Legality question involving land

I disagree. If the landowner accepted money then there are legal obligations attached, what those are depends on the law in the OP’s jurisdiction.

Of course I can’t find my copy at the moment, but I think it was called “Building Title”. Something simple like that. I did find paperwork from my purchase of the house, as well as copies of previous bills of sale, and they all mention “titles”.

ETA: Some of those “bills of sale” are a hoot. Half written in French, hand-written…

I realize your comments sound like tough love, and I’m sure they’re meant constructively, but they are simply not true. In Florida (at least) eviction notice requirements aren’t dependent on the existence of a written lease. And a contract does not always have to be in writing to be valid. The fact that the owner was collecting rent, and sending correspondence verifying amounts paid, makes Ms. Pumpkin the complete opposite of a squatter - it makes her a tenant.

I, in fact, have had a similar arrangement. Just this weekend I moving out of an apartment owned by my boss; we never signed a lease, although I lived there for about a year and a half. Now, clearly, this was a friendly relationship. But, we both understood that there were legal maxims that governed our landlord/tenant relationship, should it ever come to that. For example (as I’ve said), he couldn’t decide to cancel my lease without notice. Nor could he evict me without prior notice.

To say that Ms. Pumpkin has no rights, or that she’s surreptitiously living on someone else’s land, is just not an accurate portrayal of her situation.

[/QUOTE]
we never signed a lease,
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
or example (as I’ve said), he couldn’t decide to cancel my lease without notice. Nor could he evict me without prior notice.
[/QUOTE]

Did you have a lease, or didn’t you? Once you have that figured out, then maybe you can offer valid advice.

we never signed a lease,
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
or example (as I’ve said), he couldn’t decide to cancel my lease without notice. Nor could he evict me without prior notice.
[/QUOTE]

Did you have a lease, or didn’t you? Once you have that figured out, then maybe you can offer valid advice.
[/QUOTE]

OOOH, bad coding, I’ll figure it out.

[/QUOTE]
or example (as I’ve said), he couldn’t decide to cancel my lease without notice. Nor could he evict me without prior notice.
[/QUOTE]

Did you have a lease, or didn’t you? Once you have that figured out, then maybe you can offer valid advice.
[/QUOTE]

OOOH, bad coding, I’ll figure it out.
[/QUOTE]

Re: coding. the “/” only goes in the closing tag :wink:

Zambini57, the word “lease” refers both the right and the document. Hence, once can not have signed a lease, but still have a lease. Make sense?

No.

Not in this country.

Not in this day and age.

So what happens if someone has a house on leased land, and then is evicted? While you might be able to move the house eventually, you might not be able to to do so in thirty days. Or what if it’s impossible to move the building?

That’s another thing. What if I can’t move my house? THEY certainly wouldn’t be able to touch it, since it’s not theirs and they would be damaging MY property, right?

:dubious:

If you are such an expert on contract law, why did you post asking for informal advice. Just drop by the courthouse tomorrow in you best suit, give your finest speech and be done with the whole matter.

Of course there are leases and contracts that aren’t written down. Ever hear of the popular practice of subletting and the endless plight of people that have to sort out these messes on both sides.

Where is all of this crap coming from tonight? Do people honestly believe that if their belongings are on another persons property, the owner has to just stay the hell away. If someone abandons their car on your property, does the property owner just have to wait patiently until the car owner finds a way to get it? No. You can tow houses away too you know although I don’t know of any house impound lots around here because this situation just isn’t as common as some seem to think.

This is GQ, not IMHO, and what you’re saying is simply false.

To give but one cite:

I theeenk you have confused Zambini57 with me, the OP. Or else I’m just hella confused, myself…

Sorry you think I’m spewing crap, but I see a big difference between towing someone’s vehicle, and demolishing someone’s home.

Yeah, right.

To establish an “oral lease”, one just about has to be a lawyer.

Not “Bumpkin Bob”.

I’m sure that if you have the legal education, you can do just about whatever you want in this country.

Unfortunately, 99% of the population don’t, and get “taken” accordingly.

So, please, Stop with the “Slue vs. NY Medical Center” which no one but 1 in 1,000 lawyers has ever heard about.

Oops sorry, reverse those replies. However, I am still confused why people think that

  1. You can’t a contract unless it is clearly written dowe. Not true at all.

  2. Property owners just have to leave your home there until you decide what you want to do. Think or towing a car from some property that it isn’t allowed any more. Who eventually pays for the tow and who deals with it if there is a scratch in the process.

I am not a lawyer and don’t live in your state. I am just trying to illustrate some basic ideas to refute what other people are throwing out. Houses may have special rights of their own in your state for all I know but I doubt anyone here can or will advise you on some tricky legal maneuver.

You need to sit back and carefully think about how your thought process got that way. He gave one cite but there are countless others and it was pretty clear that the ruling applied to just about everyone. The only time you need the lawyers is when the whole thing goes to hell and there is a real dispute like there is here. The judge is there to figure out how your informal lease applies to the dispute at hand.

Once again: I am NOT looking for “tricky legal maneuvers”. I fully intend to pay these people what I owe them. I was simply wondering about the legality of the entire situation, and simply WONDERING what could happen if I continue ignoring my bills.

Not trying to sound harsh, just making absolutely sure everyone understands the nature of my questions.

I’m sorry, again, what you’re saying is simply false both in theory and in practice.

Indeed, if only lawyers got such legal superpowers! Unfortunately, no, the law is the law, and it applies to all. Granted, one might have to hire a lawyer (or at least speak with one) to defend those rights.* But those rights are indeed extended to all.

  • Which is why the OP has been rightly advised to retain one. Especially because, while** Zambini57** is wrong about the non-existence of oral leases, they are generally quite limited and may not apply to the OP’s case. Which is not to say that there aren’t other non-lease rights which the OP has.