quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
I see. I guess it is an exacting specification; that is, not presumptive (say, the homeowners *thought* the HOA was doing their part and they understood the street was part of the various fees they paid). I know that doesn't square the taxes not going where they were supposed to, but it does seem it meets at least the claim of right and the exclusivity, were it gated.

I have read where people have made or used paths across other's land and when contested, held to be now a public easement. That doesn't seem to meet the definition of adverse possession, so what is that defined as? Thank you again.

Prescriptive use is obvious use long continued without the owner putting a stop to it. It is the equivalent of adverse possession, but the trespasser can perfect an easement to the land actually and openly used instead of fee title.

You can't keep your title by occupying it in the face of a defaulted tax sale, or for that matter, a foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust.

I understand the core matter is the taxes, and "squatting" didn't really enter my mind, although I see your point. I guess I wondered why the tax authority never went to homeowners after at least a decade of default by the HOA and the landowners assert their claim. Probably it was so simple as the tax authority was under no burden to do so.

As Jallen said, there are thousands of people out there watching tax sales, these folks found a listing, googled the address, researched it and stumbled on a great opportunity to gain control of a piece of association property and I'm betting simply for the reason of extorting a large settlement payout from wealthy property owners.

If it was a tax sale for $14 a year, 30 years plus interest and fees it totaled $994 and they bid $90K.

There will be a settlement, the buyers will get quite a bit of money, the homeowners the street and lesson, the association sued, an if there an insurance carrier will pay the losses, the city reaps a 89,000 windfall and all because of a clerical error.

quote:

I guess I wondered why the tax authority never went to homeowners after at least a decade of default by the HOA and the landowners assert their claim. Probably it was so simple as the tax authority was under no burden to do so.

Yep.
There will be questions of notice of course but the tax authority will simply say they followed procedure.

$90,100 is quite a bid if the city’s tax office was only seeking to recover $994 in unpaid back taxes, penalties and interest.

Where did that money go?
Wouldn't the city have to forward anything above the taxes owed to the former owner(s) of the property?

I hope Tina Lam and Michael Cheng make a nice return on their investment.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
I understand the core matter is the taxes, and "squatting" didn't really enter my mind, although I see your point. I guess I wondered why the tax authority never went to homeowners after at least a decade of default by the HOA and the landowners assert their claim. Probably it was so simple as the tax authority was under no burden to do so.

I doubt there is an HOA as an organized functioning body operating day to day, etc. I believe this was set up a century ago.

Property taxes are assessed and collected by the county. Bills are sent, notices are sent. It is up to the property owner to make sure (s)he receives them. Every property owner knows that taxes are due, and when. If you don't get a notice, better find out why. Moving is one reason.

I imagine you could go to the tax collectors office in any of the major urban areas and find taxpayers standing in line to pay delinquent taxes, many claiming that they never received notices or bills, maybe more than attend Padre, Dodger, Angel or Giant games.

The published list of tax delinquent parcels takes up a great many column inches in the newspapers every year.

I wonder if there has been any public upkeep of the private street? If it is a private street, then any repairs, repaving, sidewalk repair, etc. would have been done by the common owners (HOA) rather than the city.

If that is the case, then the owners would have been aware that they all owned the common area and were responsible for taxes. Ignorance is no excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by dlc444:
I wonder if there has been any public upkeep of the private street? If it is a private street, then any repairs, repaving, sidewalk repair, etc. would have been done by the common owners (HOA) rather than the city.

If that is the case, then the owners would have been aware that they all owned the common area and were responsible for taxes. Ignorance is no excuse.

I think we can be sure they were aware it was a private street, that maintenance was on them and they happily paid it all along. What they weren't aware of was that there was a delinquency going back ~30 years or so. The story said notices were going to an address that no longer had any connection to the property owners. You can bet that taxes were more than $14/year. It was possibly a shortage in payment, a delinquency back then or some clerical miscue.

It is surprising the county waited 30 years. They must wait 5.