Color of Title

[Riggs]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Oregon
Hello to all,
A parcel of public land has been developed and occupied since 1950 (parcel 1). The current occupant of parcel 1 has a deed that describes a parcel of land located along the southern boundary of public land (non-federal land), this area has not been developed I will call this parcel 2. County tax assessor maps show parcel 2 to be located along the southern boundary of public land also. However, as I mentioned above all of the improvements are located on public land (parcel 1). A little confusing ?? The current landowners did not realize that the entire parcel they recently purchased was actually located on public land. Does the current landowner have a valid claim of Color of Title also refferred to as Apparent Title pursuant to the Act of December 22nd, 1928 as amended July 28th, 1953, 43 USC 1068. ?

Thanks in advance,
Riggs

[seniorjudge]

Adverse possession does not run against the government.

Period.

End of story.

Even if.

[Riggs]

Thank you for your response. You are absolutely right adverse possession against the government is prohibited. My questions was: Does the current landowner have a valid claim of Color of Title also refferred to as Apparent Title pursuant to the Act of December 22nd, 1928 as amended July 28th, 1953, 43 USC 1068. ? If the current Landowners are eligible to make a claim of Color of Title, the public land they occupy can be sold directly to them at fair market value (with some deductions).

I am not sure if the land occupied has to be described in the deed for the claim to be valid. If the current landowners are not eligible for a Color of Title claim, they will have to go through trespass proceeding, before the government can consider the sale of the land. And if somone protests the sale or another party is interested in purchasing the property, the current landowners may be out of look. The current landowner would also be required to pay a large portion of the processing fees, which would include land survey, appraisal, publishing, and administrative fees. This process could take up to 4 years and the process cannot guaranty that the present occupants will end up with the land. Establishing a valid Color of Title claim is a win, win situation for both parties. In my humble opinion.

Thanks again,
Riggs

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Riggs

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Oregon
Hello to all,
A parcel of public land has been developed and occupied since 1950 (parcel 1). The current occupant of parcel 1 has a deed that describes a parcel of land located along the southern boundary of public land (non-federal land), this area has not been developed I will call this parcel 2. County tax assessor maps show parcel 2 to be located along the southern boundary of public land also. However, as I mentioned above all of the improvements are located on public land (parcel 1). A little confusing ?? The current landowners did not realize that the entire parcel they recently purchased was actually located on public land. Does the current landowner have a valid claim of Color of Title also refferred to as Apparent Title pursuant to the Act of December 22nd, 1928 as amended July 28th, 1953, 43 USC 1068. ?

Thanks in advance,
Riggs

**A: what relationship do you have to any of the parties? Anyway, th is is not an adverse possession case but a contract case and a case against the title insurance company. Regardless, such matters are far to complex for such a website like this one.

[Riggs]

HomeGuru,
Thanks for your reply. However, the title company has a general exception in the policy that does not insure against property line disputes. And, The Title company does not physically locate the property on the ground. In my opinion, I don't think the Title company can be held accountable. Yes, it is a complicated issue, that is why I am searching all available sources for opinions and answers. So that the current occupant gets a fair shake. Can you suggest a better suited website for this type of issue ?

Thanks,
Riggs

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Riggs

HomeGuru,
Thanks for your reply. However, the title company has a general exception in the policy that does not insure against property line disputes.

**A: maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression after reading your post, that the entire parcel in question is located on public land.
Therefore it is not av simple boundary dispute but an entire parcel dispute say a purchase of private vs. public land.

******************

And, The Title company does not physically locate the property on the ground.

**A: of course not. That's what surveyors are for. The title insurance insures based on the survey.

****************

In my opinion, I don't think the Title company can be held accountable.

**A: ok, you are certainly entiteld to your opinion. And in my opinion, you are very far from understanding this issue.

****************
Yes, it is a complicated issue, that is why I am searching all available sources for opinions and answers. So that the current occupant gets a fair shake. Can you suggest a better suited website for this type of issue ?

Thanks,
Riggs

**A: why have you not answered my first question?

[Riggs]

HomeGuru,
I simply overlooked answering your first question. What relevance does my relationship with either party have on the issue ? All of the improvements are on public land. It may not be a simple boundary dispute. You are right again, I do not completley understand the issue, that is why I am here asking questions and opinions. Are you familiar with the term Color of Title ?

Riggs

[seniorjudge]

Are you familiar with the term Color of Title ?

HG is quite familiar with the term and he knows (as I do) that you do not have color of title and never will have.


HG...sorry for answering for you!

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Are you familiar with the term Color of Title ?

HG is quite familiar with the term and he knows (as I do) that you do not have color of title and never will have.


HG...sorry for answering for you!

**A: I am glad that you did. We all know the reason for my asking the question. The relevance of my asking proves that the writer has no relevance to the issue.

[Riggs]

HomeGuru and seniorjudge,

Tell me why it is not a Color of Title candidate. I am not a lawyer so I do not know the relevance of my relationship, you act as if this should be common knowledge. I am a public servant attempting to assist landowners obtain clear title to land they recently bought and currently occupy. My budget nor the landowners can afford to hire a lawyer at this point. We do realize that the Federal government will not give the land away. Based on the fact that the land has been held in good faith and in peaceful, adverse, possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or color of title for more than 20 years (in this case 55 years), and that valuable improvements have been placed on the land, and some of the land has been reduced to cultivation. It appears to be a perfect candidate for a class (a) Color of Title action pursuant to Title 43 >Chapter 25A>par. 1068.

If I am wrong the Feds turn down the application and the landowner is out a minimal fee. I am sure this fee is far less than any attorney fee. The Lawyers will get ther share when the land is conveyed to the current occupant of the subject land. At least they will know where they stand with the feds and what they have to do to obtain rights to the land. I am trying to do everything the law allows to reach a fair and equitable solution for both parties. Good thing this landowner is not counting on you.

I came to this website for help, you two are not very helpful. I hope you two are not the best this website has to offer.

Riggs

[seniorjudge]

I came to this website for help, you two are not very helpful.


Translation:

You two are telling me the truth but I don't want to hear that!

[Riggs]

I can handle the truth, however,you have not provided me with the facts that make up the truth. Give me a hint.

I asked why you felt this is not a candidate for a Color of Title action you did not answer. Give me some facts.

Riggs

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Riggs

I can handle the truth, however,you have not provided me with the facts that make up the truth. Give me a hint.

I asked why you felt this is not a candidate for a Color of Title action you did not answer. Give me some facts.

Riggs

Adverse possession does not run against the government.

Period.

End of story.

Even if.

[Riggs]

Again, I agree no one can claim adverse possession against the Government. However, you can claim rights under the Color of Title Act. As I am sure you know, there are specific requirements that must be met, which requirement is lacking in the case I have described.

Riggs

[seniorjudge]

Let me take a wild guess: "...under claim or color of title for the period
commencing not later than January 1, 1901...."

I will bet the period you are talking about started more than one hundred years ago?

[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode43/usc_sec_43_00001068----000-.html[/url]