Color of Title

[Riggs]

No, that would be a class (b) claim. I am referring to the first portion of section 1068. The class (a) portion that addresses public land 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, or some part thereof has been reduced to cultivation (CFR Title 43 >Chapter 25A>par. 1068.)

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

Color-of-Title Act:

The Act of December 22, 1928 (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1068), as amended. Under the terms and provisions of this Act, a patent may be issued for a parcel of not more than 160 acres of public lands in instances where claim to the lands has been based on a written instrument containing defective evidence of title. The parcel must have been possessed in good faith by a claimant, his ancestors, or grantors for a period of more than 20 years.



http://www.access.gpo.gov/blm/pls96/glossary.html


Again...you do NOT have color of title

 

[jimmler]

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

As a public servant, you should not be giving a member of the public legal advise, other than to tell them they need to hire a good real estate attorney.

I know of public servants that have lost their jobs for doing what you are trying to do. You open up your employer to all kinds of liability.

 

[Riggs]

Now we are on the same page please tell me what I am missing. The parcel is less than 160 acres (2.5 acres), there is a written instrument containing defective evidence of title (warranty deeds and county tax assessor maps), and The parcel has been possessed in good faith by a claimant, his ancestors, or grantors for a period of more than 20 years (in this case 55 years). I know the current occupants of the land had no idea that the parcel they purchased was located on public land and it appears that thier predecessors had no idea, as well.

Now tell me why it is not a candidate for Color of Title. One other fact the Bureau of Land Management recommended this approach. Makes me suspicious,however, it sounds better than trepass proceeding, a competitive sale, administration and processing fees and the outcome can't be guaranteed.

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

Now we are on the same page please tell me what I am missing. The parcel is less than 160 acres (2.5 acres), there is a written instrument containing defective evidence of title (warranty deeds and county tax assessor maps), and The parcel has been possessed in good faith by a claimant, his ancestors, or grantors for a period of more than 20 years (in this case 55 years). I know the current occupants of the land had no idea that the parcel they purchased was located on public land and it appears that thier predecessors had no idea, as well.

Now tell me why it is not a candidate for Color of Title. One other fact the Bureau of Land Management recommended this approach. Makes me suspicious,however, it sounds better than trepass proceeding, a competitive sale, administration and processing fees and the outcome can't be guaranteed.

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

Where does it say in this post that somebody has a deed to PUBLIC land?

 

[Riggs]

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. ? This is my first post.

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

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. ? This is my first post.

Riggs

My question was: Where does it say in this post that somebody has a deed to PUBLIC land? You never did say that anyone had a deed to public land.

In any event, you say it is non-federal land so this whole thread was an exercise in futility.

 

[Riggs]

You are right, this has been an excercise in futility. You keep saying the occupants don't have a claim of Color of Title, however, you don't give any specifics, why? Perhaps this is too complicated of an issue to address on this website.

As the County Land Agent it is my responsibility to address these issues. I owe it to the people of the county to explore all options. The County has a vested interest in this issue, due to the fact a county road traverses the subject parcel. The County Commissioners, County Counsel, County surveyor, and the County Tax Assessor have been involved with the case since discovery. No one on the team has prior experience with Color of Title. How many Color of Title cases have you addressed ? In any event, it appears, after extensive research, that a fair and equitable agreement can be reached through a Color of Title claim. The public land managers, The Bureau of Land Management concurs.

This thread has not been a complete waste of time for me. My objective for posting the question on this website was to overturn every stone to find something we may have overlooked that would compel us to change our strategy. You have not provided me with any information that would compel me to change my strategy. Just saying "NO" doesn't cut it. This is not the only website I visited. However, this was the most active website.

This is a complicated matter, I couldn't present you with all the information in this case, and I apologize for that, perhaps you would have had a better understanding of the issue, if I had. Thanks for your input.

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

I do not know how to make this any simpler.

The statute you quote is a FEDERAL statute and you are talking about STATE public lands.

This federal statute simply does not apply here. If your state has some kind of similar statute, then it may apply, but I have no knowledge of such a statute (or any other statute) in your state.

 

[Riggs]

Sorry if it was not clear, the land I am referring to is Federally managed land. All improvements are on Federally managed land. The legal description and Maps contained in the warranty deeds locate the privately owned parcel adjacent to federally managed land, Tax Maps and county surveyor maps locate the parcel adjacent to Federally managed land. However, the physical location of the parcel and improvements are on Federally managed land in its entirety. It appears that all parties of interest, in the subject parcel, for the past 55 years were unaware of this fact. However, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land managers, were aware of the situation for some time and chose not to address the issue. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. In any event, once the application and processing fee of $10.00 is submitted the ball will be in the Bureau of Land Managements court. If the application is approved the current occupant should pay an amount equal to the appraised fair market value minus improvements, and equities. The current occupant would agree to this outcome. The Government would get compensated for the land, the current landowners would be issued a patent for the land, and the County acquires an easement for the existing road. Sounds better than a Federal trespass Notice and uncertain outcome. Keep in mind the landowner also retains ownership of the adjacent parcel (parcel described in deed). However, the adjacent landowner may have something to say about that.

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

Sorry if it was not clear, the land I am referring to is Federally managed land. All improvements are on Federally managed land. The legal description and Maps contained in the warranty deeds locate the privately owned parcel adjacent to federally managed land, Tax Maps and county surveyor maps locate the parcel adjacent to Federally managed land. However, the physical location of the parcel and improvements are on Federally managed land in its entirety. It appears that all parties of interest, in the subject parcel, for the past 55 years were unaware of this fact. However, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land managers, were aware of the situation for some time and chose not to address the issue. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. In any event, once the application and processing fee of $10.00 is submitted the ball will be in the Bureau of Land Managements court. If the application is approved the current occupant should pay an amount equal to the appraised fair market value minus improvements, and equities. The current occupant would agree to this outcome. The Government would get compensated for the land, the current landowners would be issued a patent for the land, and the County acquires an easement for the existing road. Sounds better than a Federal trespass Notice and uncertain outcome. Keep in mind the landowner also retains ownership of the adjacent parcel (parcel described in deed). However, the adjacent landowner may have something to say about that.

Riggs

Once again, you do not have any deeds that have a legal description of federal land. What you are describing is someone trespassing on federal land.

 

[efflandt]

Either work a land trade with the government, move the improvements to the property they are supposed to be on, or if buyer did not get what they contracted for, return money to buyer.

 

[Riggs]

efflandt,

Thank you for the suggestions, however, the expense, and time spent on a land exchange would far out wiegh the benefits gained. Also, the feds do not want to manage a small (2.5 acres) isolated parcel. They are currently attempting to consolidate their lands. Its not a bad idea in most cases.

Move the inprovements: The improvements include a 1500 sq. ft. home built in the 50's, garage, two storage sheds, an apple orchard, a tennis court, water facility, septic system,and powerlines. I would not want to guess what that would cost to move. And the land currently occupied would have to be rehabilitated.

The problem won't go away if the buyer returns the money to the seller.

Thanks again for your input,

Riggs

 

[Riggs]

seniorjudge,

I can see your not going to budge. I have presented you with most of the facts that helped me determine my course of action. You say that I am wrong to consider a Color of Title claim to remedy this unfortunate situation. However, you do not offer up any rationale why. I am going to suggest that the landowner submit an application to the Bureau of Land Management for a Color of Title claim. If the application is rejected, all the applicant is out is a $10.00 application fee and a little time. Its worth a try. If this does not work then the occupants will be facing trespass proceeding and all associated fees. The retention of the land they currently occupy would be uncertain. With all due respect, I don't think you know very much about the subject matter and you don't want to admit it. thats too bad. I will post the results for anyone that might be interested.

Riggs

 

[seniorjudge]

Answer one question:

Do the people have a deed or deeds with a legal description that covers federal land?