By Katie Penny
In law school, to illustrate mortgages, my professors always drew a diagram which resembled a kicked-over capital D. The two lines used to draw the D were arrows that represented the two transactions which had taken place, and it seemed simple enough. However, the amount of confusion about what mortgages actually are and the rights that they entail reveals that the simplicity of the diagram is a bit misleading. In light of the number of foreclosures taking place lately, and the fact that almost every homeowner in this country purchased their home with a loan and a mortgage, mortgages seem like an urgently pertinent topic.
The mortgage relationship at its simplest involves a borrower and a lender. The lender is usually a bank, so for simplicity’s sake, I will say “bank,” but anyone could be a lender to whom a mortgage is granted. Also, anyone could be a borrower, but in the most applicable case, it is a homeowner who has used the loan to purchase a residence.
In essence, when a simple mortgage has been granted, it means this: a bank loans a borrower money. To ensure that it will be able to get its money back, the bank gets the borrower to grant it a mortgage on the property the borrower is purchasing. [The bank gives you money; you give them a mortgage. These are the two lines of my D.] The loan debt is represented by a “promissory note,”—an IOU, if you will—and the borrower has a certain amount of time to pay back the debt, sometimes in installments or sometimes all at once. In exchange, the borrower/homeowner grants the bank a mortgage, which means the bank is “secured” for the amount of the loan through a right to the property on which the mortgage was granted—which is usually the very residence the loan was used to purchase.
In most simple homeowner mortgages, the mortgage document (which is separate from the promissory note) allows the bank to seize and sell the piece of property on which the mortgage was granted if the borrower goes into default on the loan. When the property is sold, the bank is entitled to take the outstanding amount of the loan out of the proceeds of the sale. That way, if you stop making payments on your loan, the bank has the right to take the property, sell it, and get the money you still owed.
I will now try to explain it yet again using actual numbers and names. Katie wants to purchase a house with a price of $250,000. She has 150,000 in the bank (ahh, sweet fantasy!!), but she needs someone to lend her the last $100,000. She goes to Moneybags Bank and they agree to lend her the $100,000 and give her 30 years to pay it back (with interest, of course) in monthly installments. To make sure they get their $100,000 back, Moneybags Bank demands a $100,000 mortgage on the house Katie is purchasing with the loan money. Katie signs the promissory note (this is the straight back of the capital D, by the way), and signs the mortgage (this is the potbelly bottom loop of the kicked-over capital D). She buys the house and moves in happily.
Unfortunately, after paying down $20,000 of the $100,000 debt, Katie finds herself unable to make a few loan payments. Because she has “defaulted” on her loan, the mortgage tied to that loan becomes enforceable by the bank. Moneybags Bank presents the promissory note and the mortgage to the court. If the mortgage and note documents have the proper requirements (and believe me, banks do not usually mess up on making sure mortgages have those requirements; they function on being able to enforce mortgages), the court orders the sheriff to “seize” Katie’s house (which usually just means putting a notice of seizure on the door) and the house is sold at a sheriff’s sale (basically, an auction at the courthouse.) The house sells for $120,000, despite its 300,000 value (since, though it increased in value while Katie owned it, property usually sells for much less than it is worth at a public auction). Katie still owed the bank $80,000 of her $100,000 loan, so the bank takes $80,000 of the $120,000 proceeds, and Katie—who, after all, put in $150,000 of the purchase price—gets the remaining $40,000.
When I say “this can get much more complicated,” I’m sure everyone who has watched the news in the past year would agree. You can grant multiple mortgages on your property, each tied to a different loan, and then when one of the loans is defaulted on, that mortgage becomes enforceable, but not necessarily the other ones (which are tied to other loans.) So older mortgages will stay “tied” to the property despite a sale, and some newer mortgages might be dissolved after the sale. Banks might grant mortgages, then sell the right to enforce the mortgages to other financial institutions. Sometimes, mortgages are not tied to specific loans, but rather to many different loans, or a line of credit. Sometimes there are collateral mortgages, but I don’t want to give anyone a headache.
At its most basic, taking out a loan and granting a mortgage means you give someone the right to sell your house out from underneath you if you do not make payments on the loan. If you take out a loan on which you know you will not be able to afford the monthly payments, do not be surprised when the lender exercises his rights and takes your property. It’s nice to get a loan and have cash in your hands, but when you grant a mortgage for that loan, believe me that you are not getting the money free. If you look up “money, strings attached” in the dictionary, you might just see a picture of my mortgage diagram.
Showing posts with label acquisitive perscription. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acquisitive perscription. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Land Ownership: When Is It Yours?
By Katie Penny
Can you come to own land if you live there long enough?
It is a common belief among the public that if you live on a piece of land long enough, even if you do not technically own it, you can become the owner. For once, one of those strange legal urban legends that are kicked around is actually true.
This idea, in Louisiana, is known as “acquisitive prescription,” and it basically amounts to exactly what people think it does—if you live somewhere long enough, even if you never had good legal title to the land, you can actually become the legal owner of the property. The bad news is that you have to live there a really long time, and you still have to have yourself named the owner in a court proceeding before you can be the legal owner in the public records.
You can come to own something through acquisitive prescription if the thing you want to own is immovable (such as land, buildings, etc.) or movable (vehicles, jewelry, etc.), but the amount of time you must possess the item varies. There are two official kinds of acquisitive prescription for immovable pieces of property, a 10-year variety and a 30-year variety, and two types for movable property, a 3-year variety and a 10-year variety.
An important caveat here is that you can only gain ownership this way to certain types of property. You cannot just squat on government property for 30 years and come to own it, unfortunately. Only private property can come to be owned through acquisitive prescription. Common property and public property (such as the lawn of a courthouse or a public park), whether movable or immovable, cannot come to be owned through acquisitive prescription.
There are 3 requirements in order to be able to become the owner of immovable property in just 10 years, rather than 30 years. It must be private property that can come to be owned by acquisitive prescription to begin with. Then, you must actually physically possess the property continuously for at least 10 years.
For immovable property, physical possession means you do things on the property, like live on it, build fences, etc. Generally, if you use the land in a way that is typical for that kind of land, that would be physical possession. We do not expect you to build a high-rise on a swamp, that is; but if you cut down trees, or drain the swamp, or something someone would normally do who owned swampland, that would probably suffice.
Second, you must be in good faith (at least when you begin the possession of the property). Good faith means that you must reasonably believe that you actually do own the property.
“Reasonably,” for example, means that you could not put a tent in the State Capital and reasonably believe you could become the owner of the land under your tent. An ordinary person would have to believe reasonably that he could and does own the land, and he would have to have actually paid money for the property, and in an amount that a reasonable, ordinary person would expect that property to be worth.
Third, you must have what is called “just title.” This means that you have a document that is filed in the public records that would, under normal circumstances, have been enough to give you real actual legal title to the land.
Ten-year acquisitive prescription is actually intended to address a situation in which someone has done everything correctly to purchase and own some land, but it turns out that their paperwork was wrong or the lawyer goofed (that could NEVER happen, I tell you) drawing up the ownership paperwork, or the seller did not actually own the property they were trying to “sell”, or something else is wrong with the documents, but it was not really the fault of the buyer.
Then, if the buyer lives there for 10 years, physically possessing the land, and has what would reasonably be believed to be just title, filed in the public records , even if the “title” was not actually good, and the buyer was in good faith, then the buyer may be legally recognized as having become the owner of the property anyway through 10-year acquisitive prescription.
If you lack one of these elements, such as having a document that someone might reasonably consider to be a title transferring ownership, or you happen to know that someone else might have an ownership interest in the property, you may still become the owner through 30-year acquisitive prescription.
The only requirement for 30 year acquisitive prescription is that you physically possess the property for 30 years. Even if you know you do not own the property, even if you have no documents that say you might own the property, even if you know someone else does own the property, but you live publicly on the property uninterrupted for 30 years, you can come to court and be declared the legal owner. [If the real owner takes you to court, telling you to get off of his property, during the 30 years, that “interrupts” your 30 years.]
The idea behind 30 year acquisitive prescription is that we want land to be used. So, if someone is going to own property but never visit it, look at it, or take care of it for 30 years, so that some other person could come and live on their property for 30 years without them even noticing, we would rather the person who is actually living on and using the property be the owner than the legal owner.
[For movable property, the 3-year version has the same requirements as 10-year immovable acquisitive prescription; and the 10-year version for movable property has the same requirements as 30-year acquisitive prescription for immovable property.]
So, good luck to all the squatters out there. There’s hope!
The provided information is fact-sensitive and jurisdiction-dependent. Consult an attorney before employing the above legal concepts.
Can you come to own land if you live there long enough?
It is a common belief among the public that if you live on a piece of land long enough, even if you do not technically own it, you can become the owner. For once, one of those strange legal urban legends that are kicked around is actually true.
This idea, in Louisiana, is known as “acquisitive prescription,” and it basically amounts to exactly what people think it does—if you live somewhere long enough, even if you never had good legal title to the land, you can actually become the legal owner of the property. The bad news is that you have to live there a really long time, and you still have to have yourself named the owner in a court proceeding before you can be the legal owner in the public records.
You can come to own something through acquisitive prescription if the thing you want to own is immovable (such as land, buildings, etc.) or movable (vehicles, jewelry, etc.), but the amount of time you must possess the item varies. There are two official kinds of acquisitive prescription for immovable pieces of property, a 10-year variety and a 30-year variety, and two types for movable property, a 3-year variety and a 10-year variety.
An important caveat here is that you can only gain ownership this way to certain types of property. You cannot just squat on government property for 30 years and come to own it, unfortunately. Only private property can come to be owned through acquisitive prescription. Common property and public property (such as the lawn of a courthouse or a public park), whether movable or immovable, cannot come to be owned through acquisitive prescription.
There are 3 requirements in order to be able to become the owner of immovable property in just 10 years, rather than 30 years. It must be private property that can come to be owned by acquisitive prescription to begin with. Then, you must actually physically possess the property continuously for at least 10 years.
For immovable property, physical possession means you do things on the property, like live on it, build fences, etc. Generally, if you use the land in a way that is typical for that kind of land, that would be physical possession. We do not expect you to build a high-rise on a swamp, that is; but if you cut down trees, or drain the swamp, or something someone would normally do who owned swampland, that would probably suffice.
Second, you must be in good faith (at least when you begin the possession of the property). Good faith means that you must reasonably believe that you actually do own the property.
“Reasonably,” for example, means that you could not put a tent in the State Capital and reasonably believe you could become the owner of the land under your tent. An ordinary person would have to believe reasonably that he could and does own the land, and he would have to have actually paid money for the property, and in an amount that a reasonable, ordinary person would expect that property to be worth.
Third, you must have what is called “just title.” This means that you have a document that is filed in the public records that would, under normal circumstances, have been enough to give you real actual legal title to the land.
Ten-year acquisitive prescription is actually intended to address a situation in which someone has done everything correctly to purchase and own some land, but it turns out that their paperwork was wrong or the lawyer goofed (that could NEVER happen, I tell you) drawing up the ownership paperwork, or the seller did not actually own the property they were trying to “sell”, or something else is wrong with the documents, but it was not really the fault of the buyer.
Then, if the buyer lives there for 10 years, physically possessing the land, and has what would reasonably be believed to be just title, filed in the public records , even if the “title” was not actually good, and the buyer was in good faith, then the buyer may be legally recognized as having become the owner of the property anyway through 10-year acquisitive prescription.
If you lack one of these elements, such as having a document that someone might reasonably consider to be a title transferring ownership, or you happen to know that someone else might have an ownership interest in the property, you may still become the owner through 30-year acquisitive prescription.
The only requirement for 30 year acquisitive prescription is that you physically possess the property for 30 years. Even if you know you do not own the property, even if you have no documents that say you might own the property, even if you know someone else does own the property, but you live publicly on the property uninterrupted for 30 years, you can come to court and be declared the legal owner. [If the real owner takes you to court, telling you to get off of his property, during the 30 years, that “interrupts” your 30 years.]
The idea behind 30 year acquisitive prescription is that we want land to be used. So, if someone is going to own property but never visit it, look at it, or take care of it for 30 years, so that some other person could come and live on their property for 30 years without them even noticing, we would rather the person who is actually living on and using the property be the owner than the legal owner.
[For movable property, the 3-year version has the same requirements as 10-year immovable acquisitive prescription; and the 10-year version for movable property has the same requirements as 30-year acquisitive prescription for immovable property.]
So, good luck to all the squatters out there. There’s hope!
The provided information is fact-sensitive and jurisdiction-dependent. Consult an attorney before employing the above legal concepts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
