I had thought forged signatures were mostly just a hypothetical, used to speed up "legal aspects" classes -- at worst, rare and easily remedied. Evidently not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/nyregion/17house.html
Not really a surveying issue but something to be aware of.
A strong adverse possession law and Gillings proof that he actively ocupied and controlled the property under color of title would have greatly facilitated the recovery of his property.
Without the concept of adverse possession, document fraud and bogus foreclosures are much easier.
The concept of Adverse Possession is not the 'legalized theft of land', it is the strongest protection a land owner can have.
Richard Schaut
How many police officers should one need to shoot in the act of defending against eviction before the AP claim ripens?
> How many police officers should one need to shoot in the act of defending against eviction before the AP claim ripens?
That will be handled by the legislatures on a state by state basis.
Recently came across this one on a project that on first glance appears as outright forgery but upon examining the whole document and the circumstances surrounding the transfer reached a different conclusion.
I feel it is a COPY (circa 1911) of the original signed document, in which the signatures were copied by the same hand with no malicious intent. Problem is, the original appears to have been lost by the grantee prior to recording and this "copy" is all that survives. I should add that (as it was told to me) this document was recently submitted to the clerk for recording who refused it.
Jim Vianna
> How many police officers should one need to shoot in the act of defending against eviction before the AP claim ripens?
LOL!
>I should add that (as it was told to me) this document was recently submitted to the clerk for recording who refused it.
>
Refused to record it? In my state a clerk has no authority NOT to record anything whatsoever, provided it meets the standards for document size, text height, etc. What "clerk" has authority like this?
From the story it seems that he did not occupy the property. Although it was his studio, construction crews working for the fraudulant "owner" demolished interior walls and threw away his stored art works.
He only had to have a locked door and show up to eject trespassers every 5 yrs, not actually live there.
Richard Schaut
Tax sales
One problem with Gillings claim is the number of years he was delinquent in paying his taxes. It is possible that the woman did the same to him as he did with regard to the previous owner's back taxes.
Richard Schaut