Question ...

[Blieb]

Not in this situation ... but was driving down a new road today and was wondering ...

The state bought some of the people's land off them to have space to make this new road. My wife used to work for the Department of Transportation and recalls writing the checks to individuals or their attorney.

When you loose some of your property, the value goes with it, that's why they "buy" it. BUT ... and the root of my question ... surely they notify the lender about the redefined parcel?

Does the lender re-evaluate the value and make due some portion so they're not upside-down on the note?

Anyone know? Just curious ...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe the land holder is screwed

 

[potato28]

I think that the land holder can get their property surveyed again for the change, I'm not 100% sure about it though.

 

[Blieb]

I figure they have to re-survey to redefine the parcel.

So if the state pays someone $30k for a chunk of their land ... people cash the check and spend it on hookers and booze ... then get foreclosed on ... the lender is upside down $30k+!!!???

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: potato28
I think that the land holder can get their property surveyed again for the change, I'm not 100% sure about it though.

It has to be changed. The problem is like this:

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 50K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. He's gotten 50K for 250 K worth of land.

The bank isn't going to let him off the hook for what he borrowed.

He's screwed.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: potato28
I think that the land holder can get their property surveyed again for the change, I'm not 100% sure about it though.

It has to be changed. The problem is like this:

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 50K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. He's gotten 50K for 250 K worth of land.

The bank isn't going to let him off the hook for what he borrowed.

He's screwed.

Furthermore, if you try to have the tax assessor appraise the land for property tax, they'll laugh in your face. Instead of taxing you on the 50k for the remaining 10 acres, they'll tax you on 250k.

 

[Blieb]

Exactly! Only I hear Florida actually pays fair market value ... So it would be ...

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 250K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. But his note is for $500k ...

Does the bank make him pay off the % of the note, for the portion that he no longer owns?

He's screwed if he spends the money on hookers and booze, but not really if he pays the note down or refinances new parcel.

I was thinking more in terms of what I saw ... residential homes ... and the state basically bought up 2/3 of their backyard. Substantially reducing their lot, but not taking the house itself.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: potato28
I think that the land holder can get their property surveyed again for the change, I'm not 100% sure about it though.

It has to be changed. The problem is like this:

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 50K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. He's gotten 50K for 250 K worth of land.

The bank isn't going to let him off the hook for what he borrowed.

He's screwed.

In that sense yes... I kinda got confused from the question.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Blieb
Exactly! Only I hear Florida actually pays fair market value ... So it would be ...

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 250K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. But his note is for $500k ...

Does the bank make him pay off the % of the note, for the portion that he no longer owns?

He's screwed if he spends the money on hookers and booze, but not really if he pays the note down or refinances new parcel.

I was thinking more in terms of what I saw ... residential homes ... and the state basically bought up 2/3 of their backyard. Substantially reducing their lot, but not taking the house itself.

No governmental agency pays fair market value. If you put up too much of a fuss they eminent domain your land and give you even less.

Basically it is fully within the gov's power to turn you over and give you a public (no lube) financial assrape.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Blieb
Exactly! Only I hear Florida actually pays fair market value ... So it would be ...

Owner X buys 20 acres of land valued at $500K

State pays owner 250K for 10 acres.

Owner X now has 10 acres which he can sell for 250K assuming no devaluation per acre. But his note is for $500k ...

Does the bank make him pay off the % of the note, for the portion that he no longer owns?

He's screwed if he spends the money on hookers and booze, but not really if he pays the note down or refinances new parcel.

I was thinking more in terms of what I saw ... residential homes ... and the state basically bought up 2/3 of their backyard. Substantially reducing their lot, but not taking the house itself.

No governmental agency pays fair market value. If you put up too much of a fuss they eminent domain your land and give you even less.

Basically it is fully within the gov's power to turn you over and give you a public (no lube) financial assrape.

What if you're related to a high-ranking official in your state?

What if one of the people that signs the checks is a partner in some corporation, that owns another corporation that has a controlling interest in yet another corporation that owns the land?

Never mind, I know the answers. isgust;

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: K1052
No governmental agency pays fair market value. If you put up too much of a fuss they eminent domain your land and give you even less.

Basically it is fully within the gov's power to turn you over and give you a public (no lube) financial assrape.

Yet in that recent thread, think how many people supported government rules about what color you could paint your house. I wonder if they'd all support the eminent domain situation as well.