Surface Acquisition Report Acreage For Ted Burnat

John Root presented a conditional use land division located at approximately 3025N 3400E. John Jesser wants to split approximately 2 acres from his 180 acre parcel to sell to the owner of Lot 16, Cottonwood Heights Subdivision. Commissioner Davis made a motion to approve the conditional land use division with the following condition:

A court will likely find Wayne Carter to be the legal owner of the Stanton farm in Colin County, in spite of having not recorded with the deed with the county, because George Pearson, the subsequent purchaser had a duty to inquire and such an inquiry would have yielded notice that Carter had deed to the farm. Under Texas law,

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

Thomas advised that he located Rayburn's vehicle parked behind the residence of 2302 Austin Ave. I arrived at that located in an attempt to make contact with Rayburn. There was no contact that the residence at that time.

Sanders does hold title to the disputed parcel. All the elements were met in this manner. When Hibbard cleared his property in 1957, he was not quite sure of the boundaries. He cleared the area up to a large drainage ditch and installed an access road to establish the property line. He preceded to open a trailer park. He was approached later that year by Mr. McMurray who was the property owner on the east side. After McMurray had a survey done, he informed Hibbard that the access road infringed on his property by 20 feet. No action was taken at this time by either party. Therefore, McMurray demonstrated he had actual knowledge that the adverse party had taken possession of the land. Sometime later, Hibbard sold the trailer park to Gilbert

The major concern is a discrepancy with what was showing on the recorded final subdivision plat versus what was actually done. The discrepancy is a lot depicted on the approved plat as “Parcel A” that is actually stubbed out for a roadway. Upon discovery by myself, and the two (2) Planning Inspectors (Donald Rixner, Jr. and George Tassin), I questioned the real estate developer by the name of Joseph M. Scontrino, III. In questioning him, I asked, if there was a modification to the recorded subdivision plat, his answer was “no”, so I then present him with a copy of the recorded plat that shows “Parcel A” as a lot and not for the intent to continue Summerlin Drive. Once I returned to the office, Angelic Sutherland was told about the discrepancy, her response was we were only to review the proposed Phase 3, Section 1 of Summerlin Lake Subdivision, not areas that have received approval. At this time, I explained to Angelic that whenever staff finds discrepancies out in the field, it is our duty to right the wrong. Even after providing this concern, it was dismissed and I was told that “Joey” is allowed to do as he please despite the laws. This instance contradicts the recorded plat and the definition of lot, which reads, “Lot means a parcel of land or any combination of several lots of record, occupied or intended to be

Prior to leaving the scene I did check the vacant residence directly behind 1431 Holly Trail East per Nita Dobbs request. While checking the residence I did observe the back door leading to the deck to be open. I observed no signs of forced entry and it did not appear as if the residence had been burglarized. I

Problem: David H. Lucas purchased two beach front lots on Isle of Palms in Charleston

Mohave Inc. purchased land, building, and equipment from Laguna Corporation for a cash payment of $431,550. The estimated fair values of the assets are land $82,200, building $301,400, and

Wells enclosed the quarter of acre occupied by the barn and where he conducts all his activities. Also, Mr. Wells made sure to put a fence around acres four and five, which remained intact in the east, west and north side of the acres. While in the south side the fence was discontinue, this has a dry gully which make a natural barrier, which constituted a demarcation of the property. Grant v. Strickland, 385 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Sun Valley Road also represent a demarcation of the property on the south side. Common law also includes other barriers, both natural and manmade. Id. at 1127. There can be also gaps in the enclosure, such interruptions however do not dissipate the substantial character for the enclosure so long as there was for the full statutory period a conspicuous effort to maintain a fence around the land, and this was the case with Mr. Wells. Grant, 385 So. 2d 1123, 1125. Whether or not there was sufficient enclosure is a question for the trier of fact. Yates v. Bass Ranch, Inc., 379 So.2d 710, 712 (1980). Mr. Wells never cultivated the land, or improved it in a usual manner. Nonetheless, he performed limited maintenance on the

I placed both subjects on the criminal trespass log for future reference. Mr. Steven Counts and Mrs. Melinda Froelick both were advised that if they are caught back onto the property loiuterong

Satisfaction of the first element requires the identity of the parties to be bound. Purchase Nursery, Inc., 568 S.E.2d at 907. Here, Mr. Massey as the landowner with YTNH (represented by Mr. Bennett) as the tenant of the property.

A small parcel of land, part of the original property belonging to the Yountville Veterans’ Home, remained on the east side of State Road 29. The Veteran’s Home expressed an interest in providing the deed to this parcel of land to the Town of Yountville as long as the land was for use by the community and not sold for profit. The Town desired to create a park that was welcoming and connected the entrances to the Town of Yountville and the Veterans’ Home because they were

* Thorne is a member of the County Council’s Land Use Committee and one of the promoter of the two amendments applied to the original UGA. Also Thorne is very linked with

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.