Comments on: Outrageous Fortune http://davebudge.com/?p=1555 Finance, Economics & Random Musings Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Checker 5 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555&cpage=1#comment-198963 Checker 5 Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:29:13 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555#comment-198963 The Samoan Lawyer is correct. In Montana, not only must you occupy the land for five years in an open and hostile manner to the rightful owner, and to the exclusion of all others, but you must also pay the property taxes on the land you seek to claim. Paying the taxes puts the rightful owner on notice that something’s going on with his land. And he had better start paying his own taxes. You can thank the big railroad companies for the change in the law requiring the tax payments. Many years ago they were losing a lot of their land to adverse possessors (“squatters”) who simply fenced in a section owned by a railroad and started grazing their cattle on it. After five years, the land could be legally claimed by the adverse possessor. As for government land, I believe it is impossible to claim any of it under adverse possession. But mining claims work just as well! The Samoan Lawyer is correct. In Montana, not only must you occupy the land for five years in an open and hostile manner to the rightful owner, and to the exclusion of all others, but you must also pay the property taxes on the land you seek to claim. Paying the taxes puts the rightful owner on notice that something’s going on with his land. And he had better start paying his own taxes.

You can thank the big railroad companies for the change in the law requiring the tax payments. Many years ago they were losing a lot of their land to adverse possessors (“squatters”) who simply fenced in a section owned by a railroad and started grazing their cattle on it. After five years, the land could be legally claimed by the adverse possessor.

As for government land, I believe it is impossible to claim any of it under adverse possession. But mining claims work just as well!

]]> By: Gman http://davebudge.com/?p=1555&cpage=1#comment-198951 Gman Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:56:40 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555#comment-198951 There are more surreptitious instances of protectionism practiced by elected and appointed officials (particularly planning board members) when it comes to land use regs. The protectionism I speak of is passing land use regulations that prevent landowners/developers from building subdivisions. A good example is Ravalli Counties 1 for 2 rule -- one house per two acres. What the powers that be want to do is keep landowners/developers from building denser residential subdivisions so that their "quality of life" isn't compromised. What's interesting is that a lot of these elected/appointed officials are not native Montanans. They are people who came here, got theirs, and now want to protect it. The only way to do that is to use the power of gov't to force other landowners not to utilize their land. It's no wonder there is at least some support for a regulatory takings initiative. With that said, local communities can plan and zone to accommodate growth rationally with participation from all -- elected/appointed officials, bureaucrats, developers, landowners, neighborhood groups. It's a very messy process but necessary nonetheless. There are more surreptitious instances of protectionism practiced by elected and appointed officials (particularly planning board members) when it comes to land use regs. The protectionism I speak of is passing land use regulations that prevent landowners/developers from building subdivisions. A good example is Ravalli Counties 1 for 2 rule — one house per two acres. What the powers that be want to do is keep landowners/developers from building denser residential subdivisions so that their “quality of life” isn’t compromised. What’s interesting is that a lot of these elected/appointed officials are not native Montanans. They are people who came here, got theirs, and now want to protect it. The only way to do that is to use the power of gov’t to force other landowners not to utilize their land. It’s no wonder there is at least some support for a regulatory takings initiative. With that said, local communities can plan and zone to accommodate growth rationally with participation from all — elected/appointed officials, bureaucrats, developers, landowners, neighborhood groups. It’s a very messy process but necessary nonetheless.

]]> By: Mark T http://davebudge.com/?p=1555&cpage=1#comment-198946 Mark T Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:59 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555#comment-198946 The allegation that he used city of Boulder connections is inferred, but not proven. This is a guy using the law to screw someone. Not land use regulation, common law. Stinks to high heaven, but he got away with it. The allegation that he used city of Boulder connections is inferred, but not proven. This is a guy using the law to screw someone. Not land use regulation, common law. Stinks to high heaven, but he got away with it.

]]> By: Samoan Lawyer http://davebudge.com/?p=1555&cpage=1#comment-198902 Samoan Lawyer Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:07:49 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555#comment-198902 Luckily, it's not that easy to do in Montana. You actually have to pay the property taxes for the property that you are trying to take advantage of. Luckily, it’s not that easy to do in Montana. You actually have to pay the property taxes for the property that you are trying to take advantage of.

]]> By: carol http://davebudge.com/?p=1555&cpage=1#comment-198890 carol Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:14:22 +0000 http://davebudge.com/?p=1555#comment-198890 OMG, adverse possession - just about the first thing you learn in Property Law. Leave it to lawyers to figure out how to use it to their own advantage. OMG, adverse possession – just about the first thing you learn in Property Law. Leave it to lawyers to figure out how to use it to their own advantage.

]]>