I’m continuing to follow the reporting in the Arizona Republic on an individual’s claim that he owns a parcel of land in downtown Tempe. I have written about it before. The story is interesting to me because it involves title to land, and because the individual's claim is based on adverse possession, a legal concept that I explained in my newsletter several years ago.
The Republic’s reporting has been pretty good, but they do seem to want to put the best face on it for the little guy who is battling city hall (and the state). No surprise there.
The war is just about over, however. The last pending case, which is the city’s action to eject the claimant from the property, was decided in the city’s favor in the Superior Court. The most recent report in the Republic says that the Court of Appeals has just affirmed that ruling. The claimant has one appeal left, to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the city’s claim to ownership of the property is valid. The claimant admits that he has no recorded title to the land.
Stay tuned, but I don’t think this one will go more than one more round.
Efforts by local governments to control the appearance of buildings are never going to stop, are they? The suggestion by a Philadelphia city council member that bay windows should be banned, as a way to preserve the traditional appearance of older neighborhoods, reminds me of a similar effort in Baltimore that I wrote about years ago. As I said then, it is “another example of a municipal government using zoning to control aesthetics, without even any pretense of any other objective (that is, other than a transparent invocation of the usual ‘property values’ ruse).”
Just a friendly reminder that your Arizona property taxes for the second half of 2018 must be paid before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 1, to avoid being delinquent.
If your taxes become delinquent, you will also owe interest at the rate of 16% per annum.
You can get more information from the Pima County Treasurer’s web site.
I like this concept. What they are selling is modular houses. They don’t say what the houses cost. They do give the price to rent a space to park one of the houses. I’m not sure if that price makes sense, compared to renting an apartment with similar amenities, but there is the benefit that you own the house and that it is relatively mobile, unlike most modular houses. We’ll see if this concept has any lasting appeal.
I have written in the past about the use of shipping containers to construct modular houses.
Certainly not people who are clueless enough to say things like this:
Tokyo is one of the few cities in which supply has kept up with demand, keeping a crisis from developing. But that is due largely to deregulated housing policies that other countries would have a hard time reproducing.
I’m not advocating that you paint your house black, or pink, but I did talk about situations involving houses painted those colors, as well as “gold zinger.” It’s my attempt to enlighten my loyal readers about the application of rules that govern what you can and cannot do with your own property.
My March Real Estate Law Update is in the mail and will soon be posted. If you’re interested, take a peek in the publications section at deconcinimcdonald.com.
This time it’s an old house built of yellow brick. Inexplicably, and perhaps mistakenly according to the news account, it got painted black. The historical board cried foul, the owner is trying to remove the black paint without damaging the brick, and locals are up in arms.
The house is in a business district and has apparently been used for retail for a long time. Does that matter?
I agree with the neighbors: the color of that house is sickening.
I also agree with the homeowner: if there is no homeowners’ association, and hence there are no rules for the neighbors to enforce, he should be able to paint his house whatever color he likes.
Like I said, if you want to paint your house the color of your choice, be careful where you buy your house. Conversely, if you want to make sure all the houses in your neighborhood look essentially the same, again, make sure you know what the rules are before you buy. It’s really not that complicated.
Adverse possession isn’t really about “squatting” on, or stealing, someone else’s land, even though it sounds like that’s essentially what happened in a case in Australia that was recently discussed at Lowering the Bar. Adverse possession is really about, in my opinion, putting to rest uncertainty about ownership of land. I have written about adverse possession from both angles: it’s not really about stealing someone else’s land; it really is about resolving uncertainty as to ownership of land.
It’s a subject that maybe only real estate lawyers care about. Other people don’t care about it until they discover that their neighbor is encroaching on their land. Then, they care about it.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.