Title Opinion

Welcome to the Open Forum - the discussion forum for topics that don't quite fit anywhere else. Fair warning: Posts may be moved at the moderators' discretion to a more appropriate forum. Posts that are especially silly will probably end up in either the Fun and Games Forum or the Temporary Forum.

Moderators: Tempo Gain, TheGingerMan, Rockefeller

Forum rules
Posts may be moved at the moderators' discretion to a more appropriate forum. Posts that are especially silly will probably end up in either the Fun and Games Forum or the Temporary Forum.

Title Opinion

Postby sandman » 07 Mar 2002, 05:07

Deadpledge, you took the words right out of my mouth. But you know that the same could be said for Xindian landlots.
sandman
Manjusri (Wénshū)
 
Posts: 30176
Joined: 04 Jun 2001, 16:01
28 Recommends(s)
199 Recognized(s)



Title Opinion

Postby <liquidnitrogen> » 07 Mar 2002, 05:31

Deadpledge and Sandman, both of you are right. The landownership issue is really messed up in taiwan, especially now there are all kinds of lawsuits being lodged against the ROC government for lands that were called into requisition in the late 40s and early 50s.
hahahaha.... that was a funny title opinion. Where did you find title opinion?
<liquidnitrogen>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby <liquid cocaine> » 07 Mar 2002, 05:33

hahahahahahahahahahahaha... that's funny. Prolific, hey??? You are pretty prolific yourself when you were in lawschool. hahahahaha
<liquid cocaine>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby <CERCLA> » 07 Mar 2002, 05:58

It's funny.
So are you ready for the deposition???
<CERCLA>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby deadpledge » 07 Mar 2002, 16:48

Ok... Jack and the rest of you who belongs to the good old boys club. Try to top this title opinion. It is my private belief that this opinion is applicalbe to all parcels of land in Tamsui:
Don't buy the God Damned land.

It has been my sorrow and burden to look over several horrible examples of a title-examiner's nightmare, but this alleged title takes the cutglass flyswatter. It is my private belief that you couldn't cure the defects if you sued everybody from the Spanish Government (who started this mess) on down to the present possessor of the land, who is in there by virtue of a peculiar instrument optimistically designated by the abstractor as a "General Warranty Deed."
We might rely on limitation here except that I am reliably informed that nobody has succeeded in living on this land for a longer period than two years, before dying of malnutrition. Laches might help out, but anybody who undertakes to buy land under a title acquired by laches is (to paraphrase Mark Twain) setting out like the man who set out to carry the cat home by the tail -- he is going to acquire experience that will be of great value to him and never grow dim or doubtful.
This land has been sold for taxes eight times in the last 40 years. Nobody has ever redeemed one of these tax sales -- glad to be rid of it, no doubt. The last purchaser sued the tax collector a month after he bought it for cancellation of the sale for fraud and misrepresentation. He doubtless had grounds, but the incident will give you a rough idea of what kind of muzzle-loading smooth-bores have been fritzing with the title.
The next and most serious defect is a "quit-claim deed containing a general warranty" executed by Ellis Gretzberg (who just appears suddenly out of no where) in the chain of title to one Peter (Prolific) Perkinston.
Unfortunately, Perkinston died, leaving two wives and 17 children, the legitimacy of two of them being severely contested. Fortunately, a shooting match between the two sets of claimants assisted the title slightly by reducing the original number to six and substituting eleven sets of descendants.
It is executed by a fair majority of one set of the offspring of Peter (Prolific) Perkinston, and is acknowledged in a manner sufficient to pass a County Clerk with his fee prepaid. Outside of the fact that it doesn't exactly describe the property under search, the habendum clause is to the grantors, the covenant of general warranty doesn't warrant a thing and it is acknowledged before it is dated, I suppose it is all right.
I would advise you to keep the abstracts, if you can. They are a speaking testimonial to the result of notaries public drawing instruments, county clerks who would put a menu on record if a fee was tendered, and jacklegged jugheads posing as lawyers.
You can buy the land if you so desire. There are 573 people who can give you as good a title as your prospective vendor has, not counting the heirs of the illegitimate son of Prather Linkon who died in the penitentiary in 1989 while serving a term for sodomy.
deadpledge
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby <Jakjak> » 07 Mar 2002, 18:46

It's been a long time since I last studied Taiwanese land law, but I still distinctively remember that KMT's version of the Japanese colonial system is worse than its predecessor. I think Taiwan should just adopt the torren system, but good luck try to sell that to the legislative yuan. Although, come to think of it, it may not be as difficult to persuade lifayuan, as long as you are able to find a member to sponsor it. Think about it, the reason why 48 states in the US have not adopted the torrens system is because you real estate lawyers always stick together to lobby against the passage of the bill. And things that Bar Association of Real Estate lawyers would do are just .... well you get my picture. But in Taiwan, you don't have any high power legal interests like the American Real Estate Bar.
Anyway, ok... I am really going to go off the tangents.... Torrens or no Torrens.. land disputes in Taiwan will always be resolved in the godfather style anyway@@
<Jakjak>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby <liquid cocaine> » 07 Mar 2002, 19:21

jakx2
You must be really out of whack. I thought the Taiwanese land law was a variation of the Torrens system [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]
Hey... I got something funny here I would like to share with y'all. This just came in, and I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of the account:
A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them against fire, among other things.
Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars
and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the
guy filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the guy stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars
in the normal fashion. The guy sued....and won!
In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous.
The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also
guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire" and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
NOW FOR THE BEST PART...
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim, and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced him to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.
[img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Again, I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of the account [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
<liquid cocaine>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby jeff » 07 Mar 2002, 19:32

Forumosan avatar
jeff
Fried Chicken-Parts Vendor (yán sū jī xiǎofàn)
Fried Chicken-Parts Vendor (yán sū jī xiǎofàn)
 
Posts: 980
Joined: 04 Jun 2001, 16:01
Location: Orange County, CA



Title Opinion

Postby <liquid cocaine> » 07 Mar 2002, 20:06

dude!!! y'all checked out other fora on this site? I swear!!! some of them are like Taiwan-bashing sites. I am going to start a boxer rebellion forum here to counteract all the Taiwan-bashing. y'all w/ me on that?
<liquid cocaine>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Title Opinion

Postby <CERCLA> » 07 Mar 2002, 20:17

LC:
I had it with all of your legal urban legends [img]images/smiles/converted/yes.gif[/img]
You need to take some prozac. Do do anything stupid! Last time you did something stupid it got us all kicked out of the damn forum.

Jeff:
Thanks for the expose.
<CERCLA>
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
Next




Proceed to Open Forum



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 5 visitors

How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being -- OSCAR WILDE