Virginia wants $160,000 back

Page 1 of 2  
Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.
Video:
<http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips Court is in session on Monday.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course the state paid too much for the land. Who would pay a quarter million for a yard with a freeway ramp running through it?
I say the homeowner hoodwinked 'em and should pay them back. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the state paid too much for the land, they should give the land back. The land is now worth lots more than what the state paid for it now it has the ramp on it.
I know a man that sold a piece of land about 30 feet by 50 feet for around $ 700,000. Nothing on the land but a small cement pad. It was at the beach and between two high dollar houses. They did not want a camper parked on it during the summer months, which was what that land was used for many years ago.
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/08/2014 10:48 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

Years ago I had a friend who bought an old farmstead and wanted to have a large pond put it...but the excavation would have cost $40k
A year later, the state was putting in an overpass and needed fill, he sold them a "pond's worth" for about $2500
He was just trying to keep up with his nearest neighbor who named his pond "Lake Annabel" after his wife.
My buddy name his " Whopeedinna Pond" (Who peed in the pond)
He said that little by little EVERYONE in town came out to see it and giggle. The neighbor was not thrilled though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Great conclusion! Sets a premise. So, does that mean we can get back our $16,000+ from what the US govt spent financing all those 'useless' wars?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:43:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:

What an incredible leap in logical association, even for here. You can't do math either. With $314 mil Americans, if we each got $16K, that would be $5tril dollars. The total amount spent on both wars is about $1.5tril. If the war in Afghanistan was useless, what would you have done after 911, send the Taliban and Bin Laden a cake?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

It depends upon what was inside the cake!
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/9/2014 9:07 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Dang! I didn't know I was worth $314 million! There's a lot of stuff I can buy now! I'll bet I could get a refill on my prescription meds now! ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:07:04 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net

Every citizen in US does NOT pay tax, that 'estimate' was based upon money per taxpayer and per household, not per person.
Against my judgment, wishes, and advice, we did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:18:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net

When I questioned the idiotically high prices of housing in California, I was told by the realtors that pricing is 'realistic' because 'price' is based upon what someone is willing to sell and someone is willing to buy. QED, $250k is realistic pricing. I won't even address how the banks make more money with larger loans, nor how the realtors make more money on higher commissions, nor even the assessors who make more on their evaluation commissions. [It seems that everyone, BUT the buyer benefits from these high prices!]
Great premise that you can go back to the seller and demand a partial refund! I wonder if there will be such a class action suit throughout California.
Plus, how much is the city paying the attorneys to pursue this? Waste, begets waste, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:02:22 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:

Of course that's nonsense. In the case of CA, what the realtor is telling you is that the realistic prices are high because that's what many buyers are paying in CA, in that neighborhood, for many similar houses. You have many transactions that show what typical fair market value is.
We have no evidence whatever of that in this case. What determines a fair price under eminent domain is what the property is worth based on actual recent sales of similar properties and what the property will be worth after a portion is taken. And I would not be surprised at all that the house in question, the $250K was for the full value of the property, meaning that is what similar houses are selling for there. And they didn't take the whole house, they just reduced it's value. It's like this guy is getting paid for his house and gets to keep it too.
I won't even address how the banks make

All of which is irrelevant.

Again, apples and oranges. In CA, you have many transactions that show many people are paying the higher prices in sales transactions. You can't say I paid $800K for my house and it's too much because similar houses have also sold for $800K.
If that whole house in VA is only worth about $250K, and the state paid $250K for just a small portion of the backyard, and they can show that it was by some clear mistake, that is a different situation than what you're comparing it to.
One factor that this may center on is that the other party was the state under eminent domain. If it was private party transaction, I doubt they would have a case, absent fraud on the part of the seller.

I believe it was stated that it's the state, not the city. Good question as to cost. If they are using staff attorneys might be impossible to say. It would seem the best thing in this case would be a negotiated settlement, to save time, legal fees, etc on both sides.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:32:31 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net

I've not followed this, can't use that link. How much time between eminent domain purchase, funds transfer, and 'discovery' of "oops, paid too much, give it back?" ??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:26:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:

I just listened to it again. The video doesn't say when the transaction ocurred. The most that is said is that surveying started in 2009. Reporter also starts off by saying "The city of Virginia Beach" bought the land. But then when talking with the guy and his attorney, it's all VA DOT, State of VA, etc, no mention of the city. Which makes sense because it sure looks like a major state highway.
Really bad interviewer too. No question at all about how this happened, what was the total property worth, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the government.
Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?
In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell much of his land. Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into the water where some of his land is.
In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as determined by impartial appraisers.
In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep his land.
Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient crystal ball.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:

Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just piece of the land. \

I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move. IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien, I think some additional compensation beyond just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer, I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number. Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the extent possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:18:31 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

If the man who did not sell his property (above) were subject to an eminent domain condemnation of all his property and was unable to challenge such successfully, he would not have been able to keep his property
I suspect this is what you were conveying?

In the case on eminent domain condemnation of primary residences, most jurisdictions will provide for reasonable relocation expenses, above and beyond FMV of the property.
I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the USA where a government has been able to acquire property, through eminent domain, where the property owner did not have the right to due process and judicial appeal. Are you aware of any such omnipotent jurisdictions?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, typo above, should have said:
"In the case "of" eminent domain condemnation"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The man got to keep his property, but it was with the understanding that part of it was going to be under water and that at a later time he could not come back and want money for it just because it was under water. That was many years ago (like over 60 years) so the law may be differant now, I don't know.
That way he could put in whatever kind of dock and boat ramp he wanted to out to the end of where his land was under water.
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sounds like the owner had excellent instincts and was quite clever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

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.