Woman loses half her border-straddling home in tax blunder

[wmenorr67]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/23/woman-loses-half-her-border-straddling-home-in-tax-blunder/?intcmp=latestnews

Part of me says it is your own damn fault for living on property that straddles two states, let alone the house.

But then again the bank needs to hurt a lot for not doing its job properly.

[KD5NRH]

But then again the bank needs to hurt a lot for not doing its job properly.

This.  I have little to no sympathy for banks when they screw up something like this.

[T.O.M.]

I've got to wonder what idiot actually drew up a plot map with a parcel that straddled state borders.  You had to know right then that it was going to be trouble down the road.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It happens a lot. I know of one where house is on one side most of lot on other


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[vaskidmark]

There has to be a lot more than a bank failing to pay the NY property tax or the neighbor scheming to get the septic field.

I've known a few folks whose house/lot straddled the border between two towns/counties.  The homeowner and the two jurisdictions worked out in which jurisdiction the house (and usually thhe entire lot) would legally sit.  Almost every time it was the jurisdiction where the front door was, regardless of how much of the house/lot was inside the other jurisdiction.  In two cases Jurisdiction A bought the land from Jurisdiction B and recovered the costs via increased taxes.  In one case Juridiction A agreed to collect all the taxes and remit Jurisdiction B's portion; the agreement absolved the homeowner of any penalty if Jurisdition A screwed up as long as the homeowner could prove they paid the tax to Jurisdiction A.

Without those sorts of compromises you are faced with two jurisdictions being responsible for all sorts of municipal services such as fire, police, utility right of way, health and building code inspection/enforcement.  Just imagine the boondoggle that would ensue if a burglar broke in through a back window (NY side) but got shot and died on the CT side of the house.  It would be a bigger circus than the 27 police agencies in DC explaining why a car that jumped the curb along Embassy Row was not in their jurisdiction.

stay safe.

[KD5NRH]

I've known a few folks whose house/lot straddled the border between two towns/counties.  The homeowner and the two jurisdictions worked out in which jurisdiction the house (and usually thhe entire lot) would legally sit.

Doesn't seem to work that way in TX.  Have a friend whose house is just barely over the line, and he pays ~5% of his taxes to the other county.  Game warden still won't give him a solid answer on what to put on the tag if he shoots a deer in his ~40 acre front yard in one county and it crosses to his ~80 acre back yard in the other county to die.

[wmenorr67]

Ft Campbell, KY is mostly in Tennessee and I believe at one time in history was considered Ft. Campbell, TN.  The post is in Kentucky due to that is where the HQ building is.  However I saw more than a few tickets thrown out because the MP that wrote it wrote up the wrong state statute on it.  They would write a TN when the offense was in KY or vice versa.

Thankfully none of mine were.

[lupinus]

Knew a lady in NJ who had a house built and someone screwed up, the line between two towns went roughly right down the middle of her living room.

To make things more fun, the two towns apparently had a little pissing match going, so didn't come to an agreement quickly of easily on which one the property would fall under.

[Angel Eyes]

This.  I have little to no sympathy for banks when they screw up something like this.

Agreed, but I would add that Alethea Jacob is being a *expletive deleted*it for demanding $150K.

The home straddles the New York - Connecticut state line.  I wonder if Rosanne Di Guilio owns anything that's legal in one state but not the other.

[MechAg94]

Doesn't seem to work that way in TX.  Have a friend whose house is just barely over the line, and he pays ~5% of his taxes to the other county.  Game warden still won't give him a solid answer on what to put on the tag if he shoots a deer in his ~40 acre front yard in one county and it crosses to his ~80 acre back yard in the other county to die.

I used to have a townhouse in Clear Lake, TX.  Half my property taxes went to Harris County and half went to Galveston County.  I am not sure if the house split a property line or they just designated a border zone to be 50/50.  I don't recall ever seeing a note about a border line passing through.  Of course, it might have been the entire townhouse property was done that way.

[MechAg94]

http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/2015/02/15/woman-loses-half-of-her-house-to-neighbor/23454577/
Here is a link that has more information. 

http://www.fark.com/comments/8606937/Womans-house-straddles-NYCT-border-Bank-fails-to-pay-taxes-on-NY-half-of-it-out-of-escrow-account-Town-forecloses-Neighbor-snaps-it-up-for-$275-Doesnt-tell-woman-When-she-does-find-out-neighbor-offers-it-back-for-$150k
The link came from here if the first one gives you problems.

[MechAg94]

Based on the article I posted, the property taxes ($200) were unpaid from 2004 to 2010.  The neighbor noticed a county auction notice posted on a tree and bid on the property and got it.  Apparently, the neighbor never notified the homeowner that they owned it and the home owner found out in 2013 after for paying insurance, lawn service, and other stuff during the time she didn't even own the property.  The neighbor has offered to sell it back for a lower amount which the mortgage company has agreed to pay, but the homeowner wants the original seizure voided in court. 

I find it hard to believe that the taxes went unpaid for that long and the homeowner never was notified.  The article said she paid directly before turning it over to escrow in a refinance in 2004 so the county knew where to send the bills.  Of course, it sounds like she never looked at the escrow account information to see both bills were paid. 

[Firethorn]

If she was taking care of the property as though it was her own, as well as living on it, wouldn't she have an adverse possession claim against the neighbor?

[T.O.M.]

If she was taking care of the property as though it was her own, as well as living on it, wouldn't she have an adverse possession claim against the neighbor?

I think you just gave me PTSD from law school Property Law class!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The neighbor has offered to sell it back for a lower amount which the mortgage company has agreed to pay, but the homeowner wants the original seizure voided in court.  

Then screw the original property owner.

Bank made a mistake.  Bank made it right at their own expense.  Property owner refused?  Eff that.

If she was taking care of the property as though it was her own, as well as living on it, wouldn't she have an adverse possession claim against the neighbor?

Not for years and years, and all the  current owner has to do is say "hey, that's mine" and then the adverse possession claim goes kablooey.

[wmenorr67]

Then screw the original property owner.

Bank made a mistake.  Bank made it right at their own expense.  Property owner refused?  Eff that.
Not for years and years, and all the  current owner has to do is say "hey, that's mine" and then the adverse possession claim goes kablooey.

The original property owner didn't refuse, the new property owner is being the bitch.

[HankB]

Friend of mine has property (IIRC, it's about 20 acres) which is about 98% in one jurisdiction, with one small back corner - NOT including his house, driveway, mailbox, or any buildings - within the border of another.

The 2% jurisdiction is claiming that their zoning and other statutes apply to the ENTIRE property.

Once they sent out cops to "enforce" their zoning laws - buddy called the cops from the OTHER jurisdiction - where 98% of his property lies - and the two police forces had a confrontation in his front yard.

No guns were drawn, but I understand he got to see a pretty loud and heated "discussion" between the two police forces. 

[Jocassee]

Friend of mine has property (IIRC, it's about 20 acres) which is about 98% in one jurisdiction, with one small back corner - NOT including his house, driveway, mailbox, or any buildings - within the border of another.

The 2% jurisdiction is claiming that their zoning and other statutes apply to the ENTIRE property.

Once they sent out cops to "enforce" their zoning laws - buddy called the cops from the OTHER jurisdiction - where 98% of his property lies - and the two police forces had a confrontation in his front yard.

No guns were drawn, but I understand he got to see a pretty loud and heated "discussion" between the two police forces. 

I'm curious as to how it was zoned in the 2% side.

[Hawkmoon]

Without those sorts of compromises you are faced with two jurisdictions being responsible for all sorts of municipal services such as fire, police, utility right of way, health and building code inspection/enforcement.  Just imagine the boondoggle that would ensue if a burglar broke in through a back window (NY side) but got shot and died on the CT side of the house.  It would be a bigger circus than the 27 police agencies in DC explaining why a car that jumped the curb along Embassy Row was not in their jurisdiction.

Correct. When I was working as a building inspector a few years ago, the small town for which I worked had part of the campus of a small and very much un-famous "university" within our turf. The rest of the "university" lies in the adjoining city. As luck would have it, the gymnasium building (for at least one) straddles the boundary. I wasn't the inspector, the boss was because he was also the town's sanitarian. We had a project in which we inspected the swimming pool and the adjoining city inspected the locker rooms.

That said, the compromises assigning everything to one of the two jurisdictions are far more common than dual oversight.

[MechAg94]

Then screw the original property owner.

Bank made a mistake.  Bank made it right at their own expense.  Property owner refused?  Eff that.
Not for years and years, and all the  current owner has to do is say "hey, that's mine" and then the adverse possession claim goes kablooey.

1.  The original property owner seems to have a valid complaint that the seizing agency failed to make any effort to notify her either in person or by mail of the failure to pay the bill and failed to publicize the seisure properly.  IMO, seeing that issue decided in court first is perfectly valid. 

2.  The new owner paid less than $300, but first offered to sell it back for $150,000 and now is offering something like $30,000.  If they are the valid owner, that is their right, but it isn't very charitable.  IMO, since they failed completely to assert ownership and continued letting the previous owner pay for upkeep and insurance without seeking any agreement, I think the previous owner has some rights in this if the current court decision doesn't go her way.  (but what do I know.  I am not a lawyer and don't know the law there.)

3.  At least the mortgage company is willing to fix the issue.  I was at least happy to see that.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm skeptical that the homeowner didn't receive notice.  Seems more likely that she ignored the notices until way too late.

The thing that really gets me is she's being offered a solution that makes her whole and she doesn't want it, presumably because it includes a windfall for for the neighbor.  That's just petty.

[Firethorn]

It would be a bigger circus than the 27 police agencies in DC explaining why a car that jumped the curb along Embassy Row was not in their jurisdiction.

Is there a story here?

IMO, since they failed completely to assert ownership and continued letting the previous owner pay for upkeep and insurance without seeking any agreement, I think the previous owner has some rights in this if the current court decision doesn't go her way.  (but what do I know.  I am not a lawyer and don't know the law there.)

This is what I was trying to get at, the only example I know about is adverse possession.  

Not for years and years, and all the  current owner has to do is say "hey, that's mine" and then the adverse possession claim goes kablooey.

The 'new' owner let the 'old' owner stay there without notification for quite some time.  So when does the A.P. clock start?  When she started living there, or when the property was bought?

I'm skeptical that the homeowner didn't receive notice.  Seems more likely that she ignored the notices until way too late.

The thing that really gets me is she's being offered a solution that makes her whole and she doesn't want it, presumably because it includes a windfall for for the neighbor.  That's just petty.

I've heard of enough screwups I can believe it.  The state would probably be happy rolling back the sale and getting it's proper back taxes.

[vaskidmark]

Is there a story here?  ....

Not much of one.  Drunk lost control and jumped the curb, ending up about 2 feet into the brick wall of some embassy.  Everybody wanted to pass the buck and leave the State Dept.* holding the bag for the whole thing.  Took almost an hour for all the responding agencies to clear their vehicles off the street and let a tow truck drag the crashed car away.

* - this was way before Fatherland Motherland Homeland Security existed.

stay safe.