I really have one question about this clam shack controvery, and it relates to the issue of ownership.
Has Mark Roland been paying taxes on this land since he bought the house in 1994?
If he has been paying taxes on the land I'd say he owns it. If not, I'd guess he doesn't.
I'm not suggesting he still shouldn't live there if he doesn't. But he'll have to pay something in lieu of texes.
The city's Vision database suggests assessments for both property and building, if I'm reading them correctly.
Any answers out there?
8 comments:
The city's GIS system shows him owning a different parcel than his building is on - probably just a mistake. But it's my understanding that he is claiming ownership to other neighboring parcels - not just the one the building is on. These parcels list the city as the owner.
Tom,
Like you, I can't find a statement anywhere about whether he's been paying taxes. I was sure I read somewhere that he has been, but it may have been in the Comments section of a DN story.
Don't you have to show proof of clear title somewhere if you buy a property?
"it's my understanding that he is claiming ownership to other neighboring parcels - not just the one the building is on."
Has this been written some where or is this just what you have heard?
Does anyone know what he contends his right is to these other parcels (not the one with the clam shack on it)?
Does anyone know what the City's position is on these ownership claims?
If our Mayor and City are not going to challenge claims to City property, then I want to put my claims in early, before all the good parcels are gone. ;)
Right, the Vision database is via the assessor's office. You are asking about non-online data from the treasurer's office.
As to ownership of other parcels, the word of record is the quitclaim deed.
No.
If a mortgage is involved, the title insurance company usually requires a sufficiently clear chain of title to issue a policy. (Trivia: Title insurance is the only type of insurance that protects you from incidents in the past.)
But many transfers of real property (especially in older states) are on a quitclaim basis, meaning that the seller conveys whatever rights he may have, no guarantee as to exactly what they are.
Here in California -- where everything is better -- you can usually trace a title back to a royal Spanish land grant in a few steps.
Signed,
Paul
Resident of the former El Valle de Santa Catalina de Bononia de los Encinos
Ari,
The question is whether Thurlow ever owned all of the parcels in question. The deed you link to simply shows Roland's wife transferring her ownership to him. Even the quitclaim showing transfer from Thurlow to Roland is inconclusive as the what is owned.
Clearly the city thinks differently as the city is listed as owner on the assessor's card for the adjoining parcels, so it's unlikely he's been taxed on them.
Eek. Then I think I might have a problem.
I, as a citizen of the fair and fine city of Newburyport, ask our elected representatives to figure what the heck is going on.
If he's not paying taxes on the land how can he live on it?
Or if he can live on it what can we get in lieu of taxes?
Can I park a double wide on Brown Square and live there?
I'm a Lifelong Joppyite.. and quite proud to say.. I Shocked (shucked). clams there as a kid.. sitting beside my mother who could shock a gallon an hour.. I personally feel that buidling be on the Federal Register as a National Preserved Area.. As it appears so prominently in Newburyports History.
Post a Comment