Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

[Rooty1]

Parcel created with no real property

.. ... ...

Hi Quincy, am messaging you in case you did not see my follow up posted earlier today.

UPDATE:

Company A has "leased" the bridge to Company B (no Lease Agreement exists.)

The county assessor has created a parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge only stating he is treating it as leased real property but he does not know if, "They are leasing from anyone."

No real property is involved.

The county assessor previously stated the riverbed is owned by a private individual. Now he has changed his story and wrote, "There are some questions of who actually owns the property under the bridge."

Any way you cut it, the property under the bridge is not owned by Company A or Company B. Neither has a deed showing ownership of the riverbed.

Any guesses on how it was possible for the assessor to create a new parcel?

Thanks, Rooty

 

[quincy]

UPDATE:

Company A has leased the bridge to Company B.

The county assessor has created a parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge stating he is treating it as leased real property.

No real property is involved.

Any guesses on how that is possible?

Thanks, Rooty

So ... Company A was found to be owner of the bridge?

I have no clue how real property cannot be involved.

It is good to see you back on the forum, Rooty.

 

[Rooty1]

So ... Company A was found to be owner of the bridge?

I have no clue how real property cannot be involved.

It is good to see you back on the forum, Rooty.

Thanks Quincy, I'm glad to see you are still on the forum!

The assessor keeps changing his story.

First he said no one owns the bridge but that a private party (we will call them Company C) owned the riverbed.

Company A built the bridge on the riverbed owned by Company C.

Then Company A, via a quit claim deed, gave the bridge to Company B with no real property involved.

Because Company A never owed the riverbed, they cannot own the bridge. Therefore, their quit claim deed to Company B has no value.

But Company B is now claiming they own the bridge.

The assessor is now saying he does not know who owns the riverbed.

The assessor is pretending that Company A is the owner of the bridge and they have leased it to Company B with no real property involved despite the fact he created a parcel and is collecting property taxes from Company B.

He created the new parcel using an invisible real property lease agreement from Company A to Company B for the bridge only with no real property involved.

How nutty is that?

Rooty

 

[quincy]

Thanks Quincy, I'm glad to see you are still on the forum!

The assessor keeps changing his story.

First he said no one owns the bridge but that a private party (we will call them Company C) owned the riverbed.

Company A built the bridge on the riverbed owned by Company C.

Then Company A, via a quit claim deed, gave the bridge to Company B with no real property involved.

Because Company A never owed the riverbed, they cannot own the bridge. Therefore, their quit claim deed to Company B has no value.

But Company B is now claiming they own the bridge.

The assessor is now saying he does not know who owns the riverbed.

The assessor is pretending that Company A is the owner of the bridge and they have leased it to Company B with no real property involved despite the fact he created a parcel and is collecting property taxes from Company B.

He created the new parcel using an invisible real property lease agreement from Company A to Company B for the bridge only with no real property involved.

How nutty is that?

Rooty

Very nutty.

justalayman is around somewhere and he might want to tackle the questions raised by your latest update. I am puzzled by it all.

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel Created with No Real Property

Very nutty.

justalayman is around somewhere and he might want to tackle the questions raised by your latest update. I am puzzled by it all.

Thanks so much. I will try to reach out to justalayman - s/he has provided insight before.

I too am puzzled by this situation and it smells fishy. I believe that someone is being dishonest.

Rooty

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created with no real property

Thanks so much. I still have a problem believing that roads and bridge are not part and parcel of real property and that the County can create a "parcel for just a bridge."

Your previous statement that, "Unless this is a hovering bridge, it involves real property. Somebody owns that property." makes the most sense.

Your input is greatly appreciated. It is people like you that help people like me sleep at night.

Hi justalayman, am reaching out with new developments and would appreciate your opinion.

Company A has "leased" the bridge only to Company B (no Lease Agreement exists) but the bridge sits on the riverbed owned by Company C.

The county assessor has created a parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge only stating he is treating it as leased real property but he does not know if, "They are leasing from anyone."

No real property is involved.

The county assessor previously stated the riverbed is owned by a private individual (Company C.)

Now he has changed his story and wrote, "There are some questions of who actually owns the property under the bridge."

Any way you cut it, the property under the bridge is not owned by Company A or Company B. Neither has a deed showing ownership of the riverbed.

Any guesses on how it was possible for the assessor to create a new parcel allowing him to now collect property taxes for the bridge only?

Thanks, Rooty

 

[quincy]

I have sent justalayman a private message to direct his attention to your thread, Rooty.

 

[justalayman]

Hi justalayman, am reaching out with new developments and would appreciate your opinion.

Company A has "leased" the bridge only to Company B (no Lease Agreement exists) but the bridge sits on the riverbed owned by Company C.

The county assessor has created a parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge only stating he is treating it as leased real property but he does not know if, "They are leasing from anyone."

No real property is involved.

The county assessor previously stated the riverbed is owned by a private individual (Company C.)

Now he has changed his story and wrote, "There are some questions of who actually owns the property under the bridge."

Any way you cut it, the property under the bridge is not owned by Company A or Company B. Neither has a deed showing ownership of the riverbed.

Any guesses on how it was possible for the assessor to create a new parcel allowing him to now collect property taxes for the bridge only?

Thanks, Rooty

I’ll have to get back to it a bit later tonight. A bit busy for something as in depth as this at the moment. If for some reason I don’t, feel free to send me a pm tonight or tomorrow.

And the layMAN is gender appropriate

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created with no real property

I have sent justalayman a private message to direct his attention to your thread, Rooty.

Thank you so much!

Rooty

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created with no real property

I’ll have to get back to it a bit later tonight. A bit busy for something as in depth as this at the moment. If for some reason I don’t, feel free to send me a pm tonight or tomorrow.

And the layMAN is gender appropriate

Thank you justalayMAN - I'll keep in touch.

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created for bridge hanging in the air

Unless this is a hovering bridge, it involves real property. Somebody owns that property.

County assessor has created a new parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge only. No survey, no legal description, no metes and bounds. He said he is treating the bridge as Leased Real Property.

When asked for the name of the lessee, the lessor, and a description of the real property, he replied, "I don’t know if they are leasing from anyone."

Does Idaho subscribe to the legal theory which provides that anything sitting above, below, or on the surface of the earth (including structures, highway, roads, bridges, culverts, etc.) are part of the underlying fee? And whoever holds title to that fee owns said structures, highways, roads, bridges, culverts, etc. as a matter of law?

Threats are now being made - pay $ or be sued for trespass. 20+ private properties are landlocked without the use of the bridge.

Thank you,

Rooty

 

[quincy]

County assessor has created a new parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge only. No survey, no legal description, no metes and bounds. He said he is treating the bridge as Leased Real Property.

When asked for the name of the lessee, the lessor, and a description of the real property, he replied, "I don’t know if they are leasing from anyone."

Does Idaho subscribe to the legal theory which provides that anything sitting above, below, or on the surface of the earth (including structures, highway, roads, bridges, culverts, etc.) are part of the underlying fee? And whoever holds title to that fee owns said structures, highways, roads, bridges, culverts, etc. as a matter of law?

Threats are now being made - pay $ or be sued for trespass. 20+ private properties are landlocked without the use of the bridge.

Thank you,

Rooty

I can't remember if this was already asked and answered: Is there a way to create a new road that totally bypasses the problematic bridge?

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created for bridge hanging in the air

I can't remember if this was already asked and answered: Is there a way to create a new road that totally bypasses the problematic bridge?

Hi Quincy, no, there is not a way to create a new road.

Justalayman previously wrote that as long as the owner of the riverbed allowed the bridge to be built, and did not interfere or object to its use, a private bridge can exist.

However, I still do not understand how the assessor can create a parcel for the bridge only (by calling it leased real property with no lease and no real property) nor do I understand how a third party (who constructed the bridge) can claim they "own the bridge" when it is sitting on the property of another.

Rooty

 

[LdiJ]

Hi Quincy, no, there is not a way to create a new road.

Justalayman previously wrote that as long as the owner of the riverbed allowed the bridge to be built, and did not interfere or object to its use, a private bridge can exist.

However, I still do not understand how the assessor can create a parcel for the bridge only (by calling it leased real property with no lease and no real property) nor do I understand how a third party (who constructed the bridge) can claim they "own the bridge" when it is sitting on the property of another.

Rooty

They could if the parcel also included the small bits of land that the bridge sits upon.

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created with no real property

They could if the parcel also included the small bits of land that the bridge sits upon.

No, that is the problem. There is NO land included with the newly created "parcel." It is the bridge hanging in the air only.