One thing I found unique was the poster's inability to vary the subject matter of his diatribe. I have seen multi-page posts that always eventually yield to some varied subject matter, but he persisted on his belief that we just walk out, find pins, call them good...then deliver a fat invoice....for 37 friggin' pages. I think he might be tired of living on a few hundred rupiahs a month and can't get a bus ticket out of that hell hole.
I might suggest Metamucil for such matters, but I really don't care.
His premise is young or of a para-surveyor, like an engineer or a real estate specialist. The general understanding of a new surveyor or someone in a varying field is that it's simple: 1+1=2. I can totally understand his argument except that he is claiming that he is a long-time surveyor who is now retired. No experienced surveyor has his type of opinions in that we all pretty much have seen too many complicated "jigsaw puzzles" that are extremely hard to fit together. We have all had enough conflicting evidence that we have to resort to the history, the courts and other evidence to come up with a real professional opinion.
But here, I'm wasting my time preaching to the choir and one guy who will obviously never back down, as I have for so much of this thread.
whatever.
it is good we review our Thanksgiving table chit chat in advance. 🙂
as to mr. francis
pick a persona, make notes, stick to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Our_Lives_cast_members
"A. Right of Possession (unwritten conveyance)."
The part in parentheses maybe should be (parole or inferred location) not unwritten conveyance. There have been unwritten conveyances upheld but in very limited circumstances, the Statute of Frauds is a shield, not a sword so it can't be used to perpetuate a fraud but this is not a common situation.
I'm not nitpicking; it's a very important distinction and the confusion has caused serious problems.
Dave Karoly, post: 400706, member: 94 wrote: (parole or inferred location)
I AM nitpicking - it's parol
Peter Ehlert, post: 400659, member: 60 wrote: true Robert, kinda.
That list, taken out of context, is a little misleading.
Then so again is Dave's statement about the statute of frauds going on to list unwritten title changes by adverse possession...The whole of which is obviously beyond the comprehension of this " FrancisH" persona....
Adverse Possession is not a conveyance. See Miller & Starr Calif. Real Estate, Chapter 18.
Bill93, post: 400707, member: 87 wrote: I AM nitpicking - it's parol
I try not to miss that but sometimes it sneaks by 🙂
Paroley Karoley, Popeye, was a sailor man....
Dave Karoly, post: 400708, member: 94 wrote: Adverse Possession is not a conveyance. See Miller & Starr Calif. Real Estate, Chapter 18.
Hi Dave,
I did have an attorney say once, "Title is transferred the moment that the statutory time has passed and the conditions have been met." The court merely memorializes the transfer.
Dtp
foggyidea, post: 400714, member: 155 wrote: I did have an attorney say once....
Sounds like an Attorney that's confident, that he can prove that the statutory period of time has passed and that ALL the conditions HAVE been met.
foggyidea, post: 400714, member: 155 wrote: Hi Dave,
I did have an attorney say once, "Title is transferred the moment that the statutory time has passed and the conditions have been met." The court merely memorializes the transfer.
Dtp
That is 100% correct...
RADAR, post: 400728, member: 413 wrote: Sounds like an Attorney that's confident, that he can prove that the statutory period of time has passed and that ALL the conditions HAVE been met.
Is he confident he knows it has happened, or is he just stating a fact? He is right, but he may not know when, or if it occurred.
Dave Karoly, post: 400708, member: 94 wrote: Adverse Possession is not a conveyance. See Miller & Starr Calif. Real Estate, Chapter 18.
What Dave said.
[INDENT]It has indeed been said by some eminent judges that the effect of the statute is " to make a parliamentary conveyance of the land to the person in possession at the last moment when the period has elapsed." As Gibson, C. J., puts it, "The instant of conception is the instant of birth," without any period of gestation or maturing of an inchoate title. The idea seems to be that the statute of limitations is a conveyancer like the Statute of Uses, which, when there is a deed by Doe to the use of Roe and his heirs, "executes the use," and,
"Like flash of electricity,
The land 's transferred in fee to Roe,
Nothing at all remains in Doe."
But there is, in truth, no such transfer of title by the statute of limitations. The direct effect of the statute is negative, to extinguish the right of entry of the ousted owner. The indirect effect is to quiet the title of the possessor. Title is thus established by the joint operation of the statute and the common law. The possession of the adverse holder, although gained by manifest wrong, and although liable to be defeated by entry of the rightful owner, is per se a title good as shield or sword, either to hold or to recover possession, as against all others. Even the title of the original owner is affected ab initio, by disseisin, although not so much to-day as formerly. His "right of entry" should hardly be regarded, as Dean Ames regarded it, as being reduced to a mere chose in action. His remedy is limited, however, by the common law to asserting his rights by a direct proceeding to recover possession.
The statute operates to relieve the adverse holder from this sole danger of eviction, and, being thus quieted, the once precarious possession becomes a firm and indefeasible title even against the former owner as of the date when the disseisin or adverse possession commenced. Accordingly we must not confound the negative operation of the statute with the positive effect of a conveyance of the title from the true owner to the adverse possessor at the moment the statute has fully run. In Tichborne v. Weir28 it is held that when one holds adversely to a lessee for ninety-nine years, the adverse possessor cannot be treated as an assignee so as to render him liable on the covenants of the lease. It is sometimes said, indeed, that the law presumes a conveyance by the true owner on the grounds of public policy when the right of entry is gone. But it is unnecessary to resort to the presumption or fiction of a conveyance. Adverse possession vests the possessor with the complete title as effectually as if there had been a conveyance by the former owner. But the title is independent, not derivative, and "relates back" to the inception of the adverse possession. The adverse possessor does not derive his title from the former owner, but from a new source of title, his own possession. The "investitive fact" is the disseisin and exercise of possession.
[/INDENT]
Title by Adverse Possession
Author(s): Henry W. Ballantine
Source: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Dec., 1918)
Francis ought to breeze through that concept in a heartbeat ...
Works for me.
nm
James Fleming, post: 400786, member: 136 wrote: nm
Finally...someone changed the damned subject!
James Fleming, post: 400786, member: 136 wrote: nm
That has more reference to the order of conflicting elements that your previous post and Dave K's too.
The addage that "a little knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous" comes to mind.
I can not count the callers that have played out the adverse possession card.
Then they learn that simply saying so means squat.
Some have even gone so far as to begin paying the property taxes that also means very little.
It is a very hard road to ownership..............
A Harris, post: 400806, member: 81 wrote: ..It is a very hard road to ownership..............
My attorney brother has a fraternity bro that sits as a District Judge not too far from here and we all have lunch occasionally. We can have some deep conversations about a lot of things. Hizzoner once had a unique view of AP..."True adverse possession should be obvious and a slam dunk that could be handled at the county clerk level. What complicates the matter is the greedy nature of humans and their disdain of divested possessions, even possessions they didn't know they had until somebody pointed it out."
He also noted he had never had a successful AP case proven in his court.
It has happened here, we have volumes of case law on the subject.
The Courts generally pursue justice, so if justice is not on the side of the possessor then they will try to find a way out of it, especially at the Appellate level. On the other hand, the opposite has happened where the title of the possessor, especially where they have color of title, is upheld at the Appellate level.
Reading about Adverse Possession is a good way to try to understand the concept of title, it explains a lot.
