your home is not your castle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I may be wrong, as the USA law is different to the UK's (and it was only mentioned briefly in my training all those years ago), however I believe in the USA compensation for Compulsary Purchase is an appraisal of the open market value of the residential property.

If it was a private company, then it wouldnt have been compulsary purchase, and they would offer more than the market value to get the land.

In the UK you'd get the Market Value; plus compensation based upon the time the property has been in your, or your families possession for the Compulsary Purchase, and the same thing would happen as in the USA for private companies.

Not knowing all the facts, i couldnt second guess the Judges.. but on the face of it, this is just a private company getting the land cheap by making a loophole in the legislation.

Someone is probably either on the take or has an interest in the development at the Local Government level for them to get involved in something like this... :ph34r:

---

.....which is why I would call every news agency and shoot anyone who comes to take my property.

This lady in Las Vegas (or was it Atlantic City?) got fucked over big time.

Trump offered her a ton of money for her house 'cause he wanted to build a casino on her land. She refused. He then got his political cronies involved and made her move while compensating her much less.

Trump, Da bITCH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Not knowing all the facts, i couldnt second guess the Judges.. but on the face of it, this is just a private company getting the land cheap by making a loophole in the legislation.

Someone is probably either on the take or has an interest in the development at the Local Government level for them to get involved in something like this... :ph34r:

---

It does "appear" that way.

the judgement was supposedly made if the new development would create jobs and tax revenue, however it will only ever happen in poor neighbourhoods. And it doesn't mean that the created jobs would go to the people of those poor neighbourhoods.
I am totally against it because it does favour private industry over "the little guy". Private industry is out for one reason..profit.. so if they wish to purchase private land then the owners should name the price and not government. Ask too much and the purchaser has the right to go elsewhere.

It is also IMO too open to abuse. A private developer can buy land in poor neighbourhoods by this scheme cheaper than vacant land in more affluent parts of town.

It raises some interesting points.

What for example would happen if a deal were half way thro' but the person died.

Would the person who received the house in a will be forced to go thro' with the compulsory purchase or could they back out.

Even better, what if the person died intestate and there was no obvious owner. These things can go on for years. Would the purchase go thro' or would they have to wait until there was an owner found / decided.

In England (not sure about Scotland, the Law is different)

a/ Compulsary is Compulsary.. they couldnt back out, the amount of compensation would be affected though.

b/ If they died intestate, the money would go to their Estate and the Compulsary Purchase would go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

b/ If they died intestate, the money would go to their Estate and the Compulsary Purchase would go ahead.

---

So the same would apply if they died testate.

So let me get this right.

If the owner died testate then the beneficiary would get the house, but they would be compelled to go thro' with the deal.

If the owner died intestate then the deal would go thro' and the eventual beneficiary would get the proceeds of the sale, rather than the house itself.

That sounds sensible.

The pecuniary gain would be unaffected, so no problem. Other than the fact that the beneficiary, for the intestate example would not have been able to fight the sale.

if the owner died intestate and there was no obvious beneficiary what happens?

if they died testate and the beficiary was out of the country or something, does anyone have a right to destroy the property if they can't be found?

Obviously it would be more complicated if the person died intestate and it was the connubial home. It would seem apparent, from the start that the surviving spouse was the beneficial owner and could contest any forced sale.

However they may not prove to be the ultimate owner of the property. So could they fight the order, on a reasonable assumption that it would eventually be theirs or would that be a matter for the trustees of the estate.

my dad left 4 years ago but my parents never got divorced. pretending we're in america: if my mum dies intestate and the house is still connubial, what happens to it as my dad may be untraceable

i wonder if there's ways round having your house destroyed like this. one time my brother had debt collectors after him so we made a contract where he sold all his valuable possessions to me for 50 pence. so that if a bailiff came to the door we could discombobulate them into not taking any of his stuff. maybe you could sell a house to someone who can't be contacted then "rent" it