PDA

View Full Version : All property belongs to the state


Suddenly
18th September 2003, 10:30 AM
I was reading a thread, which one I don't remember, but sombody posted that liberals think that all property belongs to the state. For some reason I had a Property Law I flashback.

Maybe it is true, at least for real property.

Back in in "Olde England," from where much of our law comes from, all property was owned by the state. It allowed some people to have leaseholds, or estates in the land in exchange for money, military support etc. As time went on these estates granted more and more rights to the leaseholder, and it evolved slowly into the system of law we have today.

Our property laws have changed little in the past 500 years. In theory, when you own a piece of property, you own an interest that is called an "estate." There are several kinds of estates, each with different degrees of ownership, which are indicated by the exact language on a deed. For example:

"To Nie for 30 years": This establishes a term of years. Nie would own the property for that time.

"To Nie for life": Establishes a life estate. Nie owns the land for life.

"To Nie and his heirs": This is the biggie. This is a "fee simple" estate. This means not only does Nie own the land for his life, the land will after he dies go to his heirs. If he has a will, it goes to whom he chooses. If he doesn't, there the law of intestate succession picks his heirs for him. This is what most people are buying when they buy a house.

Importantly, when an estate ends, the right of possession reverts to the greater or bigger estate. If Franko owns a fee simple estate and sells a life estate to Nie, when Nie dies, Franko's greater estate retakes possession. Franko through this whole episode would have a "ownership interest" in that he had the right to take the land back when Nie dies. What Franko does not maintain is the right to possess that land while Nie lives, because Nie "owned" the right to possess it until his demise.

This is a brief and simple illustration. Property law can be complicated to the point where it can make people cry. In fact, if you want to see a lawyer cry, just ask him or her to explain "The Rule Against Perpetuities" to you.

OK, so whats the point of this beyond an excuse to write "when Nie dies" over and over? Here we go:

What happens when the "fee simple" estate fails? Lets say Nie has a fee simple estate. Nie then dies. He leaves no will. He was never married. He had no offspring. It appears he has no relatives. What happens to the property?

It is forfeited to the state

Therefore, the state maintains an ownership interest in all property. It has no possessory interest, so it can't tell you what to do with the land, but there is a possible future right to do so should you (the owner) or your heirs die with out an identifiable "heir."

Just a thought.

AmateurScientist
18th September 2003, 11:18 AM
When this happens, the applicable word is "escheat." As in, the old man had no heirs, so his house eventually escheated to the state.

Now that you've heard that presumably new word, in all likelihood you will never see it again, as I don't think it has any other application. I dare anybody to use it in conversation at the next party you attend.

Come on, I dare ya.

AS

Stimpson J. Cat
18th September 2003, 11:32 AM
AS,

When this happens, the applicable word is "escheat." As in, the old man had no heirs, so his house eventually escheated to the state.

Now that you've heard that presumably new word, in all likelihood you will never see it again, as I don't think it has any other application. I dare anybody to use it in conversation at the next party you attend.

Come on, I dare ya.

I suspect that if I did, the response would be "gesundheit".:D

Dr. Stupid

NoZed Avenger
18th September 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
When this happens, the applicable word is "escheat." As in, the old man had no heirs, so his house eventually escheated to the state.

Now that you've heard that presumably new word, in all likelihood you will never see it again, as I don't think it has any other application. I dare anybody to use it in conversation at the next party you attend.

Come on, I dare ya.

AS

"Escheat! I spilled coffee all over my Con Law notes."

N/A

JAR
18th September 2003, 11:35 AM
Communists want all property to be owned by the state.

Michael Redman
18th September 2003, 12:19 PM
I didn't do well in property. I should have taken more of an interest in escheating, I suppose.

Solitaire
18th September 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Come on, I dare ya.
AS

Hm.
By the way could you explain the rule against perpetuities? :)

Michael Redman
19th September 2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Synchronicity

Hm.
By the way could you explain the rule against perpetuities? :) Yes.

AmateurScientist
19th September 2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Michael Redman
I didn't do well in property. I should have taken more of an interest in escheating, I suppose.

I didn't either. You couldn't escheat if your life depended on it.

AS

Suddenly
19th September 2003, 06:42 AM
I got an A+ in Property. That's why I'm a Criminal Lawyer.

esI esdidn't escheat eseither. ;)

I may buy a house, call it "Blackacre," and leave it in my will: To Allen for life and then to Bessie for life and then to Bessie's son Carl and his heirs but if the Cincinnati Bengals win the Super Bowl, to Dawn and her heirs.



:eek:

AmateurScientist
19th September 2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Synchronicity

Hm.
By the way could you explain the rule against perpetuities? :)

Only if you can tell me the quandratic equation in the next five seconds without looking it up.

AS

UnrepentantSinner
19th September 2003, 07:31 AM
That's what I love about Texas. As long as I have a handwritten scrap of paper that says, "all of my stuff goes to so-and-so" and it's determined to be legitimate all of my stuff goes to so-and-so. I could scrawl it 5 minutes or 50 years before my death and it's still valid.

Wills are wonderful, but the ability to write yours as your last few heartbeats occur are even better.

diddidit
19th September 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Suddenly
What happens when the "fee simple" estate fails? Lets say Nie has a fee simple estate. Nie then dies. He leaves no will. He was never married. He had no offspring. It appears he has no relatives. What happens to the property?


What if the property is put into a trust?

did

Suddenly
19th September 2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by diddidit


What if the property is put into a trust?

did

In therory what a trust does is seperate ownership into "legal" and "equitable." The "trustee" holds legal title to a piece of propery for another's use. That other person can use and "enjoy" the benefit of the property, but does not hold legal title and thus can't sell the land. Past that it gets frightfully complicated.

In my example, having the government hold it in trust for someone won't work as there is no one for whose use the property is held.

shuize
19th September 2003, 05:26 PM
Ok, the rule against perpetuities ... there's this life in being, you see ... ... nevermind ...

Suddenly
19th September 2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by shuize
Ok, the rule against perpetuities ... there's this life in being, you see ... ... nevermind ...

Not to mention fertile octogenarians...

(edited to add ... or unborn widows...)

shuize
20th September 2003, 01:43 AM
Oh Man, it's all coming back to me like a bad dream. Although in a law school inspired fit of masochism, I'm sure, I sort of remember enjoying future interests ...

davefoc
21st September 2003, 12:35 AM
All property in some ways is owned by the state and the degreee to which the state owns private property is gradually increasing over time.

States have broad powers to control what can be built on a property. The restrictions on what can be built on a particular piece of property often have more to do with the value of that property than anything else.

States have broad powers to control what one can do with a piece of property. For instance the state can restrict some areas to residential only and prevent and commericial enterprises on one's land.

States have broad powers to tax based on the value of the property.

States have broad powers to regulate the environmental effects of what one does on his property.

States can even introduce restrictions on what one can charge for the use of his property in the form of rent control regulations.

So private property ownership is a bit of a myth. All private real estate property is significantly controlled by the state and the "owner's" ability to use his property is significantly limited by superseding state rights that give the state an effective ownership interest in the property.

One can make a range of arguments about whether the increasing state control of private real estate property is a good or a bad thing, but the states increased role with respect to private real estate property is undeniable.