An in-depth look at one factor in the black wealth gap

[TitanTiger 20,472]

It's long, but a sobering and, at times, infuriating read:

https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

They generally aren’t eligible for disaster relief. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina laid bare the extent of the problem in New Orleans, where 25,000 families who applied for rebuilding grants had heirs’ property. One Louisiana real-estate attorney estimated that up to $165 million of recovery funds were never claimed because of title issues.

 

I find this particularly interesting. Louisiana's law of intestacy (when decedent dies without a will) is much more favorable than the property laws of a State with a common-law regime. The reason being, Louisiana has numerous modes, distinctly civilian concepts, of acquiring ownership. One of which is acquisitive prescription. When the author speaks of "title issues," he is presumably indicating that these persons could not prove ownership. However, acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership without any regard to just title or good faith. In other words, when a person acquires immovable property via acquisitive prescription, they do not need title to prove ownership of the land. All they need to prove is uninterrupted possession for thirty years. Even if good title was vested in another person, possession of land for a requisite time would divest ownership in the possessor. Moreover, persons in Louisiana can "tack" the time of possession of their ancestors to their own possession in order to meet the thirty year requirement. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

They generally aren’t eligible for disaster relief. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina laid bare the extent of the problem in New Orleans, where 25,000 families who applied for rebuilding grants had heirs’ property. One Louisiana real-estate attorney estimated that up to $165 million of recovery funds were never claimed because of title issues.

 

I find this particularly interesting. Louisiana's law of intestacy (when decedent dies without a will) is much more favorable than the property laws of a State with a common-law regime. The reason being, Louisiana has numerous modes, distinctly civilian concepts, of acquiring ownership. One of which is acquisitive prescription. When the author speaks of "title issues," he is presumably indicating that these persons could not prove ownership. However, acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership without any regard to just title or good faith. In other words, when a person acquires immovable property via acquisitive prescription, they do not need title to prove ownership of the land. All they need to prove is uninterrupted possession for thirty years. Even if good title was vested in another person, possession of land for a requisite time would divest ownership in the possessor. Moreover, persons in Louisiana can "tack" the time of possession of their ancestors to their own possession in order to meet the thirty year requirement. 

 

 

 

That's interesting.

Different subject, but I am involved in an ongoing family conflict involving my mother, her sister and her sister-in-law who were left a house by their parents (my grandparents).  You never never should leave real estate to multiple people.

The house is unoccupied and needs to be sold but both my mother - and especially her sister (my aunt) just simply don't want to deal with it.  (Something about that generation. )  This article reminded me of them.

And if one of them dies, there are going to be a lot more owners as their 1/3 share in the house will fall to their children.  My mother and her sister have an aversion to consulting a lawyer and are happy doing things by word of mouth or a hand-written will. I am not sure there's even a transferable deed.

It's turned into a nightmare for the family - or at least the children.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's interesting.

Different subject, but I am involved in an ongoing family conflict involving my mother, her sister and her sister-in-law who were left a house by their parents (my grandparents).  You never never should leave real estate to multiple people.

The house is unoccupied and needs to be sold but both my mother - and especially her sister (my aunt) just simply don't want to deal with it.  (Something about that generation. )  This article reminded me of them.

And if one of them dies, there are going to be a lot more owners as their 1/3 share in the house will fall to their children.  My mother and her sister have an aversion to consulting a lawyer and are happy doing things by word of mouth or a hand-written will. I am not sure there's even a transferable deed.

It's turned into a nightmare for the family - or at least the children.

 

 

Sounds rough. What complicates things further is how much the laws vary from state to state, even if the same general type of regime is followed. Throw in a couple of relatives from different generations (some of which might live in different states), and the complexity is multiplied. 

Yep, once fractional shares divest to multiple parties, before you know there are a hundred people that own an interest in a single peace of property. And any partition will need to involve every single one of them (usually). 

Side note: Generally, a decedent can prohibit partition of the property in their will, but only for a short amount of time. The idea is that Courts do not want "dead hands" (that's the language used) to control flows of commerce and alienation of property after death.  

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You never never should leave real estate to multiple people.

Wise comment Brother Homer.

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

(Something about that generation. ) 

Yep. Dealing with the same on two properties.

[AU64 10,122]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You never never should leave real estate to multiple people.

Example...there is a prime piece of real estate in Pawleys Island along side the salt marsh......maybe  a dozen acres along Highway 17 which is reportedly owned by 22 people....some of whom are apparently unreachable.   All the owners are technically pretty well off I guess but  lawyers have been making money off it for years but seems no way for anyone to get a clear title and sell it.   Black families, many of whom have left the area.  

[DKW 86 7,419]

a siblings share by Alabama law for non-willed estates. We ended up with roughly 6% of the estate. After fighting with my pecker head uncle, there was nothing left of the estate. He got 50% and then a 12% share too. My Aunt would have shot him, but she failed to get the will finalized. Please handle your stuff. I hated what happened to my Aunts estate. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, AU64 said:

Example...there is a prime piece of real estate in Pawleys Island along side the salt marsh......maybe  a dozen acres along Highway 17 which is reportedly owned by 22 people....some of whom are apparently unreachable.   All the owners are technically pretty well off I guess but  lawyers have been making money off it for years but seems no way for anyone to get a clear title and sell it.   Black families, many of whom have left the area.  

Very common story in my area, as I'm sure you're well aware. The Gullah people are essentially what the OP is about. McWifey and I talked about this article at dinner last night. The big success story in our area that we know of is the guy who somehow knew to organize his entire family, and they turned their land into a trust and all the family members are part of an LLC or something like that. They still let the logging companies onto their land after having them sign a 90 year lease. I don't know all the ins and outs of it but it's very interesting. But a common and sad story in the Lowcountry. 

I mean, we live on an island that had no bridge until the middle of the 20th century. Daufuskie, mentioned in the article and the closest island to us, still doesn't have one. These islands were populated by freed black folks who were super duper not wanted around on the mainland and who only had contact with the mainland when they boated over to Savannah to barter goods. People who never had any kind of education or any contact at all with government services. Many who had never known the concept of legal rights, at least in the US. No way they could have known how to protect themselves and their property. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

They generally aren’t eligible for disaster relief. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina laid bare the extent of the problem in New Orleans, where 25,000 families who applied for rebuilding grants had heirs’ property. One Louisiana real-estate attorney estimated that up to $165 million of recovery funds were never claimed because of title issues.

 

I find this particularly interesting. Louisiana's law of intestacy (when decedent dies without a will) is much more favorable than the property laws of a State with a common-law regime. The reason being, Louisiana has numerous modes, distinctly civilian concepts, of acquiring ownership. One of which is acquisitive prescription. When the author speaks of "title issues," he is presumably indicating that these persons could not prove ownership. However, acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership without any regard to just title or good faith. In other words, when a person acquires immovable property via acquisitive prescription, they do not need title to prove ownership of the land. All they need to prove is uninterrupted possession for thirty years. Even if good title was vested in another person, possession of land for a requisite time would divest ownership in the possessor. Moreover, persons in Louisiana can "tack" the time of possession of their ancestors to their own possession in order to meet the thirty year requirement. 

 

 

 

How is acquisitive prescription different from adverse possession?  They sound very similar to me.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, triangletiger said:

How is acquisitive prescription different from adverse possession?  They sound very similar to me.

They are similar and different, simultaneously. Adverse possession can interrupt the prescriptive period for acquisitive prescription. Acquisitive prescription does not have to be adverse. Adverse possession can be used to attack standing in a possessory action.

Adverse possession does not apply to a precarious possessor unless the precarious possessor becomes an adverse possessor via requisite notice to the one for whom he formerly possessed (i.e., if you were using a portion of my property, on my behalf, with my consent, you would be a precarious possessor. Your possession could not be "adverse" because adverse possession requires corpus [physical possession] and animus [intent to possess]. Precarious possessors cannot have animus. You'd need to tell me that you are no longer possessing on my behalf and instead are possessing with the intent to own for yourself.)

Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably I would guess. It's hard to generally compare the two without a defined set of circumstances.