The key word in the above definition is hostile, and I don't think, at least under Texas law, that requirement is met in this situation. But what you have described is potentially a very complex situation that could go a lot of different ways. I don't think there can be much debate that there is ample reason to question the motives of the prior owners. I would proceed very carefully, including engaging a lawyer, and not just any lawyer but the best real estate lawyer I could find.

(03-02-2017 07:09 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm not a lawyer but I remember in some classes I had to take dealing with land, if they are locked into the middle of the property, you have to allow them a means of egress. Your situation may be different. But that's what I recall. I'd definitely contact a real estate lawyer. I'd also have the land surveyed if you haven't done so already. Stake out your portion and their portion.

This is true but they have road access. They just need to make a driveway over the ditch.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-01-2017 08:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:34 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Is that a storage shed or cabin by the pond?

Looks like a house and a shed.

There USED to be a house there. It is no longer there. The shed still is, though.

(03-02-2017 01:21 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I have to believe the best move is probably to contest ownership of the one acre, as harsh as that sounds...

can you elaborate more on this?

There is something about the way that family set this up that makes me suspicious about their motives. It could be just a way to make sure the younger generation has a place to stay, but it could also be with the intent to keep or regain possession of the entire 24 acres. At the very least, the situation looks awkward. Given the timeframe involved, it seems like the best move for the family would've been to put the land on the market rather than let it go into foreclosure. So, why didn't they do that?

How would you go about contesting ownership

(03-02-2017 09:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 01:21 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I have to believe the best move is probably to contest ownership of the one acre, as harsh as that sounds...

can you elaborate more on this?

There is something about the way that family set this up that makes me suspicious about their motives. It could be just a way to make sure the younger generation has a place to stay, but it could also be with the intent to keep or regain possession of the entire 24 acres. At the very least, the situation looks awkward. Given the timeframe involved, it seems like the best move for the family would've been to put the land on the market rather than let it go into foreclosure. So, why didn't they do that?

How would you go about contesting ownership

By hiring a lawyer and asking if you could do that. It doesn't seem kosher that you could legally subdivide a plot when you have a lien against it. Keep in mind that I don't have much of a clue on this, nor experience.

(03-02-2017 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The key word in the above definition is hostile, and I don't think, at least under Texas law, that requirement is met in this situation.

Somehow that eluded me at least twice... that destroys the premise of my question.

(03-02-2017 09:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 01:21 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I have to believe the best move is probably to contest ownership of the one acre, as harsh as that sounds...

can you elaborate more on this?

There is something about the way that family set this up that makes me suspicious about their motives. It could be just a way to make sure the younger generation has a place to stay, but it could also be with the intent to keep or regain possession of the entire 24 acres. At the very least, the situation looks awkward. Given the timeframe involved, it seems like the best move for the family would've been to put the land on the market rather than let it go into foreclosure. So, why didn't they do that?

How would you go about contesting ownership

Well, if the bank held title to the entire property, the mortgage encumbered the entire property. If the mother gifted a portion of the property to the kids without obtaining a release from the bank, that's a fraudulent conveyance.

Think of it this way, you have a mortgage on your house and go sell the property for $200,000 without telling the bank. Does the house now belong to the person that bought it? Obviously not.

My question would be, during the acquisition process I am assuming that you got title insurance unless you paid cash (and maybe even if you did pay cash, I certainly would have bought it where a foreclosure was involved). If you have a title policy, what does it say about easements and the other issues?

Here is what it says about the 1 acre on QPublic...

Sale Date: 1/14/2009
Deed Book / Page: Left Blank Intentionally (But there is info there)
Plat Book / Page : Left Blank (But there is info there)
Sale Price: $0
Reason: Gift
Grantor: Mrs. K
Grantee: Mrs. K's Son-In-Law

Here is what it says about OUR property... does it tell you guys anything?

(03-02-2017 10:59 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Here is what it says about the 1 acre on QPublic...

Sale Date: 1/14/2009
Deed Book / Page: Left Blank Intentionally (But there is info there)
Plat Book / Page : Left Blank (But there is info there)
Sale Price: $0
Reason: Gift
Grantor: Mrs. K
Grantee: Mrs. K's Son-In-Law

Here is what it says about OUR property... does it tell you guys anything?

No, you'd need to know what is says about the 1 acre. Talk to a lawyer.... SERIOUSLY.

Get a surveyor to survey EVERYTHING, locate all structures, corners, etc. Then I'd grant a small piece of land to him so that the entire building is on his property. Fence around that new property line, just make sure 100% of the fence is on your land. As far as his access goes, it's not your problem. He has road frontage. Regarding the pond safety I have no idea tbh.

Where is this property located roughly? I can probably advise a good surveyor. They work hand in hand with lawyers all the time.

(03-02-2017 11:11 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:59 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Here is what it says about the 1 acre on QPublic...

Sale Date: 1/14/2009
Deed Book / Page: Left Blank Intentionally (But there is info there)
Plat Book / Page : Left Blank (But there is info there)
Sale Price: $0
Reason: Gift
Grantor: Mrs. K
Grantee: Mrs. K's Son-In-Law

Here is what it says about OUR property... does it tell you guys anything?

No, you'd need to know what is says about the 1 acre. Talk to a lawyer.... SERIOUSLY.

Get a surveyor to survey EVERYTHING, locate all structures, corners, etc. Then I'd grant a small piece of land to him so that the entire building is on his property. Fence around that new property line, just make sure 100% of the fence is on your land. As far as his access goes, it's not your problem. He has road frontage. Regarding the pond safety I have no idea tbh.

Where is this property located roughly? I can probably advise a good surveyor. They work hand in hand with lawyers all the time.

We definitely plan to talk to a lawyer.

The property is in south GA, in Thomas County.

OK, can't help you in GA. Good luck.

(03-02-2017 01:35 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:38 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The internet lawyers have come out in force today.

You don't need a lawyer for this. A Lawyer is a last resort.

This is probably the worst advise on the thread. I wouldn't touch it without having a lawyer looking at it.

I said as a last resort. But some of you keep posting about some big conspiracy about one acre of land that was cut out of the parcel that ECU received.

(03-02-2017 10:59 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Here is what it says about OUR property... does it tell you guys anything?

I'm guessing they've used form 1040EZ?

(03-02-2017 01:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:59 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Here is what it says about OUR property... does it tell you guys anything?

I'm guessing they've used form 1040EZ?

Haha I don't know what you're driving at.

But really - this photo may have gotten lost... does this help explain how someone can gift a parcel when they still owe on the property? I don't understand all the language in it.

(03-01-2017 08:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Yes, the bank would have the legal description of the 23 acre that ECU bought. Why do you and other keep going back to this one acre. Don't you think the bank would tell him if that acre was included.

If the final say is not at the Court House where would it be?

A car is not the same as land.

Tell you what this is a little bump for ECU not a mountain.

(03-02-2017 01:21 AM)I45owl Wrote:  There is something about the way that family set this up that makes me suspicious about their motives.

I'd quote this to you Dog as to 'why'.

The final say is at the court with a judge at trial, and not merely filing a deed. Title insurance has a purpose.

A car is not the same as land and I never said it was, but a lien is a lien. There is a legal description of the property against which the lien is filed... and THAT is what he bought... NOT what is recorded at the registrar. Not all deeds are filed.

Also I'd point out that his issue is not merely 'what do I own'.... but 'what do I do about these issues'... and those issues all have to do with what the bank owned and what the bank sold him.

The bank may have been perfectly happy to let them carve out that acre, but that implies that the property was worth more than they owed... which it clearly wasn't since they were foreclosed upon... which implies to me that
a) the acre was NEVER part of the security for the loan
b) the bank was stupid or complicit in fraud against their shareholders
c) the bank was cheated and thus there is an action there that might allow him to own that acre and all of his issues go away.

Of course there are more possibilities, but those come to my mind.

(03-02-2017 02:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The bank may have been perfectly happy to let them carve out that acre, but that implies that the property was worth more than they owed... which it clearly wasn't since they were foreclosed upon...

That last page that was submitted said the deed was secured in lieu of foreclosure. That almost makes it sound like it wasnt foreclosed on at all. And if that was the case and the acre was included in the deed, then the daughter doesnt own it.

If thats the case, I would probably pull the daughter into a 3 way agreement and tell them you dont own the land at all, but I will let you keep it if you remove your encroachments and agree that you need no easement and agree to the boundries. That would make it clean, and honestly, cheap, since you only need an attorney to draw the agreement up.

(03-02-2017 02:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Yes, the bank would have the legal description of the 23 acre that ECU bought. Why do you and other keep going back to this one acre. Don't you think the bank would tell him if that acre was included.

If the final say is not at the Court House where would it be?

A car is not the same as land.

Tell you what this is a little bump for ECU not a mountain.

(03-02-2017 01:21 AM)I45owl Wrote:  There is something about the way that family set this up that makes me suspicious about their motives.

I'd quote this to you Dog as to 'why'.

The final say is at the court with a judge at trial, and not merely filing a deed. Title insurance has a purpose.

A car is not the same as land and I never said it was, but a lien is a lien. There is a legal description of the property against which the lien is filed... and THAT is what he bought... NOT what is recorded at the registrar. Not all deeds are filed.

Also I'd point out that his issue is not merely 'what do I own'.... but 'what do I do about these issues'... and those issues all have to do with what the bank owned and what the bank sold him.

The bank may have been perfectly happy to let them carve out that acre, but that implies that the property was worth more than they owed... which it clearly wasn't since they were foreclosed upon... which implies to me that
a) the acre was NEVER part of the security for the loan
b) the bank was stupid or complicit in fraud against their shareholders
c) the bank was cheated and thus there is an action there that might allow him to own that acre and all of his issues go away.

Of course there are more possibilities, but those come to my mind.

I think it # A

"There is a legal description of the property against which the lien is filed...(TRUE) and THAT is what he bought...(TRUE) NOT what is recorded at the registrar. Not all deeds are filed."
You lost me on the last two.

ECU where did you get this information?

Mr. K's wife ("Mrs. K") knew that she could manage to pay the mortgage for about 5-6 years before she would ultimately lose it to the bank. Knowing this, Mrs. K decided to GIFT 1 acre of land to her daughter, son-in-law, and grandson.

(03-02-2017 03:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  ECU where did you get this information?

Mr. K's wife ("Mrs. K") knew that she could manage to pay the mortgage for about 5-6 years before she would ultimately lose it to the bank. Knowing this, Mrs. K decided to GIFT 1 acre of land to her daughter, son-in-law, and grandson.

From our realtor, who supposedly dug into it for us.

It seemed to line up with the info on QPublic where it shows it was gifted in 2009.