It was a tangent to his main topic, but he did pretty well. Perhaps needs some help differentiating between precision and accuracy, but did well for a lay person.
I believe the driveway case is in the attached subdivision. It can be a tough area to retrace, but we do have lots of unfiled historical maps field notes that can be helpful.
Adverse Possession of property is a difficult thing to prove in California, since your house taxes are based upon what you paid for the property with a maximum increase annually. I have not heard of a successful adverse possession case in the last 15 years.
since your house taxes are based upon what you paid for the property with a maximum increase annually. I have not heard of a successful adverse possession case in the last 15 years.
Your taxes don't go up if you make improvements?
The tax thing is always strange to me...when the assessor showed up, and drove down the driveway, didn't the fact that you had (exclusive) access play into the assessment in some way?
On the flip side, in my area, you don't pay per square foot, but rather on a range of area, and again, when the assessor shows up, the assessment is essentially on what you see.
Interesting how differently these things play out in the different states.
Adverse Possession of property is a difficult thing to prove in California,
Yeah, rich people quieting title in CA is pretty much as far from my interests as can be found...but he buried the lead...the interesting part is where he discusses the original survey of Michigan. He wrote a book about one of the original surveyors.
Way back in high school (about 1970) a teacher was explaining property taxes to us and how unfair they were. At that time, the taxes were figured on the most recent sale of the property. There could be identical houses, side by side, with one having been purchased last year (1969) and one purchased in 1931 in the Depression Era. Their taxes were vastly different. Somewhere in the mid- 1980s the State decreed that mass reappraisals were to be done. That evened those disparities back out. Since then, every property must be reappraised on a five-year cycle whether resold or not.
"creating a cast of characters such as Jar-Jar Binks"
Since then, every property must be reappraised on a five-year cycle whether resold or not.
There are a couple of court cases working through the system to eliminate appraisal values for taxes. We shall see where that goes.
Since then, every property must be reappraised on a five-year cycle whether resold or not.
Recently sat on a community board to review the taxable values assigned to the properties of the Property Valuation Administration office employees. Supposed to be a process to keep them honest, but wasn't needed in my home county.
The part of the process I REALLY dislike is that the assessed tax value is supposed to be based on 'fair market value". I get using that idea as reported in the deed for an initial basis and then adding an inflation amount per year, otherwise everyone would be reporting low amounts for sales. But when you have no intention of selling and the market goes nuts like it has recently, there is a sudden big hike even for people with no intention of selling or moving. If you've got no intention of being on the market, why should 'fair market value' come into play.
"creating a cast of characters such as Jar-Jar Binks"
I noticed that too. Very funny.
The ongoing appraisal process tends to keep things more equitable. Identical houses setting side by side should be taxed somewhere close to the same.
Oh, that's right, my county assessor said that the new tentative assessments would be out today. Last updated 6 years ago. The new proposed value is 30% higher than the existing one, but less than what we paid for it 14 months ago. This is different than my previous state, California, where residential properties go up a minor amount every year, but only jump in value when sold. Upgrades may trigger a reappraisal too. I don't know. We had bought a historic house already under the Mills Act, so we paid about $2k a year in property taxes for a house we purchased for over 400k. The difference was to be used for upkeep, which was quite useful.
The ongoing appraisal process tends to keep things more equitable. Identical houses setting side by side should be taxed somewhere close to the same.
Depends on if we own property or rent it from the sovereign, I would suppose.
Hard of fixed income folks just living in their house. They retire thinking they know their expenses, but they do not.
