Possessory titles are recognized by the courts when they protect a first trespassing squatter against acts of a subsequent trespasser. They are given priority over the claims of the conventional title holder when the latter has lost his right to judicial assistance by reason of acts which raise an estoppel or for failure to act within a period of time which the courts or the legislature have fixed as a limitation of action. In these cases the holder of the possessory title may by court action secure a documentary title in the form of a judgment which confirms a title acquired by estoppel or by adverse possession.
However, in the recent Washington case of Krops v. Jacobson, a tax title, procured through a judgment in foreclosure proceedings for delinquent taxes, was set aside as void, even though the taxes had not been paid. The reason assigned was that the foreclosure had been caused by the failure of the county treasurer to note upon the receipt given in payment for current taxes that certain back taxes were due. To the legislative direction that there shall be two exceptions to the conclusive effect of a judgment in tax foreclosure proceedings, the court has added a third—frustration of the taxpayer in the payment of his taxes by the public officer.
It has generally been true that the provisions of waste statutes authorizing multiple damage awards are strictly construed, but this normally has meant that multiple damages will be awarded for voluntary waste whether innocently committed or not, and only single damages for permissive waste. Although the variance between the permissive "may" and the mandatory "shall" might not compel the court to reach a different conclusion, under the limitation of the permissive language of the statute announced in DeLano v. Tennent, it would appear that the legislature by changing to "shall" has flatly rejected the policy against awarding multiple damages and has gone beyond the position normally reached in American jurisdictions.
In every serious financial period in the history of this country, there has been a legislative recognition of the imperative need for reliefs for the debtor class. Roughly, the relief afforded can be placed in four classifications.
Among the many laws enacted by the recent Legislature, which were approved by the Governor, and took effect at 12 o'clock midnight June 8, is one which governs the filing of land title instruments for recordation and repealing the existing statute, Section 10596 of Remington's Compiled Statutes. The title and the sections of this act material to this discussion are set forth below.
This Note surveys the complex scheme of federal and state laws addressing foreign ownership of United States real property that has developed over the course of the last two centuries, precipitated by several important events. The Note then critically analyzes the traditionally invoked economic and policy Justifications for regulating alien land ownership. The author concludes that sound economic principles militate against rather than in support of such regulation and that policy justifications, although representing valid concerns in some cases, have been used to produce overbroad regulations. The author suggests, therefore, a rethinking of the United States approach to alien land ownership, abandoning all restrictions except those narrowly tailored to advance specific policy concerns.
In 2010, individual taxes provided almost half (43.35 %) of the U.S. Federal Revenue. Every U.S. citizen has an obligation to pay tax in order to support their government; however, they also have the right to keep tax as low as possible by effective tax planning (Smith, Harmelink, & Hasselback, 2012). Tax planning is a proper arrangement of transactions or affairs in order to reduce tax liability. Tax planning can become complex if the transaction involves multiple areas of tax law. I am going to discuss an aspect of real estate that involves multiple concepts and rules governing tax compliance: the tax treatment of mixed personal and rental use of real estate. The paper discusses tax treatment of deductions, losses, sales, and exchanges of mixed-use real estate. Mixed-use real estate means that homeowners rent, or use for business purposes, part or all of their primary or secondary homes, either permanently or temporarily. These situations are pretty common for U.S. citizens yet the tax effects on these transactions are not well understood and can be complex. The focus on the paper is to describe the tax treatment of various situations where residential property is rented at least part of the tax year.
The law of nuisance has long been seen as the heart of real property law - this because of its distributive and re-distributive force in land use. In its present form, while often ad hoc in application, a nuisance is defined generally as merely some interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. The most common remedy to abate a nuisance is injunctive relief in equity. Yet, judicial creativity has been seen through the use of such remedies as awards of permanent damages and the compensated injunction. The doctrine of anticipatory nuisance is brought into focus usually when a moving party is seeking to prevent commencement of what is alleged will become a nuisance. While recognized in both state and federal common law for many years, it is under-utilized because of the high burden of proof (e.g., reasonable certainty or high probability) normally set legislatively or through judicial interpretation and practice. Currently, only two states - Alabama and Georgia - have statutory enactments which allow for injunctive relief to restrain actions before they become nuisances. In order to re-validate the doctrine of anticipatory nuisance and contemporize its inherent value to modern lawmaking - and particularly to environmental management - the thesis of this Article is simple and direct: namely, that by greater judicial care and insight in applying the traditional balancing test to include a weighing of both the probability and the magnitude of an injury, equitably nuanced and practical decisionmaking will occur. Similarly, with legislative foresight, efforts should be made to define and clarify with greater specificity what evidentiary proofs must be submitted in order to establish, for example, a reasonable certainty of harm necessary to trigger injunctive relief.
"Real Estate Analysis: A Toolkit for Property Analysts presents economic and financial models, applications and insights, packaged as a toolkit for analysts and other participants in commercial and residential real estate markets. Participants in property markets - analysts, brokers, commentators as well as investors and tenants move seamlessly across a range of physical and financial markets. They employ models that illuminate market activity: the tools of supply and demand to explain rental trends and to forecast vacancy rates and construction cycles; forecasts of macro-economists foreshadow shoppers' spending behaviour in shopping malls and the growth in demand for office space; capital market arithmetic to apply discount and capitalisation rates. Currently these topics are scattered through textbooks. This book brings these tools together and situates them in a real estate market context."--
ABSTRACT: Is "tokenization" the next great leap forward needed to make homeownership more appealing to Millennials and Gen Z's? If single-family homeownership and time-sharing had a love child, what would it look like? Is it possible to adapt successful models for office sharing to homeownership so renters who lament not owning an appreciating asset could have a stake in "something" while not being tied down to one specific residential structure or a single geographic location, to make homeownership more attractive to younger generations? And, if so, does blockchain technology hold the key (pun intended) to fractional ownerships in real estate that might make this hybrid homeownership model both possible and more-easily practicable than the current system of land title recordations and transactions?
In response to the ongoing debate over how much of the surface real estate reclaimed by the Big Dig should be devoted to open space, and how much to other uses, this Article examines two legal doctrines that are frequently implicated by plans for changes in use and disposition of publicly-owned property. While these doctrines stand on distinct historical and theoretical foundations and diverge from each other in many respects, there are important parallels between them in how they conceptualize the relationship between government's power to regulate, control, and dispose of land it owns, and the rights belonging to what one scholar has called the "unorganized public" in that same property. On a more pragmatic level, commonality between these two doctrines arises from their applicability to the same physical spaces and their concern with the same types of governmental actions. Therefore, while both the courts and the academy have largely examined these doctrines separately, this Article employs a comparative analysis to better understand the relationship between government and the "unorganized public" with respect to publicly-owned property, and to more fully appreciate the limitations on the use of currently and formerly publicly-owned lands.
The purpose of this Article is to explore the extent of an individual's right of privacy, vis-à-vis the concepts of commercial use and appropriations, which compromise rights of publicity. The deceptively simple, yet complex, conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that a delicate balance of interests must be struck, either legislatively or judicially, between recognizing a full right of privacy, and its permutations in the right of publicity, with the press and news media. A definitive balancing test may be elusive, but at a minimum, a framework for principled decision making must be attempted. It is imperative that an individual be able to protect the economic interest built up in his name. The wrongful appropriator ensures that the aggrieved celebrity cannot guarantee protection from infringement to a prospective licensee. Moreover, the celebrity himself is denied the economic benefit of the commercial value of his identity. There is also the risk of misleading the public into thinking that the celebrity, whose persona has been appropriated, approves of the product. As a result, the public may be deceived into buying a product of inferior quality. The celebrity in turn has to bear the stigma of association with an inferior product. Effective protection of the right of publicity demands balancing it against whatever value society may derive from the so-called appropriations. What is called for is a test that properly evaluates the pertinent First Amendment concerns involved in right of publicity cases, and affords necessary protection against consumer deception and unauthorized association of the celebrity with the items being advertised.
