|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 4, 2016 11:01:41 GMT -7
Tenants in Common - Glastonbury - March 1998 Tenants in Common or "undivided interest" are phrases that mean several investors own a single piece of land that is NOT legally sub-divided. In 2016 there are still many parcels in Glastonbury that have multiple owners. The practice dates back to the early days of Glastonbury when Church Universal and Triumphant owned all of the land and offered leases that eventually were converted to deeds. Scott McMillion of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle wrote an excellent article in March of 1998 that details the history of shared land ownership. His article provides a good introduction to how and why Glastonbury was created. People had to be personally approved by the Church leader Elizabeth Clare Prophet, to be accepted for inclusion to Glastonbury. Rules were strict and fees were frequent. Problems emerged after people invested time and money in what they thought was their land and discovered otherwise. Land changed from Church ownership to private ownership in 1997 and 1998. Leases were converted to deeds but often times many unrelated individuals held joint ownership of a single parcel. When one owner went to sell they often found that the house they built, the well they dug and the septic system they installed did not fully belong to them. Rather every person who bought an "undivided interest" in the parcel also owned a part of their house, well and septic system. Imagine if you built a house on a 20 acre parcel which the Church sold "undivided interests" to 3 other people. Legally those other investors are seen as equal partners. Each one owns every 4th grain of dirt and together they own 3/4 of all you invested in terms of a house, well and other improvements. The only way to preserve your investment was to legally sub-divide the original 20 acre parcel. That was and still is very complicated and expensive. One disgruntled landowner complained "What the organization(the Church) has done, and still does, is pillage and plunder the wealth of its members and then discards them,". That landowner resigned from the Church and has since moved away. According to the article they sought relief from the Church but were ignored. It would be helpful and could add balance to Scott McMillion's article if a few current members of Glastonbury could present their perspective to this difficult chapter of Glastonbury history by posting their comments below. |
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Mar 5, 2016 11:43:58 GMT -7
I am aware of 2 parcels that had "Tenant In Common" ownership that wanted individual ownership - ie. divide it so each got a deed for the land where their house was located. The lawsuit with Park County that resulted in landowners obtaining deeds and Church Universal and triumphant no longer able to issue tenant in common deeds or leases was settled in 1997. Here is a link to it glastonbury.freeforums.net/thread/20/1993-settlement-agreement-park-county. A critical element in the agreement is that all "tenant in common" deeds, no matter how small, recorded in the Park County Clerk and recorders office as of November 24th, 1993 were to be recognized as valid deeds not requiring review and approval by Park County. In lots of cases, Church Universal and Triumphant changed a tenant in common deed to a Warranty Deed. But not in all cases. There are many lots in Glastonbury that still have undivided, i.e. tenant in common, interests that can be changed over to Warranty Deeds for each interest holder. However since the Church is no longer involved in these, it requires an action by a Judge. A good friend's uncle was involved in a lot that still had 5 tenant in common ownership's in 2007. His uncle had purchased 3 of the 5. One of the other owners wanted to sell their property, but financing was impossible to get because of the tenant in common problem. The three owners finally agreed to a division of the lands and had an survey done to divide the lands, which was then presented to a Judge as a "friendly" (once all issues were resolved) lawsuit to establish warranty deeds for all 5 tracts of land. This still cost each owner a couple thousand dollars to finally reach the "friendly" or undisputed lawsuit. The second parcel owners could not reach "friendly" terms and a Judge made the final decision for everyone. For any Landowners in Glastonbury that still have "Tenant In Common" deeds, check to see if the deed was recorded in Park County Clerk and Recorders office before 11/24/1993. If they are and you can reach an agreement on lot boundary locations, you can still get Warranty Deeds. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 29, 2017 15:10:07 GMT -7
Robert and Mary Wallace join the "Millionaires on the Mountain"
On Saturday May 28th, 2017 The Forum spoke with Robert and Mary Wallace while they were busy building the first stud wall for their new 1,700 square foot residence in High South. Many years ago they purchased the land seemingly under the impression that they were buying a 5 acre parcel. Legally the parcel was 20 acres but jointly owned by 4 parties. One party already constructed a dome house. The 5 acres Robert thought he was exclusively purchasing was home to an old trailer which was removed in early 2006. Presumably it had a septic system, electricity, a well and propane all of which appear to be re-used for their new home. With assistance from former GLA Project Review Chairman Alyssa Allen the site was approved, just before the Master Plan passed, with a 25 foot setback. Shortly thereafter construction halted and the slab remained bare for almost 11 years.
The Forum welcomed Robert and Mary Wallace to High South and reminded them their property taxes will soon rise because of the "exclusiveness" of the neighborhood they chose to move to. Some home owners in High South pay over $200.00 per WEEK in property taxes for a place they may use just 6 weeks out of the year. It is common for landowners in highest south Glastonbury to pay between $75.00 and $150.00 a week in property taxes to Park County. The Forum also politely reminded our newest neighbors that at least one former member of the GLA Board openly used his power to discriminate against High South landowners by denying them gravel, road grading and plowing services. We also congratulated the Wallace's for joining the "Millionaires on the Mountain" group by virtue of choosing to build in highest south Glastonbury.
According to Robert Wallace parcel SG-84 no longer has a Tenants in Common (TIC) status. The 20 acre parcel now consists of 4 five acre parcels courtesy of a Park County judge. This changes the assessment and voting status for all of the property owners. Four land assessments will now be charged by the GLA for the 4 parcels that make up SG-84. One dwelling is livable and as soon as the two in progress reach "dried in" status the owners will be charged a dwelling assessment. "Dried in" status is when the unit is sealed from the elements.
Board member Leo Keeler noted that special restrictions are placed on the number of dwellings allowed on any TIC parcel that gets legally subdivided.
Leo states:
"I know some will wonder how this new subdivision can be established when the Master Plan density standards in Table 3.5 limits the division of lot SG 84 to 2 parcels no smaller than 10 acres.
This Judge's decision to subdivide Lot SG 84 is not uncommon, as I know it happened with Peter Soltiz in 2013 or so and may be part of the Difo decision.
The decision follows the legal Settlement Agreement for Civil Case 91-97, filed by Park County against Church Universal and Triumphant signed in 1993. Under this agreement, all the Owners of Record as of November 25, 1993, as recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office, can receive title to a portion of the Lot. The owners must agree to the size of the parcel they receive and have a Certificate of Survey prepared for the Judge to declare the legally platted lands. The Judge then establishes a legal subdivision that does not have to go through the County, or GLA, subdivision process and requirements etc.
An issue GLA must be aware of, and maintain awareness of is that this agreement legally limits the number of dwellings on these lots to one residence and associated improvements. A guest house or carriage house (garage with apartment) cannot be constructed on these lots.
As a legally binding agreement transferred from the Church Universal and Triumphant in 1997, GLA must enforce this agreement as the lands are developed.
Below is a copy of the pertinent sections of the agreement."
Settlement Agreement
Civil 91-97
Filed this 28th Day of July, A.D. 1993
Recording of Ownership Interests
The Defendants and any Property Owners who elect to participate (referred to herein as the “Participating Property Owners”) shall have until one hundred twenty (120) days after the execution of this Settlement Agreement by all parties to document in appropriate deeds, abstracts, notices of interest, or other instruments of conveyance and to submit t the Park County Clerk and Recorders Office, in a form suitable for recording, their ownership interests in the parcels or tracts of land, or portions thereof, in Glastonbury North and Glastonbury South which are not now recorded in Park County Records.
Within said one hundred twenty (120) days, the Defendants and Participating Property Owners shall submit a list of the existing dwellings, developed but currently unoccupied dwelling sites, and other major real property improvements which are located on each parcel or tract of land owned by them in Glastonbury North and Glastonbury South. This list shall be submitted to the Park County Attorney’s office and may also include those dwellings which have been purchased by any of the Defendants or Participating Property Owners but which have not yet been moved onto their parcels or tracts of land in Glastonbury North and Glastonbury South prior t the signing of this Settlement Agreement pending the resolution of the lawsuits brought by Park County. (Note: Contacts where made in search of this list in the County Attorney’s office, Court Records or Church Records, and no one found a copy)
Ownership interests of record, tenants in common and their successors and assigns, and existing dwellings, developed dwelling sites and improvements (or their replacements) which have been recorded or identified as described above shall not be the subject of future legal action by Park County asserting violations of Park County Subdivision Planning Regulations due to multiple ownership interests or dwellings (except for mobile homes) on a single parcel or tract of land of 20 acres or larger, so long as the requirements contained in Sections No. 1 and No.2 herein have been met for the individual parcels or tracts involved.
Transfers to Tenants In Common and Future Rights
Defendants and Participating Property Owners agree that, after the date of execution of this Settlement Agreement by all parties, no transfers of parcels or tracts of land in Glastonbury North or Glastonbury South shall be made from the Church, or other defendants or Participating Property Owners to multiple tenants in common unless the tenants in common are related as spouses or members of the same immediate family. An “immediate family” for the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, shall include mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, legal guardians, children, siblings and any of their spouses.
The interests of tenants in common which have been established of record as described in Section No. 1, including any partial interests in real estate and any present or future dwellings or improvements owned by any such tenants in common which meet the requirements of this Settlement Agreement, shall be fully transferable after the date of this agreement. Such transfers shall not be the subject of future legal action or refusals to act (i.e. to record documents, grant permits, etc.) by Park County based upon the assertion of a violation of the Park County Subdivision Planning Regulations. However, the Defendants and Participating Property Owners acknowledge that any newly created or segregated parcels of land will comply with the applicable subdivision laws and regulations in effect at that time.
In addition, the parties acknowledge that each tenant in common or other owner of such partial interest in real estate successors and assigns, currently have the right (subject to the provisions of Section No. 2) to place one dwelling and associated improvements on his or her property, whether or not such dwelling or developed dwelling site currently exists, subject to all subdivision and sanitary restrictions in place at the time they propose to build. Provided, however, that where two or more of such dwellings to be located on a single parcel or tract of land are mobile homes as defined herein, the Defendants acknowledge that Park County will consider such installations as subdivisions subject to the Park County Subdivision Planning Regulations and the provisions of Section No. 3.
The Defendants and Participating Property Owners have been informed that Park County intends, after the execution of this Settlement Agreement by all parties, to treat any “new” partial interests in real estate created subsequent to the execution of this Settlement Agreement through conveyances or transfers to tenants in common, other than transfers or conveyances to spouses or members of the same “immediate family” as defined above, as “divisions of land” which shall be subject to the requirements of the Park County Subdivision Planning Regulations.
For purposes of clarifying which future tenancy in common interests will be subject to subdivision review pursuant to the terms of Section No. 6 of this Settlement Agreement, in interpreting existing state and Park County Subdivision Planning laws and regulations, Park County will not treat tenancy in common interests that were:
Sold prior to the execution of this Settlement Agreement by the Defendants or Participating Property Owners to persons who are not “immediate family members” as defined herein, but
Not recorded with the Park County Clerk and Recorders Office as of the date of the execution by all parties to this Settlement Agreement,
as “new” partial interests, created subsequent to the execution of this Settlement Agreement, and thereby subject to subdivision review and approval by Park County officials, if such non-immediate-family tenancy in common interests are filed with the Park County Clerk and Recorder’s Office within one hundred twenty (120) days after the execution by all parties of this Settlement Agreement. |
|
