All Forum Posts by: Davido Davido

@Greg H. An unqualified statement that, "The Brother has zero interest currently in the property" is not true in any state of the union.  If you site the Texas law which makes such a statement true, I will either point out the fault in your application of the law, or admit my own.  The commentary I give is based on near universal common law principles.  IE:  The brother has a valid and legally cognizable possessory interest (in every state of this union -including Texas) because he is in control of the property.   If he was living there, neither a daughter nor son could summarily remove him.  The brother also has a legally cognizable equitable interest in the property (in every state of the union -including Texas) by virtue of the fact that he has paid the property taxes for three years.  The brother also could have a legally cognizable title interest because under the Texas Intestate Succession Statute the property belongs to siblings if both of the previous owner's parents are deceased and their are no surviving children.  https://theenergylawgroup.com/...    

So a correct statement would be that, If there is a surviving spouse or children of the previous owner, then the Brother currently has zero title interest in the property.    Even so, there are methods that a knowledgeable investor can use to profit from the brother's current possessory interest in the property, and from his equitable interest.   

Courts routinely enforce contracts based the cognizable right of mere possession. In common law, possession is itself a property right. Possession acquired without consent is still a property right which the law protects. There is a rebuttable presumption that the possessor of property also has the right of possession. Merely possessing real property gives rise to a right of possession which is enforceable against everyone -except those with a better right to possession. Evidence may be offered to establish who has the legal right of possession, which may include evidence of (Title) ownership, or evidence of a superior right of possession without ownership (Adverse Possession). The passage of time can also bring to an end the owner's right to recover exclusive possession of a property, even without losing the ownership of it, as when an adverse easement for use is granted by a court.   All that is a long way from "zero interest".

@Greg H.,  While the second sentence here is true, the first is -at best, unhelpful.   "Just because they are not currently doing anything or physically present in the US changes nothing. They are still the only legal heirs to the property"

When the legal owner's of a property are not using it, not maintaining it, and not paying the taxes on it, they are viewed in the law as having implicitly abandoned their property.   Such "abandoned" properties are available to be taken.   As a matter of law, there can be no trespass, nor theft, when a property has been expressly or implicitly abandoned by its owner. https://www.biggerpockets.com/...

So in this situation, Blaine could acquire the "equitable interest" the brother currently has, then use the property as his own, whether he has legal title or not.  It is true that the heirs maintain their legal interest until a court rules otherwise, but the current implicit abandonment of the heirs does change who can use the property in their absence.  Under the law, continuous possession and use of that property by the brother, or by the brother followed by Blaine and/or his tenants, will eventually create a valid legal claim on the title for the brother or for Blaine.

@Blaine Alger, There is always a way and there is always another way.  You're mainly looking for a proposal that will satisfy the party currently paying the taxes and that will profit you -so make a proposal.  The recommendation to get a title report is solid.  It will tell you who own's what, what debt remains attached to the property, and what the title company will need in order to insure the title.    I'd surely want to know those things.   But do realize that no matter what the title company says you need, you can profit from this property with no title at all.   See the link at the bottom of this post.   What ever you decide, it is important to understand who has a legal interest in the property under the Texas Statute on Intestate Succession (Laws for disbursement of property when there is no will) 

https://statutes.capitol.texas...

 @Jerel Ehlert provided key information about equitable title being different from legal title.   You should learn  the ways the brother can make an equitable claim on the property (because he cared for it and paid the taxes) and ways that he (or you) could turn his equitable title into legal title.  Also, realize, that  debts secured by the property likely will never need to be paid.  Texas has a three to six year statute of limitations on most debt (except mortgage debt).  If no one has been collecting the debt for the past three years then debt on the property is not likely to be collected at the last minute -unless you seek a clear title.  Past debt is also potentially dangerous because it can be bought by others and used to foreclose -until debt is beyond the statute of limitations.   

All in all, my approach would be to offer the brother just enough to get a quit claim deed from him (for the equitable interest that can be established by his improvements and the property taxes he's paid).  A quit claim deed will give you all his interest in the property (equitable & legal -if any).  Then, I'd just rent it out for a couple more years until the period of Adverse Possession is completed.  At that point file a quiet title action to clear the title in your name.  Texas has a short period of adverse possession, 3 years if you had a colorable legal claim on the title, 5 years with an equitable claim that you can turn into a legal claim just thru your possession tacked on to the brother's and by paying the property taxes (the brothers 3 years of taxes are tacked on to your future two years) -if you get a quit claim deed from the brother.

Adverse possession is not common, but it is well known, and works just fine if you educate yourself.  https://www.biggerpockets.com/...

@Doanh Mai, there are some properties in almost every county that are literally abandoned (the owner and the lien holder(s) have given up all interest in the property).  Those few  parcels that are Abandoned real estate can be acquired by adverse possession.  It takes patience (5 to 20 years), and specialized knowledge, but Adverse Possession can be done with very little cash.  https://www.biggerpockets.com/...

@Jerry Hodges,  you might try adverse possession.   https://www.biggerpockets.com/...

@Chantal Routhier,  you might find this post of some use. https://www.biggerpockets.com/...   I've had good luck posting such properties as fixers, which are advertised as currently unlivable, but available at steeply reduced rental  rates for some one with the skills and willingness to do repairs.   Most of the time, I must also supply materials, but when funds are tight, my material purchases are limited to the amount of monthly rent collected.  That makes a long slow process for bringing the building up to code, but with the result is that the "renter" is providing his/her labor for repairs at no cost to me, and all the funds for materials come from the rent paid.  If truly unlivable, most jurisdictions allow living in an RV or Motor Home temporarily why the house is being repaired. Best wishes. 

@Basit Siddiqi,  "Make a conversation to the woman about selling the house, if she is unwilling to do so, move on."   Yes, of course.  We both suggest having conversation with the woman and offering to buy her house.  The difference is how we would handle the current owner's unwillingness or mental/emotional inability to sell.  

Despite suggesting that my recommendation basically would take advantage of her, (by offering to rent the woman's house "with all rents over expenses going to her"), it is your more rigid recommendation to move on if she is unwilling to sell, which works out to the disadvantage of all involved and provides a solution to no one.  

The fact is that even when able to mentally comprehend the benefits, someone people are emotionally unable to sell.  Following your give up and move on advice, Dylan makes no progress on his goals, the home continues to waste away, the woman who owns it gets no income, the neighborhood suffers from deteriorating property values, and the county from a deteriorating tax base.  How is that a solution for anyone? 

Moreover, nothing, in my reply would indicate to a reasonable reader that I was advocating, or approving of taking advantage of anyone, ever, or for any reason.   Disengaging completely, from a person whom you know you can benefit is no act of kindness.  Contrary to your approach of either making a purchase that benefits Dylan or walking away and ignoring the apparent needs of the owner, -what I proposed was lawful, beneficial to all involved, and much, much more caring than simply ignoring apparent need of another because it doesn't provide immediate and substantial profit. 

If you see anything in my post that suggested taking advantage, please specify the statement that you think supports such a conclusion.  Isn't it you who advocates uncaringly leaving the property owner in a deteriorating position?  Shame on you Basit, you and all the other narrowminded see no need, help no one, profiteers like you.

@

Hello @Dylan DeWitt, Jon Crosby gave fine advice above.   This reply proposes adverse possession as a potential alternative to buying the home.   It is my experience, https://www.biggerpockets.com/... that more often than not situations like this continue to deteriorate without a sale and to the detriment of everyone involved, -including to the detriment of the property owner, of potential buyers, the county and the entire neighborhood. 

Your post describes an elderly property owner who is no longer living at her property and who is in the care of others (diminished capacity).  Very often such an owner is unwilling to sell in part or whole because they are mentally/emotionally unable to adjust to changes in their routine, in their bodies and in their mental acuity.  Such property owners are equally unable to care for the property.  So the property deteriorates to the detriment of all.  

I would work out a deal with the property owner if at all possible.  If she is reluctant to sell, I would propose renting it out for her, with all rents over expenses going to her.   You can lawfully rent out, but not sell Real Estate, with just a verbal agreement from the owner.  Take a phone, and get her permission to record what she agrees to.  Your subsequent written agreement with whoever you rent to should specify that the renter will be interacting with you, a neighbor of the owner, and that you are acting on her behalf without pay (In most states you need a property management license to take money for renting).   

There is no need for you to put any of your money into the property in order to rent it.  Advertise it on Social Media (Facebook Market Place, NextDoor.com, Craigslist.com etc) that the home is available "as is" at a reduced rate, for someone willing and able to clean up and repair the property.  Make sure the want to be renter that you accept has their own vehicle (preferably a truck), and their own work tools.  Be aware that this approach requires continual management from you.   Be creative.  You can apply all the rent from the first month or the first six to pay for materials the new renter needs to make repairs.   The renter, thereby provides the labor, and pays for the materials from the rent.   You can ensure that part of the rent pays the mortgage and the taxes.   Even if for a number of months there is no cash left after paying expenses, the owner benefits by having her property continually improved and maintained, instead of deteriorating.  And the neighborhood will be cleaned up instead of drawing in vagrants.

Overtime, the owner will either develop  a relationship of trust with you in which you can arrange a purchase, or at least help her prepare a will.  Unfortunately, it is just as likely that the owner will pass on having done nothing to direct the disposition of her property.   At that point, you can cause the property to go through probate, or you can continue to rent the property with the intent to adverse possess it.

"Adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a trespasser – sometimes a stranger but more often a neighbor – to gain legal title over the land of a property owner. The concept developed in early Britain. More recently, though, the law’s function is to achieve a fair result when one owner has neglected or forgotten about a piece of property while another has been using or caring for it for so long that to make him or her leave would create hardship. The policy goal behind adverse possession statutes, in New York and elsewhere, is to ensure that land is owned by those who cultivate it and use it most productively, rather than by those who ignore it."

 There is always a way to accomplish your goal.   In fact, there is always another way.   And there is always a better way.   Pick a way, and get it done.

Hello Char,  You did not mention whether the property was vacant or being used by someone.   If it is vacant, the easiest thing to do is to get it rented.   Just take control of the property as though it is already yours.   Check with the county to find out the minimum amount of past due property taxes that you can pay to prevent property tax foreclosure and pay that amount.  Once you have income coming in, you can sort out the Title, Deed, Probate, and other ownership issues at your leisure.  Use some of the rent for an Attorney, if you want one, or just keep collecting rent for the rest of your life.    With the exception of the mortgage, all liens (debt) on the property is already unenforceable because it is beyond the Illinois Statute of Limitations, and even the Mortgage holder is highly unlikely to foreclose at this late date.  Until/unless you want a clear title, just continue to ignore the mortgage and enjoy the rents.  It really can be that simple.  Clean it up, rent it out.  Take your time deciding what to do from there.

@Peter Walther, Yes you are correct.  The neighbor's adverse possession must include an element that the court's refer to as "hostile" to the title owner of the property.   Establishing that the neighbor's use of the property was permissive is indeed a simple way to defeat a claim of Adverse Possession, but it is not as simple as making an assertion.

The WA State Supreme Court has set out four separate elements that a potential adverse possessor must prove in order to perfect a claim under WA law.  Hostility is one of them.  The lead case is, Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wn. 2d 853 (Wash. 1984) at page 858.

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1984/49663-3-1.html

Hostility can be confusing for those unfamiliar with legal terminology.  It basically means the adverse possessor used the property as though it were his/her own.  Which is indicated in this post, 

"(he built a little road for his truck and built a shed)".  

When an adverse possessor is able to prove they had use of another person's property and excluded the legal owner from using it for ten continuous years, a presumption of hostility is established.  At that point, merely asserting a claim of permissive use is generally no longer sufficient to overcome the presumption of hostility inherent from exclusive use.

In the case at hand, establishing to a Court that a legal owner gave permission for a would be adverse possessor to use the owner's property would require sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of hostility which judges find inherent when an adverse possessor is able to demonstrate that he/she used real property to the exclusion of the legal owner.  Evidence of permissive use can be testimonial, but the mere assertion by an owner, to the effect that an adverse possessor's use was permissive, is unlikely to be persuasive.