Florida officer found dead man, impersonated him for years, renovated his home
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
Wow, cops certainly know how to produce a confession.
This system of morality is cute when we compare a rich man and a pauper. It falls on its face when we compare a violent heathen and someone who tried to live well. It's lazy nihilism by another name, an absolution of moral agency, albeit with compelling dressing.
Our "moral agency" is no different from that of a dog's, it's just the evolved game theory outcome of many millions of years living as social animals. It's an intuition about when to cooperate and when to compete.
As social animals we have devolved into violent heathens regularly throughout history if you think those violent tendencies isn't hardwired into your own DNA you're kidding yourself. When a technology is invented all of it's negative externalities and misuses are invented as well, and if said technology is used for violent heathenry, it's inventors are complicit.
And yes, I'm lazy, that's a win condition, why wouldn't I be? What were all those labour saving devices for if not so we can be lazy? Climate change is humanity's biggest threat. It is entirely the fault of people doing things, they're making a huge mess. Just chill out.
His big mistake was forging the signature and impersonating the decedent. If he'd just signed under his own name and hoped nobody noticed, no felonies would've been committed and he would have a case to get back the $200K in the "unjust enrichment" lawsuit.
https://ilabacalaw.com/blog/real-estate/florida-easement-law...
The Florida statute on adverse possession explicitly says 7 years, with no exceptions:
Probaby a long shot to find someone admitted to the Florida bar to chime in here.
https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2018/95.18
I asked Gemini specifically about the loophole you highlight, and why more people don't commit adverse possession on houses that are in probate. It came up with:
1) Probate usually takes far less than 7 years - in this news story, it was done in 3
2) The adverse possession claim will come up on any title search, which any probate attorney or real estate agent would likely do. From the article, it looks like this is what actually caught the cop here.
3) Usually heirs that want to keep the house will pay property taxes on it. This resets the clock, and they'll get notification that somebody has already paid the taxes on it when they try to do so.
For people who aren't paying property taxes, aren't actively checking on or maintaining the property, and aren't trying to sell it - those are exactly the cases that adverse possession laws are trying to solve. The state believes that it's better for people to actively maintain properties and pay taxes on them, and if you don't do that, you risk losing your claim on them.
If he spent so much, why not just buy his own house? The house in the article is nothing special to look at.
> You have to count the total amount you will pay on the mortgage.
Yes. That's what I was counting, I have spent less than $214k on my house, repairs and mortgage.
Your comment after that was edited:
> A house price is a house price, you can't say it's only 20%.
What are you talking about? The question is could he have afforded a house for $214k, and the answer is yes. Houses in that area don't cost a minimum of $1 million, even the house he attempted to steal wasn't worth that much.
The only thing I can think of is he is using extremely suspect math and a lot of that 214k comes from "sweat equity" billed at a ridiculous rate. Otherwise he'd easily be able to afford a mortgage in that area with 214k down.
This sounds bonkers, but there was a kernel of legal strategy here - adverse possession, basically a statute of limitations on getting your land back.
Ironically programmers are also just as bad for this type of thinking for a different reason. They will read a legal statute and interpret it like it is code. I was very much guilty of this, and from comments I see here that's not an uncommon assumption. My friend who's a public defender spend some time pointing out that legal rulings aren't strict in that way, there's a reason judges have leeway when making decisions.