Adverse Possession

[trader4]

Added: BTW my paying the taxes on it was not required. It just cut the time for AP from 10 to 7 years per Washington law.



All one wanted to know about Adverse Possession:



http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/Study_material/California-Adverse-Possession.pdf



Harry K

Good that you finally figured out how to use Google. And why
didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:

"PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES
Some states require the trespasser to have paid the taxes on the property for the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met except the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse possession. (See "Easements," below)."


As for it being "all one wanted to know about adverse possession",
it's titled "California Adverse Possession", from a CA govt DOT website, dumb ass.

 

[Harry K]

Yeah, I'm the one who was right, but I'm still supposed to be

the lazy one because you're too lazy and stupid to use google

to figure out that what I posted was true. You acted like it

was unheard of. Yet, there it is, in the huge state of California,

among others.












Typical. I'm supposed to do everything, including google for

you. You asked a question about how someone could pay the

property taxes on a piece of property they don't own. I just

gave you the way it can be done. I spelled it out above.

Now, if that won't work, you could tell us why it won't.

Instead you just post some snide remark.



You sure as hell can walk into the tax collectors office

here in any of the towns I've lived in and pay the taxes

owed on any property. They don't ask for proof that you

own it. They ask the name and address, or block and lot #.

You give them a check or cash. If it's a check, they don't

give a rat's ass who's name is on the check. You think

there aren't plenty of folks, where for example there are

more than one person living together in a house and only

one of their names is on the title/tax records and only

that person can go pay the bill? And that

the person at the tax collectors window is going to ask

you to prove that you somehow have a right to pay the taxes?

They take the money from anyone there willing to pay it.

Good grief, you're dumb!












You might try answering questions and using google, instead of hiding, being deceptive, and then bitching when I'm nice enough to use Google to prove that you're wrong.

You might try remembering that the cite is required from the person MAKING THE CLAIM.

As for that answer you want? I provided it it, go look for it a few posts up. Getting lazy again are you?

Harry K

 

[Harry K]

Good that you finally figured out how to use Google.

And your fingers were having a problem that you couldn't find that 'oh, so simple' search string and post and actual on point cite rather than an obscure cite to an appellate court ruling?

And why

didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:

Since it was simple to read and came near the top, why bother. I posted it as it is a very excellent discussion of many of the sub conversations in this thread. You could have done it if you weren't so apparently google handicapped

"PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES

Some states require the trespasser to have paid the taxes on the propertyfor the statutory time period. If all the other requirements are met except the tax payment, a court will usually grant a prescriptive easement to use the property to the trespasser, instead of ownership through adverse possession. (See "Easements," below)."

Hey! I see you know how to C&P!

As for it being "all one wanted to know about adverse possession",

it's titled "California Adverse Possession", from a CA govt DOT website, dumb ass.

Yep and it discusses the subject in general not just California. You did see the "Some states"? It is obvious from the start that it is not California specific.'

Now if you are done with your ad hominems.

Clue: You can avoid all this chit chat in the future by just provided a cite to the next claim you make when it is asked for.

Harry K

 

[trader4]

<snip a whole bunch of your refusal to provide a cite until finally pushed into doing what is standard protocol in usenet, i.e,, person claiming needs to provide the cite.>

I readily do that if it's something obscure or that's hard to find.
But I think it's a good idea for people like you to learn hot to
use google and educate yourselves sometimes, instead of sitting there
like a lazy ass. I knew it to be true. You didn't. Why the hell is
it *my* obligation to go find what anyone can find with google in
a couple minutes?

And your fingers were having a problem that you couldn't find that 'oh, so simple' search string and post and actual on point cite rather than an obscure cite to an appellate court ruling?

Why should I have to do the simple search for you? Fact is,
I was right. If you cared that much about it, as opposed to
shooting your mouth off, you could have done the search. As
for it being an "obscure cite to an appellate court ruling",
it was an excellent example not only of the fact that who
pays the property taxes on a piece of property that's in dispute
matters greatly in some states, it also shows the law actually
applied and interpreted by an appellate court in a real world
case. And in my
world, that beats *your* cite which was a link to a document
on a California DOT website. I'd say the decision of an
appellate court is more relevant than the opinion of an
unknown author on a DOT website. The DOT decides about highways,
not law. Plus the newspaper article seemed appropriate for your
comprehension level.

And why didn't you post what you found there, that shows exactly what I said and which you and someone else on here found so unbelievable:




Since it was simple to read and came near the top, why bother.

I see. So, I'm wrong for not providing cites to anything that
is questioned, apparently so as to prove and educate people on here.
But when you finally use a simple google search to prove that I'm
right, it's OK for you not to post the short section you found
that proves exactly what I said. Go figure.

I posted it as it is a very excellent discussion of many of the sub >conversations in this thread. You could have done it if you weren't so >apparently google handicapped

You finally use google to find out that I was correct, after
making post after post, "Waaah, where's a citation?, Where oh
where is a citation? Help! I've fallen and I can't get up..."
and I'm the one that's handicapped?

Hey! I see you know how to C&P!

Yes, and apparently you don't, because you could have posted
that little piece that says I'm right, but chose not to.
Gee, I wonder why?

Yep and it discusses the subject in general not just California. You didsee the "Some states"? It is obvious from the start that it is not California specific.'

The fact that it's the subject in general, written by some
unknown person in the California Dept of Transportation, titled
California Adverse Possession, also means it's *not* "all you
want to know" about AP, which is what you posted.

Now if you are done with your ad hominems.



Clue: You can avoid all this chit chat in the future by just provided a cite to the next claim you make when it is asked for.



Harry K

You can avoid all this by not making an ass out of yourself
and just doing a simple google search yourself when you think
something isn't true.

BTW, you still want to claim that it's difficult or impossible for
anyone to go make a real estate tax payment on any piece of property?
Or is it time to admit you're wrong on that too?

 

[trader4]

You might try remembering that the cite is required from the person MAKING THE CLAIM.

Yeah, I buy that if it's some EXTRAORDINARY claim. If it's something that would require someone who gives a damn to
do some extensive searching, because it's hard to find.
But not when it's one that any dumb ass that's interested
can find by googling "Adverse possession taxes". You posted
how many separate posts and how many paragraphs expressing
disbelief? "waaahh... waaah.... where's the cite?"
Just 3 words in google would have produced the answer.

As for that answer you want? I provided it it, go look for it a few posts up. Getting lazy again are you?



Harry K

I don't really give a damn. It's obvious you've finally accepted
the fact that taxes do matter and that in fact it's not impossible
or even difficult to pay real estate taxes on a property you don't
own.

 

[krw]

<snip a whole bunch of your refusal to provide a cite until finally pushed into doing what is standard protocol in usenet, i.e,, person claiming needs to provide the cite.>

It's funny to see a Google Groupie whine about snipping.

 

[Harry K]

Yeah, I buy that if it's some EXTRAORDINARY claim. If it's something that would require someone who gives a damn to

do some extensive searching, because it's hard to find.

But not when it's one that any dumb ass that's interested

can find by googling "Adverse possession taxes". You posted

how many separate posts and how many paragraphs expressing

disbelief? "waaahh... waaah.... where's the cite?"

Just 3 words in google would have produced the answer.

So why didn't you do that instead of posting an obscure appellate court ruling?

I don't really give a damn. It's obvious you've finally accepted

the fact that taxes do matter and that in fact it's not impossible

or even difficult to pay real estate taxes on a property you don't

own.

You sure do seem to care a lot.

ROFLMAO. Do you plan to grow up some day?

Harry K

 

[Harry K]

It's funny to see a Google Groupie whine about snipping.

Just to please you I left in what seems to be forty quadjullion lines of blank lines in Trad's post when I replied. That suit you?

Harry K

 

[The Daring Dufas]

Trying to win an arguement online is like trying to open your mouth so
wide that your head turns inside out.

It can probably be done, but no one has succeeded in doing it yet.

Does sometimes feeling like it count?

TDD

 

[trader4]

So why didn't you do that instead of posting an obscure appellate court ruling?






You sure do seem to care a lot.



ROFLMAO. Do you plan to grow up some day?



Harry K

Talk about growing up, look in the mirror.
Do you plan on learning how to find out simple things that can
be done by entering "adverse possession taxes" into google and
hitting return? Instead of "Waaah! Wahhhh! Where's a cite?
Where's a cite!"

Yeah, I can see all the fuss over providing a cite if it were something obscure, hard to find, but not when it's readily found. And then
miraculously, once I provided a link, you quickly figured out how google
works to find more links that said THE SAME THING, ie
that I was right, while still bitching that my link wasn't good
enough. So, here you are, still bitching, after making a complete
ass of yourself.

 

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

Talk about growing up, look in the mirror.
Do you plan on learning how to find out simple things that can
be done by entering "adverse possession taxes" into google and
hitting return? Instead of "Waaah! Wahhhh! Where's a cite?
Where's a cite!"

Yeah, I can see all the fuss over providing a cite if it were something
obscure, hard to find, but not when it's readily found. And then
miraculously, once I provided a link, you quickly figured out how google
works to find more links that said THE SAME THING, ie
that I was right, while still bitching that my link wasn't good
enough. So, here you are, still bitching, after making a complete
ass of yourself.

I love long unclipped posts

 

[Harry K]

you sure do seem to care a lot.




Talk about growing up, look in the mirror.

Do you plan on learning how to find out simple things that can

be done by entering "adverse possession taxes" into google and

hitting return? Instead of "Waaah! Wahhhh! Where's a cite?

Where's a cite!"



Yeah, I can see all the fuss over providing a cite if it were something obscure, hard to find, but not when it's readily found. And then

miraculously, once I provided a link, you quickly figured out how google

works to find more links that said THE SAME THING, ie

that I was right, while still bitching that my link wasn't good

enough. So, here you are, still bitching, after making a complete

ass of yourself.

And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).

When you are done whining about it, how about learning how to trim posts. I had to eliminate near a thousand blank lines in my reply.

Harry K

 

[krw]

Just to please you I left in what seems to be forty quadjullion lines of blank lines in Trad's post when I replied. That suit you?

You really are an idiot, Harry. Have you seen the damage you Google
Groupies do to the Usenet? No, of course you haven't. You don't
care.

 

[krw]

I love long unclipped posts

Google Groupies, like Harry, just love to pollute the Usenet. ...and
then whine about it.

Just to please Harry, I didn't snip either.

 

[trader4]

And here you are still trying to excuse your bad manners or not providing a cite when first asked for it as is tj usenet protocol. BTW as a reminder, I am not the only one who asked for acite (and didn't get one).

I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you.
But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you
and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google,
doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used
google in a small fraction of the time it took you to
make all those posts.

For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad
manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was
right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click
my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.

 

[Harry K]

I don't recall anyone else asking for a cite, only you.

But if they did, just because someone else is as lazy as you

and can't type "adverse possession taxes" into google,

doesn't mean I have to do it for them. You could have used

google in a small fraction of the time it took you to

make all those posts.



For someone who was dead wrong, it's YOU who have the bad

manners, bitching on, instead of just accepting that I was

right all along. Now I'm wrong because I didn't click

my heels and do your work for you. Go figure.

You answered him with your usual "look it up yourself" instead of following usenet protocol and providing a cite.

Look at all the bandwidth you could have saved if you had just done what is required and given a cite.

And then in your vast google ability you couldn't even come up with a good cite but provided an obscure appellate court case.

But keep on whining, I quit.

Harry K

 

[trader4]

You answered him with your usual "look it up yourself" instead of following usenet protocol and providing a cite.

Really? You have a cite where I said that? See how
that works?

Look at all the bandwidth you could have saved if you had just done what is required and given a cite.

Look at all the bandwidth that YOU could have saved just
googling "adverse possession taxes". Good grief!

And then in your vast google ability you couldn't even come up with a good cite but provided an obscure appellate court case.

Imbecile. The appellate court ruling showed not only the
law, but the law applied in a case where who paid the taxes
determined who won and lost. You on the other hand, find
a document by an unknown author on a California Dept of
Transportation website to be the definitive source on AP
law for the whole USA. At least you figured out how to find
it with google though.

 

[DIYdon]

Wow. Seems like so much hate, deception, potential for cheating with every business that is created: Insurance companies, home builders, etc..... No wonder people want to diy. Can't trust anyone. Growing up in the 50's I never remember ANYONE treating others so badly. I think everything is crooked now. It is like the government forcing parents to send their kids to the drug, gun and sex infested schools now days.