If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Raleigh N&O)   Woman knowingly buys eight acres at bottom of lake, then sues city to drain lake   (newsobserver.com) divider line 218
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

25100 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Dec 2007 at 8:48 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-06 08:23:52 AM  
It kinda does have a certain fark-like logic to it.
 
2007-12-06 08:30:02 AM  
Collection
Area for
Relocated
Yankees
 
2007-12-06 08:30:09 AM  
Too bad this did not happen in Georgia. She would just have to wait a few months to get access to her land.
 
2007-12-06 08:31:21 AM  
I have no response to that.
 
2007-12-06 08:32:03 AM  
What an idiot, she is going to get a well deserved smackdown.

But, can she keep people off her land?

Meaning no boating or swimming on or over her land.
 
2007-12-06 08:32:52 AM  
She probably has standing to force a sale. Still, a fair price is probably not something one wants a court to adjudicate.
 
2007-12-06 08:33:54 AM  
3) Profit!
 
2007-12-06 08:38:40 AM  
The city has an easement, and it transferred. All she's doing is wasting my tax dollars with a real estate investment scam. Gaming the system, pure and simple.

This city is full of jackasses like that.
 
2007-12-06 08:53:18 AM  
So she knew it was flooded when she bought it...

Here's an idea: plant rice. Weasel.

/oh, and Choke On A Merkin.
 
2007-12-06 08:54:51 AM  
mrmagnet: She probably has standing to force a sale.

just out of interest: why, if she bought it in the knowledge that it was under water?

Shouldn't caveat emptor come into play at some point?

/knows nothing about US property laws
 
2007-12-06 08:56:10 AM  
Am I the only person who read this and started thinking about how awesome it would be to build a house in the middle of a lake? You could have a giant viewport in your basement. Clean up the lake and add some marine life to it and you'd have the coolest aquarium EVER.
 
2007-12-06 08:56:23 AM  
I hope she swallows a porcupine and dies shiatting it out
 
2007-12-06 08:57:43 AM  
Wow!
You really can file suit for the most idiotic things!!
 
2007-12-06 08:58:53 AM  
She is probably demanding fair value based on the property surrounding her property, which have a substantially increased value due to the lake.

I must say that this is a bold batch of Catch-22's.
 
2007-12-06 08:59:16 AM  
The funny thing is, she'll probably either win, or get the State to buy it from her for $$$$
 
2007-12-06 08:59:20 AM  
If I was the city I would try to get the federal government to declare it as a protected wetlands area.
 
2007-12-06 09:00:09 AM  
Get a snorkel you dumb biatch.
 
2007-12-06 09:01:42 AM  
Glasgowsfinest: mrmagnet: She probably has standing to force a sale.

just out of interest: why, if she bought it in the knowledge that it was under water?

Shouldn't caveat emptor come into play at some point?

/knows nothing about US property laws


Knowing it was underwater and currently in use as SEMI parkland, did the municipality SELL IT?!?!?!?!?!

Who's the real idiots here?

The City of Cary for selling property they were actually using? Or
the lady who called em on their idiocy?

/Up until a 1/2 hour or so ago, I was proud to be a merkin
 
2007-12-06 09:02:33 AM  
I wouldn't qualify this as a lake. It's more of a stinky pond.

I doubt it's more than 10 feet deep in the center and there is lots of trash around.

The boardwalk is there because the land is so flat there is an entire section of the "lake" that gets about a foot of water around it.

Lot's of turtles though
 
2007-12-06 09:03:14 AM  
X-boxershorts: Who's the real idiots here?

Over here, I think it would be the buyer (although I'm not sure).

Caveat Emptor again.
 
2007-12-06 09:04:44 AM  
heavymetal: If I was the city I would try to get the federal government to declare it as a protected wetlands area.

Not when they're manmade wetlands.

The way I see it, the city should have foreseen this coming when they put the property up for auction. It's an interesting case, with few if any precedents. This will probably be part of property classes in law schools for years to come.
 
2007-12-06 09:05:20 AM  
X-boxershorts:
Knowing it was underwater and currently in use as SEMI parkland, did the municipality SELL IT?!?!?!?!?!

Who's the real idiots here?

The City of Cary for selling property they were actually using? Or
the lady who called em on their idiocy?

/Up until a 1/2 hour or so ago, I was proud to be a merkin


1. It's the city of Raleigh, not Cary. This lady has a company based in Cary.
2. FTA More as a housekeeping effort than anything else, the county decided to get rid of the property and put it up for auction in September 2006 as required by law to try to recoup unpaid taxes. Expecting no bids, government officials thought the land would be transferred to the city, which would pay off the back taxes.
 
2007-12-06 09:05:23 AM  
The property is hers, she owns it now, and is completely within her rights to have the city drain away the water that they put there. It is not of much use as is, and the city being difficult just for the sake of causing problems for her achieves nothing. She will win, as she should.
 
2007-12-06 09:05:46 AM  
Glasgowsfinest: X-boxershorts: Who's the real idiots here?

Over here, I think it would be the buyer (although I'm not sure).

Caveat Emptor again.


Footbridge and bike paths. The area was in use. The city farked up.
And they should pay.
 
2007-12-06 09:06:04 AM  
Glasgowsfinest

Her standing is a question of whether or not she can demonstrate it is in the City's best interest to keep land she owns dry.
 
2007-12-06 09:06:41 AM  
Whoopty Whoo The Precious Bongo Boy: The property is hers, she owns it now, and is completely within her rights to have the city drain away the water that they put there. It is not of much use as is, and the city being difficult just for the sake of causing problems for her achieves nothing. She will win, as she should.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
 
2007-12-06 09:06:57 AM  
X-boxershorts: Footbridge and bike paths. The area was in use. The city farked up.
And they should pay.


Ah, well that makes sense at least. So the city was trying to pull a fast one and got lumbered?
 
2007-12-06 09:08:06 AM  
Sounds like she needs her wetlands irrigated, if you know what I mean?
 
2007-12-06 09:09:06 AM  
www.tradmusic.com

At least it wasn't a bottomless lake.
 
2007-12-06 09:09:23 AM  
Whoopty Whoo The Precious Bongo Boy: The property is hers, she owns it now, and is completely within her rights to have the city drain away the water that they put there. It is not of much use as is, and the city being difficult just for the sake of causing problems for her achieves nothing. She will win, as she should.

No mention of race? I am just going to assume someone else is using WWTPBB's account.
 
2007-12-06 09:09:28 AM  
Kind of the cities' fault for putting it up for auction in the first place:

More as a housekeeping effort than anything else, the county decided to get rid of the property and put it up for auction in September 2006 as required by law to try to recoup unpaid taxes. Expecting no bids, government officials thought the land would be transferred to the city, which would pay off the back taxes.

Since the agreement with the city was for it to be flooded, and that carrying over with her title, it looks like they won't have to though. She can make a lot of trouble for the city though, so I suspect they will be buying it off her for a lot more then she paid for it,
 
2007-12-06 09:10:12 AM  
Glasgowsfinest: X-boxershorts: Footbridge and bike paths. The area was in use. The city farked up.
And they should pay.

Ah, well that makes sense at least. So the city was trying to pull a fast one and got lumbered?


Exactly, they thought they could sneak it through auction in an effort to to "recoup" back taxes, assuming nobody would bid on it. Lo and behold, someone bought it and now owns the property. The city farked up. "Dumbass" tag is appropriate, but not for the woman.
 
2007-12-06 09:10:16 AM  
X-boxershorts: Glasgowsfinest: X-boxershorts: Who's the real idiots here?

Over here, I think it would be the buyer (although I'm not sure).

Caveat Emptor again.

Footbridge and bike paths. The area was in use. The city farked up.
And they should pay.


FTA: Easements that allowed the county to flood the land carry over to the next owner, who can't demand that the lake be drained, she said. Francis Raspberry, the deputy city attorney handling the case, says the city's easement allowing recreation on the property also transfers to the new owner.


So no, they will not drain the lake.
 
2007-12-06 09:10:34 AM  
You're the jerk... jerk: No mention of race? I am just going to assume someone else is using WWTPBB's account.

I suppose race may play a part in the city's decision to stonewall, but I am not aware of the race of the players in this particular situation and would not want to speculate.
 
2007-12-06 09:10:48 AM  
EvilEgg: What an idiot, she is going to get a well deserved smackdown.

But, can she keep people off her land?

Meaning no boating or swimming on or over her land.


No, she can't. In the article it mentions a perpetual easement that transfers with the deed that allows the city to keep the parcel flooded and recreational use to take place.

Still, the city was cheap as shiat and shortsighted in not purchasing said parcel in the first place.
 
2007-12-06 09:11:21 AM  
Glasgowsfinest
/knows nothing about US property laws

You don't need to. All you need to know is that the legal "profession" has so farked up our court system as to promote lawsuits about anything and everything on the theory they'll always have a chance of getting a jury dumb enough to vote in their favor -- no matter how ridiculous the complaint.

This woman -- and the shyster representing her -- likely don't expect it to go to trial, however. They're hoping to game the legal system into getting her a settlement that pays her a premium over her investment.
 
2007-12-06 09:11:56 AM  
Whoopty Whoo The Precious Bongo Boy: I suppose race may play a part in the city's decision to stonewall

NOoooo.... Not here in the "New" South!

/sarcasm off
 
2007-12-06 09:12:46 AM  
Footbridge and bike paths. The area was in use. The city farked up.
And they should pay.


The city had easements that allowed this. All legal. She shouldn't win. She's an idiot.

Khitbash.

/realtor
 
2007-12-06 09:13:24 AM  
I love when reporters write a good, objective story then put a little zing! at the end. In this case, the last three sentences subtly say, "she's a dumbass."

FTFA:
She's learning as she goes.

"I don't think there's ever been a case like this before," Wallace said.

All involved agree.
 
2007-12-06 09:13:36 AM  
I just bought land on mars and am suing NASA to make it hospitable.
 
2007-12-06 09:13:36 AM  
Suggestion: have Kristin Wallace reside at bottom of lake until case is resolved.
 
2007-12-06 09:14:27 AM  
EvilEgg: What an idiot, she is going to get a well deserved smackdown.

But, can she keep people off her land?

Meaning no boating or swimming on or over her land.


This really isn't a lake. It's more of a pond. I've been there. Nobody swims, nobody boats. People walk/jog around the lake and some people fish. Although I would never eat anything out of that water.

The footbridge is there because one whole side of the "lake" is a marsh and floods constantly.

Oh and the water stinks...really it does.
 
2007-12-06 09:15:14 AM  
X-boxershorts: Glasgowsfinest: mrmagnet: She probably has standing to force a sale.

just out of interest: why, if she bought it in the knowledge that it was under water?

Shouldn't caveat emptor come into play at some point?

/knows nothing about US property laws

Knowing it was underwater and currently in use as SEMI parkland, did the municipality SELL IT?!?!?!?!?!

Who's the real idiots here?

The City of Cary for selling property they were actually using? Or
the lady who called em on their idiocy?

/Up until a 1/2 hour or so ago, I was proud to be a merkin


The city was required by law to auction the land in an attempt to recoup back taxes. They never expected anyone to bid on it (didn't think anyone was dumb enough.
As to the land being in use: it isn't. The land around it is in use. Her land is all under water, thus my earlier comment of "get a snorkel..."
 
2007-12-06 09:15:46 AM  
Omnivorous: Suggestion: have Kristin Wallace reside at bottom of lake until case is resolved.

She could probably stand up in the middle.

I doubt it's more than 10 feet at the deepest part. Probably more like 5.
 
2007-12-06 09:15:55 AM  
hmmm. If only there was some law on the book like eminent domain that would allow the government to take land from private citizens for the greater good of society as a whole.


Hmmm.
 
2007-12-06 09:16:20 AM  
Whoopty Whoo The Precious Bongo Boy: The property is hers, she owns it now, and is completely within her rights to have the city drain away the water that they put there. It is not of much use as is, and the city being difficult just for the sake of causing problems for her achieves nothing. She will win, as she should.

I know you're just trolling... but could you at least RTFA?
FTFA: In Wallace's case, a purchase "as is" means flooded, Eason said. Easements that allowed the county to flood the land carry over to the next owner, who can't demand that the lake be drained, she said.Francis Raspberry, the deputy city attorney handling the case, says the city's easement allowing recreation on the property also transfers to the new owner.

Easement laws say she can't do shiat. She's a moran and the suit should be tossed, plain and simple.
 
2007-12-06 09:16:37 AM  
Well it seems she bought an as is deed. I could be wrong but it seems the user of the land as a recreation area and as a lake where part of the deed. So she should maybe think before she does these things.
 
2007-12-06 09:16:53 AM  
Why would the city officials even have an auction for that? They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by just giving the bill to the city. The officials should have considered all repercussions of selling an underwater property.

It's not "fair" to have the city drain the water so she can make a killing on building on the 8 acres (if that's even what she planned on doing). The city could have drained it and utilized that land without auctioning.

On second thought, they're all idiots.

She thought she'd stick it to 'em by buying cheap underwater land. The city officials thought they could make a buck from a stupid sucker.
 
2007-12-06 09:17:05 AM  
I think selling things that you have no intention of letting the buyer use is a bad idea. Thats just me tho.
 
2007-12-06 09:17:16 AM  
Elminst: Easement laws say she can't do shiat. She's a moran and the suit should be tossed, plain and simple.

I see no reason why ink on a piece of paper should preclude common sense and rational decision making.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report