Jump to content

Under siege in Brazos Valley

dogbreath

By dogbreath
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Celery Man

Celery Man 20933

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, dogbreath said:

Blakesee wrote the Tulia book. He’s an excellent writer. 

i took a texas history class at UT and the prof had us read that book. not a single test question/essay or assignment that had us verify that we completed the book or provide any analysis of its content at all, and I was kinda pissed off at the time. But also, that is one of the most impactful books about Texas that I have read and Nate Blakeslee is a badass. As is that Blackburn guy - looks like he died this year. Rest in peace you badass.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/jeff-blackburn-innocence-project-texas-obituary/

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105077

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

This shit pisses me off. @Brisketexan  Maybe get some probono shit going? There has to be some groups out there. 

Funny you mention it.  GOLL already brought it up to me.

The challenge is (as noted in the article), that's a hypertechnical field of practice.  I've got some experience on title dispute issues, but at a relatively high level -- what was in dispute wasn't heirship division issues.  It's a game with very detailed and specific rules....which often means that the rules can be gamed (overly specific statutes are often not a friend of justice).  Would love some of the skilled real estate litigators out there to give this a look.  With this level of scrutiny, I imagine some may do so in the coming weeks.

As a lawyer, you gotta be smart enough to know how dumb you are. There are some areas of the law where I can run rings around most anyone in the state.  This ain't one of those areas.

  • Hook 'Em 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 25871

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Funny you mention it.  GOLL already brought it up to me.

The challenge is (as noted in the article), that's a hypertechnical field of practice.  I've got some experience on title dispute issues, but at a relatively high level -- what was in dispute wasn't heirship division issues.  It's a game with very detailed and specific rules....which often means that the rules can be gamed (overly specific statutes are often not a friend of justice).  Would love some of the skilled real estate litigators out there to give this a look.  With this level of scrutiny, I imagine some may do so in the coming weeks.

As a lawyer, you gotta be smart enough to know how dumb you are. There are some areas of the law where I can run rings around most anyone in the state.  This ain't one of those areas.

I am not a lawyer, but I can read and research. Happy to help should anything take off. And yeah, best legal advice I received (divorce) was shut up and let experts do what they know. 

I do have a friend, UT grad if we need any maps developed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13509

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I can see that it's a legal problem when it's very unclear who owns property that has passed through several generations that can consist of dozens of people. Really sucks that the person who has been paying the property tax may actually only own a small percentage. Distant cousins may actually own more but have never seen the property.

Sounds like a great project for a law school class to help people officially clear this up.

soapbox: stories like this are examples where racism from decades ago is still impacting people today. You can blame someone for not hiring lawyers in the past to clear this up but in their eyes lawyers have screwed them as well. 

  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34703

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
26 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can see that it's a legal problem when it's very unclear who owns property that has passed through several generations that can consist of dozens of people. Really sucks that the person who has been paying the property tax may actually only own a small percentage. Distant cousins may actually own more but have never seen the property.

Sounds like a great project for a law school class to help people officially clear this up.

soapbox: stories like this are examples where racism from decades ago is still impacting people today. You can blame someone for not hiring lawyers in the past to clear this up but in their eyes lawyers have screwed them as well. 

It’s exactly what people mean when they talk about structural racism and how the dreaded CRT isn’t just about vibes and hate for whitey but trying to remove real-life inequities in the way the law treats real-life people who are getting screwed. 
 

There’s also some non-structural old-fashioned racism in that this POS would not be pulling this shit with white people.  But the point is that the individual-level racism can be defanged in a big way if it can’t be weaponized within a legal system that is no longer intentionally racist but that simply hasn’t been un-racised. 
 

Also tempted to get up on my soapbox about how this is a great example of why we need the dinosaur media and how the consolidation of local and regional media to corporate interests is not going to lead to a blooming of great citizen journalism. Citizens don’t have the time or ability to do a piece like this.  The trend is moving to make it easier for the local shitheads to fuck your over. 

  • Hook 'Em 16
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19416

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can see that it's a legal problem when it's very unclear who owns property that has passed through several generations that can consist of dozens of people. Really sucks that the person who has been paying the property tax may actually only own a small percentage. Distant cousins may actually own more but have never seen the property.

Sounds like a great project for a law school class to help people officially clear this up.

soapbox: stories like this are examples where racism from decades ago is still impacting people today. You can blame someone for not hiring lawyers in the past to clear this up but in their eyes lawyers have screwed them as well. 

Interestingly enough, my dad and aunt owned some undivided interest in some "land" in coastal Louisiana. My Grandfather and his 3 siblings each owned a 1/4 share passed down from my great grandfather. There was a little mineral interest (gas wells), and they got a royalty check that usually didn't cover the taxes. When the lease expired, it wasn't renewed because they couldn't find anyone, or enough owners to sign a new lease. Several years ago, they drove over to Houma and talked to a lawyer that was able to get a map of the property, and it was about 90% under water at that point due to coastal erosion. They made the decision shortly after that (with agreement from my cousins and me) to stop paying taxes on it and let it go. The lawyer said Lafourche Parish had been trying to unwind that piece of property for years. Similar story in terms of newspaper ads, mailing tax bills to last known addresses, etc. Louisiana law is weird in that you technically still own the ground under water, but it's pretty much worthless unless someone can cure the title issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vtaenz

vtaenz 601

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Funny you mention it.  GOLL already brought it up to me.

The challenge is (as noted in the article), that's a hypertechnical field of practice.  I've got some experience on title dispute issues, but at a relatively high level -- what was in dispute wasn't heirship division issues.  It's a game with very detailed and specific rules....which often means that the rules can be gamed (overly specific statutes are often not a friend of justice).  Would love some of the skilled real estate litigators out there to give this a look.  With this level of scrutiny, I imagine some may do so in the coming weeks.

As a lawyer, you gotta be smart enough to know how dumb you are. There are some areas of the law where I can run rings around most anyone in the state.  This ain't one of those areas.

This is just something in general. The more we learn, the more aware of how little we actually know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12975

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Timely, I’m just reading a book and it touches on this same inheritance problem in New Mexico in the late 1800s with old Spanish land grants.  The more things change…

Jim Bowie was hugely involved in fraudulant land sales in Louisiana and Arkansas before he came to Texas.   And then once here, kind of did the same thing with empresario grants.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTexasFight

UTexasFight 9429

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Jim Bowie was hugely involved in fraudulant land sales in Louisiana and Arkansas before he came to Texas.   And then once here, kind of did the same thing with empresario grants.

Yeah the post above about the Louisiana family land made me think “I know a guy (Bowie) that would have made (rotten) lemonade out of those lemons” 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13509

Posted
Posted

Horrible story but what should be the best and most equitable outcome when perhaps dozens of distant family members all have claims of partial ownership? I can see how a judge could order a land sale since money can be easily divided.

I would hope that a county would be identifying potential land ownership situations and working with the “owners” to clear up titles. Then again, I’m naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20933

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Also tempted to get up on my soapbox about how this is a great example of why we need the dinosaur media and how the consolidation of local and regional media to corporate interests is not going to lead to a blooming of great citizen journalism. Citizens don’t have the time or ability to do a piece like this.  The trend is moving to make it easier for the local shitheads to fuck your over. 

we left the state and i still kept my subscription to the Observer. That shit is important and meaningful, I need to find the NC version.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samson's Wig

Samson's Wig 3191

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RPM said:

What I don't understand is if the guy was paying the taxes then he was listed as the owner by the county. Wouldn't he have a prior lein over all the property? 

You would think some form of adverse possession would kick in at some point, but I can't be the first to consider that notion so I assume it has been tried and failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29347

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

You would think some form of adverse possession would kick in at some point, but I can't be the first to consider that notion so I assume it has been tried and failed.

If you read the article, that's exactly how one group of heirs managed to keep their land.  Funny enough, I'm not really sure it was a proper application of adverse possession (the case law on adverse possession in Texas is basically incomprehensible), but it was certainly the just outcome.  

It seems pretty clear that Bill Youngkin knowingly lied to a Texas court as part of a fraudulent scheme.  He should be disbarred and it sure seems like there should be grounds for criminal charges against Youngkin and Capps here, though it seems incredibly unlikely this will ever be investigated by law enforcement.  Though perhaps there's potential for a 1983 civil rights claim?

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Funny you mention it.  GOLL already brought it up to me.

The challenge is (as noted in the article), that's a hypertechnical field of practice.  I've got some experience on title dispute issues, but at a relatively high level -- what was in dispute wasn't heirship division issues.  It's a game with very detailed and specific rules....which often means that the rules can be gamed (overly specific statutes are often not a friend of justice).  Would love some of the skilled real estate litigators out there to give this a look.  With this level of scrutiny, I imagine some may do so in the coming weeks.

As a lawyer, you gotta be smart enough to know how dumb you are. There are some areas of the law where I can run rings around most anyone in the state.  This ain't one of those areas.

The lack of paying taxes on the land is a method the state uses to seize land, so could not an argument be made that if the state is sending you the tax bill and you pay it, that you are the land owner?  If a family member has a share but doesn't pay to maintain their share they lose their claim similar as to how you lose your claim on your land by not paying taxes.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105077

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The lack of paying taxes on the land is a method the state uses to seize land, so could not an argument be made that if the state is sending you the tax bill and you pay it, that you are the land owner?  If a family member has a share but doesn't pay to maintain their share they lose their claim similar as to how you lose your claim on your land by not paying taxes.   

I'm pretty sure that's not how that works (yes, paying taxes can be one way to adversely possess land, but in an heirship situation, I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that).  Truly, this area of law has a lot of complicated twists and turns.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29347

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm pretty sure that's not how that works (yes, paying taxes can be one way to adversely possess land, but in an heirship situation, I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that).  Truly, this area of law has a lot of complicated twists and turns.

Payment of taxes is an element under the 5-year adverse possession statute, but that also requires that the adverse possessor claim under a "duly registered" deed. I've never been able to figure out what "duly registered" was intended to mean, so I guess it just means recorded.  Also, adverse possession typically isn't available in cotenant situations, as both have an equal right of possession so possession by one isn't "hostile" to the other's rights. And I think cotenant heirs typically have a higher bar than that. I'm really not knowledgeable about the procedural aspects involved, unfortunately. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105077

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Payment of taxes is an element under the 5-year adverse possession statute, but that also requires that the adverse possessor claim under a "duly registered" deed. I've never been able to figure out what "duly registered" was intended to mean, so I guess it just means recorded.  Also, adverse possession typically isn't available in cotenant situations, as both have an equal right of possession so possession by one isn't "hostile" to the other's rights. And I think cotenant heirs typically have a higher bar than that. I'm really not knowledgeable about the procedural aspects involved, unfortunately. 

Yep, that all makes sense.  Like I said....there's about 3,000 different angles, dead-ends, pitfalls, etc. in these sorts of cases.  If you've figured them all out, you can master the game over anyone else, ESPECIALLY poor, uneducated landowners with no legal counsel.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep, that all makes sense.  Like I said....there's about 3,000 different angles, dead-ends, pitfalls, etc. in these sorts of cases.  If you've figured them all out, you can master the game over anyone else, ESPECIALLY poor, uneducated landowners with no legal counsel.

Can they sue the state and recover the taxes paid?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vtaenz

vtaenz 601

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Nivek said:

The lack of paying taxes on the land is a method the state uses to seize land, so could not an argument be made that if the state is sending you the tax bill and you pay it, that you are the land owner?  If a family member has a share but doesn't pay to maintain their share they lose their claim similar as to how you lose your claim on your land by not paying taxes.   

That also seems like a way for someone to knowingly jump in to start paying taxes on a piece of property and then turn around and try to claim that they are the rightful owners since they've been footing the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted (edited)

The problem is not so much legal as factual.  The complete lack of formality in title transfer and probate among southern (and other) poor (black and white), for generations, combined with the levels of bastardy and intermarriage, make this problem damn near insurmountable, except by something akin to what's going on here.  Someone has to be the "bad guy" to clear title.  Of course, it would be more palatable if the bad guy was a family member, but they'd still be something of a bad guy.

Even a family with good intentions and a half dozen family bibles and a willingness to honor those claims could't sort this out, and someone in the family is likely to turn greedhead and turn the whole thing into a shit show.

Also, probably worth noting that this property is unsaleable because of its fuct up title situation, or damn nearly so.  The only value left in it is occupancy, until someone comes along as the bad guy like here.

It has been going on all over the south and other places in regard to timber land for decades.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FORTY NINE TO ZERO

FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652

Posted
Posted
On 11/9/2023 at 4:36 PM, Pescado_Rojo said:

Interestingly enough, my dad and aunt owned some undivided interest in some "land" in coastal Louisiana. My Grandfather and his 3 siblings each owned a 1/4 share passed down from my great grandfather. There was a little mineral interest (gas wells), and they got a royalty check that usually didn't cover the taxes. When the lease expired, it wasn't renewed because they couldn't find anyone, or enough owners to sign a new lease. Several years ago, they drove over to Houma and talked to a lawyer that was able to get a map of the property, and it was about 90% under water at that point due to coastal erosion. They made the decision shortly after that (with agreement from my cousins and me) to stop paying taxes on it and let it go. The lawyer said Lafourche Parish had been trying to unwind that piece of property for years. Similar story in terms of newspaper ads, mailing tax bills to last known addresses, etc. Louisiana law is weird in that you technically still own the ground under water, but it's pretty much worthless unless someone can cure the title issues.  

ha  are you me?  exact same thing, but land near lake charles.  my dad got tired of the headache and made it his job post retirement to clear up the title and sell the land to a local developer.  a few cousins were pissy about how little they got, apparently thinking tick infested marshland with minimal mineral deposits divided 50 plus ways should be a goldmine. 

pissed me off, seeing how my dad spent countless hours a month for literally years working on this and got the same amount as everyone else…  

this is more common than people realize 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
That also seems like a way for someone to knowingly jump in to start paying taxes on a piece of property and then turn around and try to claim that they are the rightful owners since they've been footing the bill.

I thought of that. But this is a fairly special situation. A kid paying the property taxes for his mom while living in the house, or a person paying property taxes for their neighbor is not the same thing as a person paying for decades and holding occupancy.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
ha  are you me?  exact same thing, but land near lake charles.  my dad got tired of the headache and made it his job post retirement to clear up the title and sell the land to a local developer.  a few cousins were pissy about how little they got, apparently thinking tick infested marshland with minimal mineral deposits divided 50 plus ways should be a goldmine. 
pissed me off, seeing how my dad spent countless hours a month for literally years working on this and got the same amount as everyone else…  
this is more common than people realize 

Relatives being cunts and thinking people should work for free is normal. One relative handled it well by telling everyone to fuck off, she’ll handle it.

Another did not by handling it and listening to everyone who thought they were all going to be billionaires on a polluted piece of land that wasn’t special.

Both ended up with issues within the family. Only one stressed about it.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12975

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, Cliff's Notes?  Sounds like poor people who rightfully paid their taxes on land they owned were swindled out of said land by people with deeper pockets and the ability to manipulate the law and the courts?

Lawyers.   It always come back to the lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, Cliff's Notes?  Sounds like poor people who rightfully paid their taxes on land they owned were swindled out of said land by people with deeper pockets and the ability to manipulate the law and the courts?

Well the bigger story is this:  People came into lawful possession of land many moons ago, say 100 years.  At that time, presumably, the deeds were in order and recorded to say a man and wife, or just the man.

Years pass, people marry, divorce, don't marry, split up, children are born.  People die.  As is not uncommon, no one is probating estates, or formally transferring property between themselves.

So, at present, land is owned by dozens if not hundreds of legal heirs of the original owners (who were duly documented).  None of these people have deeds or probate records formalizing their ownership claims.

So, instead of the usual case of a family consisting of a half-dozen or so people having clear title to a piece of property handed down over decades and generations, you have dozens or hundreds with undocumented, unknown, and unknowable interests in land.  Who pays/paid the property taxes over time is just a small piece of the puzzle.

The law has various procedures for dealing with such jumbled title that are not, in and of themselves, discriminatory., except in the usual sense in which law tends to favor those who use it and have the means to use it.

The basic policy of the law is to foster the best and highest use of a piece of real property, subject to the right of the owner to do whatever the hell s/he wants to do with it (subject of course to certain limitations).  A big part of that is to maintain the "alienability" of the property, the ability to transfer it to others when the owner is incapable or unwilling to make better economic use of the land.

So, these interlopers use the law to clear title to the land so it can be sold, usually at a high profit, to developers.  By not observing legal formalities for generations, those with tiny, undocumented fragmentary interests lose out, to some degree.

The harsh reality, though, is that those "rightful owners" have let title descend into a place where the property is practically inalienable/unsaleable, so they aren't really in a place to take advantage of the high profit without themselves exploiting the features of the law designed to clear title.  And that would have losers, too.

Why does this happen?  People were ignorant, cheap, or poor, and didn't do the legally necessary thing to keep title clear.  The article posits that blacks were distrustful of the law and lawyers and did not participate.  I'm sure that's true. But, we have plenty of examples right here on the board of people trying not to do what's legally necessary with probate and other things of this nature right here in the 21st century by people who are just being cheap or ignorant.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  HAVE A WILL OR ESTATE PLAN.  PROBATE THAT FUCKER.  EVEN IF YOU DON"T HAVE A WILL, HAVE A PROBATE OR DO SOMETHING TO DEAL WITH TITLE OF REAL PROPERTY YOU OWN AT DEATH.  STOP BEING A CHEAP FUCK IF YOU OWN REAL PROPERTY.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12975

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well the bigger story is this:  People came into lawful possession of land many moons ago, say 100 years.  At that time, presumably, the deeds were in order and recorded to say a man and wife, or just the man.

Years pass, people marry, divorce, don't marry, split up, children are born.  People die.  As is not uncommon, no one is probating estates, or formally transferring property between themselves.

So, at present, land is owned by dozens if not hundreds of legal heirs of the original owners (who were duly documented).  None of these people have deeds or probate records formalizing their ownership claims.

So, instead of the usual case of a family consisting of a half-dozen or so people having clear title to a piece of property handed down over decades and generations, you have dozens or hundreds with undocumented, unknown, and unknowable interests in land.  Who pays/paid the property taxes over time is just a small piece of the puzzle.

The law has various procedures for dealing with such jumbled title that are not, in and of themselves, discriminatory., except in the usual sense in which law tends to favor those who use it and have the means to use it.

The basic policy of the law is to foster the best and highest use of a piece of real property, subject to the right of the owner to do whatever the hell s/he wants to do with it (subject of course to certain limitations).  A big part of that is to maintain the "alienability" of the property, the ability to transfer it to others when the owner is incapable or unwilling to make better economic use of the land.

So, these interlopers use the law to clear title to the land so it can be sold, usually at a high profit, to developers.  By not observing legal formalities for generations, those with tiny, undocumented fragmentary interests lose out, to some degree.

The harsh reality, though, is that those "rightful owners" have let title descend into a place where the property is practically inalienable/unsaleable, so they aren't really in a place to take advantage of the high profit without themselves exploiting the features of the law designed to clear title.  And that would have losers, too.

Why does this happen?  People were ignorant, cheap, or poor, and didn't do the legally necessary thing to keep title clear.  The article posits that blacks were distrustful of the law and lawyers and did not participate.  I'm sure that's true. But, we have plenty of examples right here on the board of people trying not to do what's legally necessary with probate and other things of this nature right here in the 21st century by people who are just being cheap or ignorant.

Very well said.   I know I bag on lawyers but your comments are very well laid out.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...