www.businessinsider.com
You beat me to it. I would have waited until they are almost finished and then thrown a fit.
Yes...and apparently they had one...but it appears the sale was fraudulent.Don't you need a land title to build a house on an empty lot?
Not me, free house.
A man returned home to find a new $1.5 million house on land he acquired decades ago. Now he's suing for $2 million.
Dr. Daniel Kenigsberg said he didn't sell the lot that's at the center of the lawsuit and the property was sold to an LLC without his consent.
Yeah, that would piss me off.
You’d need the money to pay the increased taxes, now assuming you didn’t want the land you could finish it and sell it however I suspect a judge would side with the builder to at minimum cover his build costs.
Makes finding a buyer tough, this reduces the cost. Buying a home where you don’t own the land is typically a cash only transaction or basically like home improvement loan small fee/interest up front much larger interest a short time later.
That’s a corporation with a long term agreement. Corps are eternal, people are not.
www.monellilaw.com
Depends on the state. Maryland doesn't require notice, but it must be "actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under claim of title or ownership, and continuous or uninterrupted. Hillsmere Shores Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Singleton, 182 Md. App. 667, 959 A.2d 130 (2008)"
Local governments want money and a developed property=taxes and other revenues like permit fees, fines from notices of violation, etc. Government IS a business; it's just that nobody ever bothered reading mundane things like a fiscal report. Assets, liability, equity....
You need to re-read the article. Someone impersonating the owner sold them the property. Not the lawyer. The money was wired to South Africa.Off-the-record, the company people, Gina and Greg, most certainly knew Monelli.
They playing dumb because they got caught.
Adverse possession still requires a lawsuit. They skipped that lawsuit.
You wonder why people hold lawyers in contempt and real estate agents are negatively portrayed....this is why. However, the layperson fails to understand why they do such things; the reason is that there is good chance they can get away with it and that the process of rights assertion in common law and real estate matters practically requires an attorney. There is no accident or stupidity, it's calculated malevolence, but proving that "on the record" will be impossible.
Now, just because the guy is the rightful owner doesn't mean anything, because I have a hunch the "legal community" will make it as hard as possible for him to win the case, because there's plenty of money to be make in fees, recordings, depositions, discovery, finding a signature expert, paying said expert witness fees, etc. Lawyers charge hundreds per hour and there will be plenty of hours of logical argument, case research, etc.
Furthermore, when it comes to real property, the governments, via the courts, wills for owners to use the land "productively" and that's why adverse possession exists. For example, the following is how the Maryland Courts say about adverse possession:
Mr. Kenisberg's age might have factored into the decision to commit fraud. He completed his residency at Hopkins in 1982; he'd have been in his 30s then and in his 70s now. So if he drops dead, the case (mostly) dies too or his heirs have to get on board.
The totality of circumstances show that is an indirect de fact method for the government "fine" someone for not putting land to use without officially fining the owner. Attorneys are officially "officers of the court" in their Code books even if they are privately employed.
Anthony Monelli
If someone wants to make easy on themselves for land they want to possess(the legal definition, not the colloquial), get a survey and build a fence(meaning you need to spend $$$$) against predators like a neighbor or in this case, corrupt attorneys and real estate pros.
Negligence and due diligence are concepts foreign to you but not me.
Facebook
Twitter