benmergui-october-5Title and ownership of property in real estate law can be quite the fickle beast considering some factors. Would you be surprised if marriage was one of them? Let that pass, and you should be just fine, but I’ll explain a particular scenario for you.

Let’s say you own some property, and you have tenants – a couple, a married couple, if you will. That’s all well and good, and then the married couple insists on completing something under real estate law called ‘property transference.’ That’s essentially passing tenancy from one party to another without even any consideration, consent or approval by you. This typically wouldn’t be any big of a deal, though, as long as you receive your rent payments in full and on time; however, when title then keeps passing more and more, you end up having to observe applicable limitations, and interests between tenants and prior tenants can get lost in the mix. The point is this – sometimes property transference can be done fraudulently, and as a property owner, you have to take that into account and file appropriate actions.

A way property transference can be considered fraudulent, for example, is if your tenants both transferred property to a son or daughter but without the tenants actually being married at that time. According to real estate law, oftentimes marriage can be a deciding factor legally when it comes to property. Who still retains their interest in the property? Not both tenants, because they’re not legally married.

It is then considered a fraudulent transference of property. Since both couldn’t successfully transfer property to a son or daughter, the transference essentially is void. You’ll find that no amount of appeal can contest that fact.

benmergui-october-4Real estate law is, by nature, a chronological discipline. The question always asked either openly or internally is this: who owned it first? Once that’s figured out, everything else should always fall into place. It, unfortunately, doesn’t always work that way, and that’s why we have the courts to help us all out, because no matter how you slice this cake – and how many pieces go out to X amount of kids during a birthday party – people will always disagree with their share of property, real estate, or anything else. It’s a fact of life.

Adverse possession is a concept often mentioned in real estate law for good reason. Let’s say a certain owner utilized certain pieces of land adjacent to the actual piece of property for years, practically managing it back in, say, 1980. No one else claimed property back then where the certain pieces happened to be situated on, so therefore there was no cause for disagreement or alarm. Then neighbors moved in. It was then determined through land survey that a property line was discovered, revealing that those pieces of land utilized and managed since 1980 actually encroached on the new property purchased by the neighbors, and they seem to have a problem with that. Rightly so. There’s just one problem with that….

By law, the owner since 1980, through adverse possession, earned the right to use and manage that property as if it was his or her own. Another way of looking at it is by saying that the owner obtained “prescriptive” title. Because that’s how it always had been for years, new neighbors moving in, say, around 1990 can argue and complain all they want about this other person constantly being on ‘their property’ literally, but the fact is that part of the property still belongs with the original owner.

Quite honestly, the only way a new owner of adjacent property could obtain rights to certain ‘parcels’ or pieces – such as an alleyway or trail, for example – is to offer payment of purchase or something like that. Either way, though, it’s a stretch. That person owned it first – even if it wasn’t on the original property in the first place.

Requiring Evidence for Real Estate Valuation Complaints – Is It Necessary?

October 3, 2014

Foreclosure1Let’s say you have a piece of property valued at a certain amount for the county fiscal officer and you don’t particularly agree with it – what do you do? Do you accept it, or can you file a complaint against it? It’s all up to you, really, and the fiscal officer does his or her duty for a reason – but for the sake of real estate law and fairness, the fact is this…. You can appeal such a determination if you don’t agree with it. There’s just one rub to it all.

Read more on Requiring Evidence for Real Estate Valuation Complaints – Is It Necessary?…

Read the full article →

Can Real Estate Commissions Have a Problem With Styles of Architecture?

October 2, 2014

21681165_s (1)I’m sure many of you have heard of that before: the idea that a neighborhood association or a neighbor could have an issue with a house not matching a certain style as the rest in a neighborhood. It’s understandable, especially when such a commission is designed to preserve a certain style of real estate, and if someone seeks to build a house in a different way, it would seem that an association or individual has a right to cry foul and raise the issue. When it comes to common sense, though, let’s be fair – you can’t force an owner of a nearly completed to home to scrap the entire plan and start over just because you want a neighborhood, subdivision or area to follow a specific ‘style’ of housing.

Read more on Can Real Estate Commissions Have a Problem With Styles of Architecture?…

Read the full article →

Religious Real Estate Law: You Must Not Eat the Forbidden Fruit

October 1, 2014

23794996_sFar be it from this being a scene out of the book of Genesis where there’s a big tree, a serpent, and a couple of humans wondering if it’s okay to eat an apple. It’s fun and funny to think that this little story told in Catholic school had anything to do with real estate law, but believe it or not….

Read more on Religious Real Estate Law: You Must Not Eat the Forbidden Fruit…

Read the full article →