It is such a counter-intuitive approach to property rights. It always made more sense to me when I understood its origins with feudalism. When land was the sole sign of proper wealth and power.
I can think of few better ways to hold yourself out as an owner of a property than the legal obligations for its maintenance and care inherent to being a landlord.
2 Likes
That’s the funny thing about averages. Some counties in the US have a median income closer to $28k/year. Others are closer to $94k/year (as is in my county).
A sort-of similar scam happened to one of my houses in S. Florida. I was under contract to sell it, when an inspector discovered that a family had moved in. They had a rental contract that they showed the police (who I had called), and had given the scammer $3200 for the nice house that they then moved into. Evidently, the crook smashed the lockbox, took the key, and started showing the property! I felt terrible for the poor people that had been taken, and they had agreed to a tidy sum that I would have been happy to have as rent. But since I was under contract, the buyers could have sued me for trying to walk away. I gave the folks a week to leave, the police said I could have removed on the spot. Fortunately, the buyers never found out (even though I was on the news), as they were very twitchy.
What I don’t quite understand is the Council rates issue - people here continue to refer to it as tax but that is a different issue. To obtain adverse possession you have to, of course, take clear and open possession of the property ( a little bit of intrigue here as I understood that you personally had to live in the property - rather than merely rent it out to others -'ppears I’m wrong). Most unusual for a renter to pay rates - although perhaps not that the rates notice is sent to the actual address. To commence adverse possession one needs to go to Council and settle the unpaid rates. But in your own name! So how does that happen unquestioningly? That the rates were being settled by the new owner is certain - because after a period of time the Council will have been obliged to refer the property to the Public Trustee who would issue notices that the property would be auctioned to settle unpaid rates - and if that had happened in some way the real owners ought to have been alerted. My guess is the developer guy was aware that the place was occupied by an elderly person who had recently passed away and so had marched in before the statutory period required to auction the property for unpaid rates. Alternatively, he had been tipped off by someone in Council that there was a property whose rates had elapsed for some time and it would be a good opportunity to occupy it. I don’t really buy the " I just sort of discovered it" situation - although it too is plausible. Maybe the local doorknock was to see if anyone knew who the actual owners were.
I lived in a house almost identical to this one and there are lots of these “California bungalow” style houses still around in the Strathfield/Burwood area. BTW, ant infestation probably refers to termites (aka white ants). But as these houses are double brick construction the problem might have been confined to some dodgy floors at one time.
21. Mr Gertos deposed that after the repairs were completed, arrangements were made by a member of his staff to appoint a managing agent. Richardson & Wrench of Hurlstone Park were appointed. Mr Gertos says that within a few weeks he had signed a lease of the property as landlord. Mr Gertos also says that he commenced to pay all the outgoings for the property including Council rates, water levies and charges, and land tax.
22. There is no documentary evidence to support these claims in respect of the first few years from 1998. However, Mr Gertos produced statements issued by Richardson & Wrench which show that as early as 2003 Mr Gertos was receiving rent from tenants of the property, and paying water rates and Council rates out of the rent received. The statements show that in February 2004 an instalment of land tax was paid by Mr Gertos out of rent received. Other documents show that Mr Gertos has since continued to pay land tax on the property.
He seems to have been paying since 2003 at least.
I don’t think there is much mystery there. As I understand the NSW system the council sends the rates demand to the property. Gertos could simply contact the council and say, “Hello, I own that property now and want to pay the rates”.
The council isn’t going to ask for proof of ownership.
The dubious property developer bit is certainly right.
The stealing a house bit is rather more polemic than it needs to be.
Extract from judgment
11. Mr Downie acquired the property at 6 Malleny Street in 1927. One of his two children, the first plaintiff, gave evidence that Mr Downie and his wife lived in the property with the children until shortly prior to the Second World War. The first plaintiff deposed that at that time Mr Downie announced that the family had to leave the house because it was “full of white ants”. The family moved to a house in Queen Street, Ashfield, for a time, and to other houses thereafter. The first plaintiff deposed that the family never returned to 6 Malleny Street and neither did the family ever talk about it. The second plaintiff, a grandson of Mr Downie, gave evidence to similar effect, including that the property was “never discussed in terms of ownership”.
12. Mr Downie died in 1947. He was survived by his wife. There is no evidence that he left a will. As I have already mentioned, no grant of administration has been made in respect of Mr Downie’s intestate estate.
13. It appears to be undisputed that at the time of Mr Downie’s death the property was subject to a tenancy in favour of a Mrs Grimes that was likely a “protected tenancy”. The evidence is clear that Mrs Grimes continued to reside in the property, regularly paying a small rental to Ford Real Estate, until shortly prior to her death, which occurred on 19 April 1998.
What we’ve got is man who owned the property and lived in it with his family for a decade or so until he apparently decided it was termite infested and they moved out.
The property was then rented out to a lady on a tenancy which meant that she couldn’t be evicted as long as she was paying the rent. The owner died in 1947 and the family did not administer his estate (but they did continue to collect the rent).
The tenant dies in 1998 and between then and 2017, none of the family appear to take any interest in the property.
At any time during the 12 years from 1998 onwards the family could have taken steps to evict Gertos and would have won easily.
They didn’t. Adverse possession takes a ‘use it or lose it’ approach to land ownership.
1 Like
This is not comparable, since Gertos didn’t violently turn out the original owners. Don’t muddle things.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
