and educate yourselves sometimes, instead of sitting there
like a lazy ass. I knew it to be true. You didn't. Why the hell is
it *my* obligation to go find what anyone can find with google in
a couple minutes?
scure cite to an appellate court ruling?
Why should I have to do the simple search for you? Fact is,
I was right. If you cared that much about it, as opposed to
shooting your mouth off, you could have done the search. As
for it being an "obscure cite to an appellate court ruling",
it was an excellent example not only of the fact that who
pays the property taxes on a piece of property that's in dispute
matters greatly in some states, it also shows the law actually
applied and interpreted by an appellate court in a real world
case. And in my
world, that beats *your* cite which was a link to a document
on a California DOT website. I'd say the decision of an
appellate court is more relevant than the opinion of an
unknown author on a DOT website. The DOT decides about highways,
not law. Plus the newspaper article seemed appropriate for your
I see. So, I'm wrong for not providing cites to anything that
is questioned, apparently so as to prove and educate people on here.
But when you finally use a simple google search to prove that I'm
right, it's OK for you not to post the short section you found
that proves exactly what I said. Go figure.
ly google handicapped
You finally use google to find out that I was correct, after
making post after post, "Waaah, where's a citation?, Where oh
where is a citation? Help! I've fallen and I can't get up..."
and I'm the one that's handicapped?
ept the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to
use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse po
ssession. (See "Easements," below)."
Yes, and apparently you don't, because you could have posted
that little piece that says I'm right, but chose not to.
Gee, I wonder why?
The fact that it's the subject in general, written by some
unknown person in the California Dept of Transportation, titled
California Adverse Possession, also means it's *not* "all you
want to know" about AP, which is what you posted.
You can avoid all this by not making an ass out of yourself
and just doing a simple google search yourself when you think
something isn't true.
BTW, you still want to claim that it's difficult or impossible for
anyone to go make a real estate tax payment on any piece of property?
Or is it time to admit you're wrong on that too?
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:04:30 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
Yeah, I'm the one who was right, but I'm still supposed to be
the lazy one because you're too lazy and stupid to use google
to figure out that what I posted was true. You acted like it
was unheard of. Yet, there it is, in the huge state of California,
Typical. I'm supposed to do everything, including google for
you. You asked a question about how someone could pay the
property taxes on a piece of property they don't own. I just
gave you the way it can be done. I spelled it out above.
Now, if that won't work, you could tell us why it won't.
Instead you just post some snide remark.
You sure as hell can walk into the tax collectors office
here in any of the towns I've lived in and pay the taxes
owed on any property. They don't ask for proof that you
own it. They ask the name and address, or block and lot #.
You give them a check or cash. If it's a check, they don't
give a rat's ass who's name is on the check. You think
there aren't plenty of folks, where for example there are
more than one person living together in a house and only
one of their names is on the title/tax records and only
that person can go pay the bill? And that
the person at the tax collectors window is going to ask
you to prove that you somehow have a right to pay the taxes?
They take the money from anyone there willing to pay it.
Good grief, you're dumb!
You might try answering questions and using google, instead of hiding, being deceptive, and then bitching when I'm nice enough to use Google to prove that you're wrong.
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 10:23:47 AM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
Yeah, I buy that if it's some EXTRAORDINARY claim. If it's something that would require someone who gives a damn to
do some extensive searching, because it's hard to find.
But not when it's one that any dumb ass that's interested
can find by googling "Adverse possession taxes". You posted
how many separate posts and how many paragraphs expressing
disbelief? "waaahh... waaah.... where's the cite?"
Just 3 words in google would have produced the answer.
I don't really give a damn. It's obvious you've finally accepted
the fact that taxes do matter and that in fact it's not impossible
or even difficult to pay real estate taxes on a property you don't
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.