Comments for Ozarks Law & Economy

Comment on A warranty deed doesn’t always convey everything by Harry Styron

Harry Styron — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:18:54 +0000

Whether crooks can get away with stealing depends on whether the victims are willing to hire a lawyer. Because of the expenses and uncertainty of a private suit, many victims suffer in silence.

Depending on public embarrassment to shame fraudsters and discourage others from committing fraud is not effective, nor is the media much interested.

Comment on A warranty deed doesn’t always convey everything by marion raa\b

marion raa\b — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:24:12 +0000

purchased a time share –received a warranty deed and now find out the unit I purchased was built on property which did not belong to them. Who received this money? They tell us the son, whose father owns the property has skipped town and noone knows where he is .In plain talk they tell us we are “screwed. IS IT ANY WONDER THE SYSTEM STINKS IF THEY CAN LEGALLY GET AWAY WITH THIS? THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BROUGHT OUT ON THE MEDIA AND PERHAPSTHEY WILL

Comment on Harry Styron’s Missouri Stream Law by Harry Styron

Harry Styron — Mon, 14 May 2012 01:44:53 +0000

You need to check with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways for rules on the Current.

Harry Styron

Comment on Harry Styron’s Missouri Stream Law by Tannar

Tannar — Sun, 13 May 2012 15:37:48 +0000

I’m going on a canoe trip down current river in a few weeks. This is the third time I’ve been and I have always thought guns (handguns to be specific) were not permitted. I personally feel more comfortable having mine. Could you help clarify?

Comment on Contracts for deed: will they ever go away? by Harry Styron

Harry Styron — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:08:09 +0000

James, Any purchase contract, whatever the form, should require that the seller provide clean title to the buyer. As far as being in the same pickle, under a contract for deed, the buyer has generally paid the entire purchase price before the seller is obligated to convey clean title. Under a lease with option, the buyer has only made rent payments and possibly a deposit before the seller is obligated to provide proof of clean title. Do we have a common ancestor? I descend from the notorious James Clement Vann.

Comment on Contracts for deed: will they ever go away? by James Lee Vann (@ensignhost)

James Lee Vann (@ensignhost) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:32:40 +0000

At the end of your article, you recommend doing a lease with an option to buy instead of a contract for deed. But wouldn’t a lease with an option to buy be subject to many of the same title defect risks as a contract for deed? If you were ready to exercise your option and the seller were unable to produce a clean title, you would be in the same pickle as a contract for deed? The one benefit I see is that a lease would not trigger a due on sale clause- though banks rarely exercise such options, if there is a mortgage on the property, that is always a risk.

Comment on Adverse possession: it’s so wrong by ringmaker

ringmaker — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:22:54 +0000

cassy below said this correctly. Your dock no doubt sits on corps property. Another property owner cannot restrict access to any corp property, your dock included. Thats why you pay for a permit. call the corps.

Comment on Adverse possession: it’s so wrong by ringmaker

ringmaker — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:14:31 +0000

This is not a means to steal someone elses land (though like all laws in this country, it is occationally misused for this purpose) adverse possession rewards the person who has maintained the land, Many absentee owners will let the property go to sead and become overgrown etc. If a person maintains that bordering property so that thier own property values dont decline, then they should be rewarded for that effort. That is the reason for the ‘exclusive possession’ clause in the AP law. If the actual owner were there to maintain thier own land, then there would be no adverse claim as the ‘exclusive possession’ criterian would not have been met. It is a very simple law which requires some common sense interpretation. More important than removing the law is that it should be applied with the original intent. Should a city confiiscate an abandoned lot that has a delapidated home, noone cries. Likewise, should a city confiscate property using emminant domain, is that progress or theft.

Comment on Taxpayers vs. Ratepayers: Taxpayers lose by springburg

springburg — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:56:11 +0000

To respond to the original article, though, I think this is an example of how local governments seem to think that they own in fee everything they have any connection with and that they have total dominion over everything within their purview.

The flip side of this case would be where the municipality claims that not only do they own the right of way, but they can mandate that the adjoining property owner be responsible for its maintenance under penalty of criminal law. .

Comment on Taxpayers vs. Ratepayers: Taxpayers lose by springburg

springburg — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:45:55 +0000

Actually, as I understand it, in many municipalities the developer is required to not only install a street to stringent construction specifications with plans requiring approval of the agency before construction and platting, and the controlling municipality must actually ‘accept’ the improvements as part of the dedication, AND some municipalities charge substantial ‘impact fees’ on development supposedly to compensate for things such as future maintenance, though the increase in property taxes that result from the presence of improved houses is also supposed to make up for some of it, and is supposed to be part of the justification for property taxes, though some theorists charge that the impact fees are actually intended to divert incomes from the development process to the municipality in which part of the value of the underlying undeveloped land is captured by the municipality through impact fees and taxes to compensate for the greater community development expenses, such as Branson Landing, parks systems, building inspectors, police, and other pests, the administration of P & Z, a functioning health department, school system, etc, etc,, or other community assets and infrastructure that impute value to the finished residential product.

As to where somebody goes to get an easement in the public rights of way, many dedications contain language that dedicates the ROW to both the public and to various utility providers, though state laws usually allow the relevant municipality to control access to the dedicated rights of way regardless of what the dedication language may contain. The classic example of this is cable television where a provider pays the city a substantial cut of your cable bill in exchange for the use of the “city’s” ROW, usually in the form of a ‘franchise’ that in effect grants exclusive use of ROWs to the provider, allowing the provider to charge monopolistic rents for cable service. This is why the cites are all whining about DishTV-no easements required, so the city can just FO, and thus the costs to the customer are lower.