Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say you inherited a family farm/ranch that has been in your family for a few generations. However, that farm/ranch was originally deeded to a Native American family, also for several generations, who was forced off their land because the government ignored their promises. The unfortunate Native Americans were forced off at gunpoint without even undergoing a formal eviction process, so, their eviction was undocumented in government records and they did not receive any compensation.
However, you do not want to sell your farm/ranch because you are emotionally attached to it. One day, a descendent of the persecuted Native American family, who is also emotionally attached to the piece of land, decides to approach you and ask if he can live there again. He has the deed in hand, and his deed is technically still valid because it was not canceled by the government. Will you let his family permanently share the property with you and co-inherit it for future generations of both sides for free, given that he pays his fair share (half) of the property taxes, sort of like a condominium-style agreement or cohabitation agreement?
Sorry, the poll isn't displaying the text properly. It should be:
A. Of course! I'll sometimes give gifts to him to show compassion!
B. Yes, I'll be nice and friendly to him but won't give any gifts.
C. Yes, if they pay 10-25% cost of the property.
D. Yes, if they pay half the cost of the property.
E. No, I am very selfish, so I'll just blame the government.
I guess B (can't vote). Less lonely if another family's around.
Hard to really make an accurate assessment of what I'd do in this situation, though, since I have zero desire to live in a house at all, let alone on a farm inherited from my own family.
Squatters gain ownership rights after about 10 years openly living on land and developing it for their use and the rightful owner does nothing about it.
So if it has been generations then adverse possession definitely settled the question ages ago.
Sorry, the poll isn't displaying the text properly. It should be:
A. Of course! I'll sometimes give gifts to him to show compassion!
B. Yes, I'll be nice and friendly to him but won't give any gifts.
C. Yes, if they pay 10-25% cost of the property.
D. Yes, if they pay half the cost of the property.
E. No, I am very selfish, so I'll just blame the government.
Say you inherited a family farm/ranch that has been in your family for a few generations. However, that farm/ranch was originally deeded to a Native American family, also for several generations, who was forced off their land because the government ignored their promises.
...
However, you do not want to sell your farm/ranch because you are emotionally attached to it. One day, a descendent of the persecuted Native American family, who is also emotionally attached to the piece of land, decides to approach you and ask if he can live there again.
"Several generations" = 75+ years. There's a big difference between "emotionally attached" to a property you, your parents and grandparents have lived on for your entire lives, and "emotionally attached" to a property that belonged to someone's ancestors long before he was born. How emotionally attached can that person actually be?
At this point the ranch belongs to the people who live there. Was there an unfair eviction, yes. But it is not on the current resident to repair that.
The only way the OP's scenario even works is that it is set up as a farm or ranch which is presumably large enough for more than one family to share. What if it was a SFH house on a small lot in a city, which once belonged to someone else's great-grandparents? Is the current owner supposed to let the person whose ancestors were evicted move in with him, because he is emotionally attached?
If you truly feel morally obligated to somehow remedy this situation, I would deed half the land to him. Asking him to buy land he already has the apparently valid deed to...seems not legal.
Not that I have any idea what the legalities here would be.
This is too hypothetical for my tastes. Most Native Americans never held deeds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
