My father passed away almost 9 years ago and he had a verbal agreement with his brother that he could live on the property if he paid the taxes in lieu of rent. When my dad passed we allowed him to continue with the verbal agreement that he made with my dad. My uncle is now suing us for the property claiming we never paid taxes and wants the property turned over to him. There are no minor children involved in this matter. What are my rights and how should I prepare for court?

AM

Please clarify - were property taxes been paid to the town or not? If so did your uncle pay them directly to the town? In order for your uncle to sue you he must allege that he has been damaged in some way - so what is his allegation?

ebaines,

Yes, the property have been paid by my uncle and the taxes are no more than $138.00 a year. In which he doesn't even pay more then $11.50 a month. Do you suggest I hire an attorney? The land and very small home is not very available but I know my father would not have left it to him. Any information you can provide is very much appreciated. Thanks again.

AGM

So has he actually initiated a law suit against you? If so, then yes - you should consult an attorney.

ebaines,

I did contact an attorney but she told me that since the property isn't worth much that I would be a good idea to represent myself and allow the judge to make the decision. Thanks for the advise.

AGM

... My uncle is now suing us for the property claiming ...

The next thing we would have to know in order to help you is what else your uncle is claiming (other than the non sequitur that the uncle promised to pay taxes in exchange for rent, he paid taxes, and wants title to the land). What are the grounds for the suit alleged in the court complaint?

Is he claiming that your father promised him title to the land in return for paying the taxes? Were there any witnesses, other than your uncle, to this verbal agreement?

AK lawyer,

He isn't calming my father promised him the land but he and his wife are both suing. I assume, his wife is the only witness. He is claming that we did not take claim and responsibility for the property. After my father passed I did not believe that I should ask them to move instead I believed in hornoring the verbal agreement that he had with my father and allow him and his wife to continue living there. It's almost nine years later and now he wants the property. I drove by the property and he has a store bought for sale out on the property. I know he can't sell it and I'm hoping that when I go to court the judge will rule in our favor. Thank you for your help.

AK lawyer,

He isn't calming my father promised him the land but he and his wife are both suing. I assume, his wife is the only witness. He is claming that we did not take claim and responsibility for the property. After my father passed I did not believe that I should ask them to move instead I believed in hornoring the verbal agreement that he had with my father and allow him and his wife to continue living there. It's almost nine years later and now he wants the property. I drove by the property and he has a store bought for sale out on the property. I know he can't sell it and I'm hoping that when I go to court the judge will rule in our favor. Thank you for your help.

It looks to me that one theory his lawyer might be using is that of adverse possession. To counter that, you should be prepared to show what you did over those nine years which would be consistent with being an owner of the property.
1) Did you, for example, state in your uncle's presence, that you own the property but you uncle is allowed to stay on it as long as he pays the taxes?
2) When your father's estate was probated did you record a deed to the property showing you as the new owner?
3) Anything else like that?

AK lawyer,

1) I did state in his persence that he could continue to live based on the agreement with my dad.
2) No, the deed is still under my father's name.
3) I only mentioned that they could continue to live there because of the agreement and when my father passed I mentioned that if he did the paper work I would sign out my interest of the property and he would have to deal with the other heirs. I have since changed my mind since he never got the paperwork for me to sign. Do you think we have a good chance of winning? I believe that the heirs are the rightful owners and I believe that I can represent myself and hopefully the judge will rule in our favor. Thank you.

AGM

And I would add to what AK lawyer said - do you have any documentation that supports your treating the property as your own - such as having paid for any maintenance, upkeep, or improvements to the property, or paid any utility bills? Have you visited the property, for example to see how the tenants are treating it? Are there other witnesses in the family who remember your father's original verbal agreement?

I haven't visted or done any upkeep because that was also part of the agreement that my uncle had aith my dad. I don't have and never have had a relationship with my uncle because I met him for the first time at my father's burial.

... Do you think we have a good chance of winning? Frankly, no. Particularly with this new information about your agreeing to sign a quit-claim deed (essentially).


I believe that the heirs are the rightful owners and I believe that I can represent myself and hopefully the judge will rule in our favor. ...


Unless you are a licensed attorney, or have been appointed personal representative in the context of a probate case, you will not be entitled to represent the other heirs. Your uncle will have to sue each heir.

There may be another issue. Is this property part of a larger piece of land? Has it been approved for subdivision? If not, and particularly if it would be a sub-standard lot, the regulatory authority may have some interest in the matter.

AK lawyer,

He is suing all the heirs. I told him I would sign over my interest of the property if you got the paperwork drawn up the day my father passed and if he didn't get back with me within the next couple of months the deal was off. In the next couple of months he never got the paperwork accomplished for me to agree to and sign. I told him If I didn't hear from him it in by Sep-Oct 2001 timeframe the deal was off and I would not sign my interest of the property over. I don't believe he is intitled to the property. Thank you.

I have to disagree with AK lawyer on this one. Your uncle lived there with your father's permission. He lives there now with your permission. Having the permission of the owner to use the property completely defeats any claim of ownership by adverse possession.

LisaB4657,

Thank you for your input. I believe the heirs are the owners of the property and not my uncle. Thanks again.

agmor - did your father leave a will, and do you have a copy of it?

I have to disagree with AK lawyer on this one. Your uncle lived there with your father's permission. He lives there now with your permission. Having the permission of the owner to use the property completely defeats any claim of ownership by adverse possession.

No problem if the judge or jury believes Agmor and Agmor is the only witness. However that is not how a trial is likely to happen. Agmor asked whether the heirs have a good chance of winning and I had to say no. Why? Because the uncle is likely to have a different version of the facts. It's only a guess as to what he may say, but I was asked about chances of winning, and so I have to make a guess in order to assess those chances.

For example, I doubt if the uncle will testify that he agreed with Agmor that he was possessing the property only with Agmar's permission. He is likely to say that he had some sort of promise of title from Agmor's father and that Agmor acknowedged the probable validity of that claim (and therefore assented to sign a quitclaim deed).

This may very well sway the trier of fact in favor of the uncle.

I suggest that Agmor take the deposition of uncle, aunt, and anyone else who may be a witness. That's the only way you will know what their testimony is going to be.

No problem if the judge or jury believes Agmor and Agmor is the only witness. However that is not how a trial is likely to happen. Agmor asked whether the heirs have a good chance of winning and I had to say no. Why? Because the uncle is likely to have a different version of the facts. It's only a guess as to what he may say, but I was asked about chances of winning, and so I have to make a guess in order to assess those chances.

For example, I doubt if the uncle will testify that he agreed with Agmor that he was possessing the property only with Agmar's permission. He is likely to say that he had some sort of promise of title from Agmor's father and that Agmor acknowedged the probable validity of that claim (and therefore assented to sign a quitclaim deed).

This may very well sway the trier of fact in favor of the uncle.

I suggest that Agmor take the deposition of uncle, aunt, and anyone else who may be a witness. That's the only way you will know what their testimony is going to be.

But if the uncle testifies that he had an agreement with Agmor's father then he was living there with permission. So the time for adverse possession would not have begun until Agmor's father passed away. It's possible that this property is located in a state where the time for adverse possession is less than 10 years, in which case Agmor may face some difficulties.

As for the validity of the uncle's claim for transfer of title, that was a verbal agreement. Won't the uncle face a Statute of Frauds problem?

Yes, assuming you are in the US, merely paying someone else's taxes does not give you the property,

Also which court is he sueing in, probate court ( saying he should get the property because of death of owner, or other court merely trying to say he owns it for paying taxes ?

That is not how tax laws and tax sells work, there would have had to be an agreement.

1. sale of property agreement has to be in writing, rental agreement can be verbal

2. he may sue you for the tax money to be paid back saying he did that to save the property since you did not pay them.

Your biggest error was not going though court and transferring proper to your name when father died

...
As for the validity of the uncle's claim for transfer of title, that was a verbal agreement. Won't the uncle face a Statute of Frauds problem?
That was my first thought. I looked (http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=2468)into it.

In Illinois (I believe is Agmor's state), partial performance takes the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. Presumably paying the property tax constitutes partial performance.

Hmm. I thought I saw IL in this thread somewhere yesterday. Anyway that's the rule in many places.

Thank you everyone for the information. At this point, I will consult an attorney and trust that the Judge will rule in our favor. I pray that my father's wishes be honored. My father had no intention of leaving or giving the property his brother. We had many conversations about that. I just wish he would have taken my advise and made out a will. I know the truth and I know that the Judge will rule with the evidence. Thanks again everyone.

AGM

Well, Agmor, you have two attorneys just in this thread who disagree about the outcome based on the information you've provided here. If you want to keep this property then I strongly recommend that you retain an attorney. Good luck!

Agmor:

1. What state did your father live in? And is it the same state where this property is located?
2. What relatives did your father leave behind? Besides you, are there other children and/or grandchildren? Other uncles/aunts besides the one who is living on the property? This is important since your father died without a will, and so his property passes by state law to his heirs as determined using rules set by the state.

Also - is there a reason why you (and the other heirs) didn't have the property deed transferred to your name(s), instad of leaving your father's name on it?