www.CostaRicaTicas.com

I dunno. I think it's more of a commentary on humanity as a whole. After all, I've seen similar posts from Greengo on many different countries and cultures. Sadly, the older I get and the more scars I accumulate, the more I tend to agree with a lot of what he says. Truly honest and honorable people are few and far between. And I'm talking everywhere, not just in CR. Still, I haven't given up hope on people yet I still love traveling and seeing new cultures and getting to know the people.

when i understand greengo, i agree

anything i do not understand, i figure will be revealed to me in time


its just the tao of greengo, simple as that

I think theres plenty of defamation to go around on this thread. Let the games begin. BTW with my limited experience and knowledge of CR I'll side with Greengo in this one.

And how is that different than the USA?

I use Google Translate for all of Greengo's posts!

Exactly. There is gross abuse of eminent domain laws in the US, often at the behest of and on behalf of corporations (see that New Haven incident of a few years ago, for example). http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009 ... domain.txt
This was as bad as anything in CR

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Apples and Oranges.

No q that the government can take your property via "eminent domain" in every state of the union. That's how expressways are built thru cities, urban airport runways are expanded into a neighboring suburb, or school districts get property to build/expand schools, for example.

The S Ct case Jazz cites was about the novel issue of whether a govt can use this power to take property for private commercial development and not for only govt needs.

In a 5-4 opinion, the court expanded the govt use of eminent domain to make way for private commercial development to increase economic growth and real estate taxes. It takes years to get to the S Ct.
In the meantime, the development plan evaporated so it was a disaster. The local government won the battle but lost the war.

Keep in mind, in every state you have a right to a trial by jury as to the "highest and best use" value of the property that the govt entity has to pay you. Not that they can't get it, but the govt entity isn't the sole arbiter of the price. It's what lawyers more commonly call "condemnation", but the same thing. Trust me, there are many multi-millionaire Condemnation lawyers. The fee is a % over what the government initially offered.

Alot different then my OP or also what's going on at Palo Seco--CR is telling the property owners you are out and we ain't paying you.

Speaking of novel uses of the governments use of its power of eminent domain look at this one


"New Strategy for Underwater Mortgages Would Use Government Powers of Eminent Domain

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by John Nastasi in Distressed Assets, News, Residential

The Wall Street Journal reports on a new approach to refinancing underwater home mortgage loans that involves municipalities using their powers of eminent domain to seize mortgages from lenders. The loans would then be refinanced through a federal loan program.

The proposal, being pitched to municipalities by advisory firm Mortgage Resolution Partners, could generate returns to investors of up to 30% and billions of dollars in fees for bankers, according to the Journal article.

Under the proposal, the municipalities would seize underwater but performing home mortgage loans that have been securitized, paying prices up to 25% below the appraised value of the homes. The homes would then be refinanced at close to 98% of their value, with the difference going to pay transaction costs, the advisory firm’s fees and a healthy return to investors.

The proposal has come under fire from financial trade groups who believe it doesn’t satisfy the public use requirement of eminent domain.

“The U.S. Constitution’s eminent domain powers were not intended for the cherry-picking of performing loans to create exorbitant profits for private investment funds like MRP,” Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum told the Journal.

Critics also argue that the program could have unintended consequences such as increasing the cost of credit and worsening the housing crisis rather than improving it.

Bondholders are understandably concerned that they will be forced to sell to municipalities at a steep discount.

Indeed, it is unclear how the proposal would be justified under the doctrine of eminent domain, which in addition to requiring a public purpose, would also mandate that the bondholders receive “just compensation”, generally interpreted as fair market value. Proponents of the plan presumably must demonstrate that the fair market value of the mortgages — which would be performing — is equal to only 75% of the value of the collateral that secures them."

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

Novel for sure, but I predict that'll be another one that goes all the way to the US S Ct if the state trial court sides with the local government, and the state Appellate and state S Ct affirms. ID, thanks for this post, I want to keep an eye on the progression.

In this matter (eminent domain or the state seizing property), it may seem like the differences between CR and the US are an apples-and-oranges situation. It's not because of there differing bases of the legal systems: CR has the Europe-common civil law system and the US has the English-based common law system. Best explained by saying case-by-case vs. building on past cases. This explains it much better: http://www.economist.com/node/21560242
Sometimes Thread-hijacking is not a bad thing.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Jazz, I don't view your post as a hijack, the thread is about property transfers in CR with comparisons to US.

You make a good point and it points out the problem, or lack of a problem if you like the CR/Euro way of jurisprudence and not just regarding property transfers or governmental taking of property. Regarding property, in the US we are protected by the 5th Amendment from the govt taking our property without $$$, see caveat #2 at the end of my post (surprise, the 5th deals with more than just remaining silent!). The 5th is the basis of "eminent domain".

In basic terms re: the difference in our different judicial systems, in CR and most of "old" Europe like Italy, the trial court judge is not bound to rely or heavily consider prior appellate decisions on the same issue(s) as we do. Our reliance on legal precedent is known as "stare decisis" in the estados. Google it for more detail. That's what we call the "common law", or court made law, as opposed to a legislative statutory law.

In the US, that's how you often win on appeal, the trial court, without a good reason, ignored previously decided issues that were on the same point (stare decisis) and the judge ignored precedent and went his own way and screwed me.

So, in CR without a "stare decisis-common law" system, what you get is a lawsuit that can go anyway the trial court wants and to hell with precedent. I am sure there are straight judges in CR that know what is the norm based on the fact pattern and fall in line. I am also sure that there are some that if your abogado can get to him you are going to win even if your case stinks. How does a gringo like those odds?

I'll take US common law.

One caveat, Louisiana is partly based on Napoleanic law and so there are some differences re: property and other "state--not federal" issues. The 14th Amendment clarified all that re federal issues, which mostly are "due process" issues.

Caveat #2: The 5th Amendment--"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

Caveat #3: My understanding is CR has a version of eminent domain that provides for compensation for land the government takes (if they, unlike what they are doing to the 20 homes in Palo Seco determine you legally and rightfully owned), but you can't get a jury in CR. What's your odds of fair comp in that scenario?
.