Propery reverts to original owners when school closes

I know that this doesn't really help you in your quest, but I thought I would show you what has just happened here in England.

Having just read this in the Times, it seemed a bit of a coincidence, really......


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1847869,00.html

Good luck with your investigations.

Information on probate matters:
http://www.estateplanohio.com/ProbateQuestions.shtml




Does it appear to you that your ancestor's probate estate was fully administered by the probate court as required by law? If the executor and his heirs still have possession of the probate estate assets, it seems to me that someone in your family ought to demand a final accounting and a final distribution and a final administration of the estate for the benefit of your family.

The affidavit has no mention of my great-great-grandfather's estate. She just gives her own family line of inheritance from the executor to her. I can't imagine how she got away with that, as it still doesn't explain how the land jumped from my g-g-grandfather to the executor! Maybe whoever accepted it as proof didn't do enough digging to see that it was part of a trust, and just the origination from the executor was enough?



This gets even weirder... the probate records show that the case was closed in 1918, the year my great-grandfather (the heir) died. I don't know if was closed because he died, or if this is just coincidence. I can't imagine how it was closed when the land was never transferred to the heir. It sure seems like the county courts, recorders, etc. of that era weren't doing their jobs very well considering how many errors occurred during the execution of this will. The will did state that if my great-grandfather didn't live until 21, (but he did,) the executor was to sell the land and distribute the money among my g-g-grandfather's brothers and sisters and their children. There was no mention in any way that the land could ever go straight to the executor.

We talked to an attorney on Thursday. Unfortunately, my dad lost his retirement, and is low on cash, so he had to ask the attorney to take the case on a contingency. The attorney said he doesn't normally take cases on contingency, but ours was really "interesting," so he agreed to 40%. I'm not sure if this is good or bad! He is going to talk to the other attorney and call with the results next week, then we will go from there.

In the meantime, I am hopping mad about the school case, (still.) I have no doubt that they are guilty of some form of fraud, but proving it could be difficult. The superintendent signed an affidavit for their case stating that the school purchased the land on March 26, 1914. Yet, a court case from May of 1914 shows my family was still fighting the eminent domain, and a newspaper article from summer 1915 states that the township had recently begun "condemnation proceedings" to get the land. That sure doesn't sound like the land was purchased on the date in the affidavit. Also, considering there are absolutely no public records concerning a sale, I wonder how the superintendent came up with this date. I suspect it comes from the "owner's document" our realtor saw in a board meeting. The realtor told us in April, and again last week that this document existed and referred to the conditional transfer of the land. The clause being that it must revert to the trust when the school closed. Now, no one will admit to having this document. I believe the reason the superintendent had to file an affidavit with the date rather than submitting the document is that the document it comes from shows that the land is clearly not theirs. To make matters worse, and more suspicious, we talked to the realtor again last night and her story has drastically changed. She says that she talked to the superintendent, and now remembers that, oh yes, the document referred to the reversion of the land to the township, not the family. She also says that the superintendent told her that the land isn't an issue for our family because it was a donation. The only issue was that it might revert to the original township rather than the board of education. She now says they were just concerned because the original township merged with another just a few years ago. Yeah right! If it didn't involve us, why were we named as the defendants? And, if it was a "donation," why would the family fight it for over a year? Also, why would a document from 1914 address this merging of townships in the 1990's? Was the executor psychic? I'm not sure if the realtor is on our side or not. I am inclined to think that the executives purposely misled the part-time school board members. Either way, this web of lies really leads me to believe that there is a huge scandal/ cover-up within the board of education.
If we make it to court, (the attorney feels that we have a good chance of having the default judgement put aside,) someone is going to have to account for this missing document. If they provide it, and it indeed confirms the revision (which I believe it does,) good for us. If they refuse to provide it or have destroyed it, hopefully the fact that they had something to hide will work in our favour. Without it, neither side has good proof that they own the land. We would have to rely on old laws regarding reversion of school lands, and they have to rely on a survey done when the land was "proposed for school purposes." Maybe they think they are safe in destroying the owner's document with the details because their case of holding the land for about 90 years is stronger than our case with the will.

Our attorney did note that in their claim to file quiet title this year, they noted that their use of the land had been open, notorious, adverse, etc. He said that the fact that they admitted it was "adverse" was meaningful because normally "adverse" is hard to prove. Unfortunately, he pointed out that, though we have a good chance of setting aside the default judgement, we really don't have set in stone proof that the land should be ours. At the same time, neither does the school. My biggest hope now, is that our realtor's original story concerning the "owner's document" was true, which I believe it was considering she met with us and told us the day after the meeting, then confirmed it last week (before the superintendent changed her story.) If so, we just have to hope that the other school board members remember the truth, and that their fear of perjury is stronger than their need to protect the school board.

follow up on school reversion
We're still waiting for the attorney to call back, but in the meantime, I went researching tonight. I think I finally found the golden ticket In fact, I am going to call the attorney first thing tomorrow with the new information.

The school superintendent signed an affidavit saying the school "purchased" the land in May 1914. I'm not sure why she decided to say that, but it is an outright lie. In reality, court records show that, at that time, the judge declared that the land could be appropriated by the school district; however, the family kept fighting. It turns out the reason neither side could further follow the transfer of the land is because the case was under a different name. I kept searching for "estate of my ancestor" in court indexes. It was actually under "Jane Doe" et al. because the entire family sued the school district when they tried to take the land and "Jane Doe" was the first alphabetically. Even though the school board "lost" their document that supposedly shows the land reverts, I found the court records to confirm this!!! They show that the school board paid damages to the family in December 1914 for the *use* of the land. The judgement shows that the school is entitled to "hold, use, and enjoy" the property interests of the defendants "as set forth in the petition." The petition specifically states that the land must be used for school purposes. It never says that the school purchased or owned the property, rather than they can use and posess the property that is still owned by the defendants. Now, we have the facts, and the reason that the school never held a valid deed. We just have to get the default judgement set aside. Hopefully, the judge will agree that they clearly avoided contacting the family!

Sounds promising on the school issue. Keep digging and keep us informed.

You should also keep digging into public records with respect to the executor's/trustee's retention of your ancestor's estate placed in trust for your great grandfather and his heirs. From what you have discovered so far, it appears the only interest the executor/trustee had in your family's land was as a fiduciary agent to hold it for the benefit of the decedent's heirs. If your lawyer argues that a fiduciary agent (executor or trustee) cannot adversely possess estate or trust property in a manner contrary to the estate/trust beneficiary's interest as a MATTER OF LAW and the same applies to the fiduciary agent's successors in interest, you may have a good chance of regaining the land for your family.

Because the land is still titled in your great-great grandfather's name, it doesn't appear that the testamentary trust established for your great-grandfather's benefit and the benefit of his heirs was ever terminated. Unless your digging proves otherwise, it appears the land is still a trust asset. Again, neither a trustee nor the trustee's successor in interest may ever adversely possess trust assets against the trust beneficiaries.

Because of the affidavit in aid of title, it doesn't appear that the executor's heir had record title and the land was technically still held in trust for the heirs. Accordingly, the executor's heir cannot claim that she held an unbroken chain of title for forty years or more and could not pass marketable title to a buyer. It can be argued that the buyers had record notice that there was a cloud on the title and assumed the risk that someone with a superior claim to the land could come forward and divest the buyers of the property. You should pursue every avenue available to recover the land that rightfully belongs to your family.

KEEP DIGGING! Keep us informed.

following the land transfers


I've had to do a lot of my searching online today due to the holiday and weekend, so I have been analyzing the information posted on our recorder's website. Not all records are available before 1990, but fortunately, the executor's heirs did their selling of the land in trust in 2000. I have tracked down all of the parcels that they divided the land into via a new survey in 1999 (in preparation for all the sales in early 2000). There are no mentions that the land is held in trust, but in the heir's affidavit in aid of title, she states that she is the heir to her father's interest in the real estate. I don't know if the wording "interest" is of significance or not.

I found odd selling patterns as well. First of all, of the executor's three heirs, one died years ago, one died in 1996, and the other is still living. The one who died in 1996 left a single daughter (as far as I can figure) and a widow. The daughter didn't exercise her right to the property until 1999, when her mother signed a quitclaim deed giving the interest to her. The 1999 is significant, because the executor died in 1959, and that was the year he willed the land held in trust to his three kids. I wonder if the heirs picked this year to liquidate the land they'd been holding in trust for 91 years by coincidence, or if they specifically realized it was the 40 year mark for when the executor willed it to them. This forty year mark would explain why the affidavit for the title only follows the heirs back to the executor. I thought it was strange that their affidavit didn't have to explain how the land jumped from my ancestor to theirs!

In 1999, the land was divided into five parts (and some easements) and three of them went to three separate couples with the last name "Joplin" in February 2000. In April 2000, two of those couples re-sold the properties to unrelated buyers for the same prices they paid. Of these next buyers, both the records show they purchased title insurance, so perhaps they were aware of the questionable title. I think the three "Joplin" couples are somehow related to the heirs. Is there some reason that they would need for the land to change hands so quickly? I was wondering if maybe a chain of buyers (as opposed to purchasing directly from the non-owning seller) somehow distances the executor's heirs from the sale and responsibility for it, or makes it less disputable once it has changed hands more than once? The other "Joplin" couple retained their property and the last two properties were sold to a couple that holds a survivorship deed.

In the meantime, since the records offices were closed, I did as much searching as I could at the library regarding our school dilemna. The probate court records regarding the school's taking of the land are available, and refer to documents from the common pleas court. I'll have to go to the archive building to get the corresponding common pleas court records. The things I could print out today are even more promising than what I last found. They reitterate, in no uncertain words, that even after the payment for damages, the defendants (my family) are still the owners of the land and are entitled to damages due to the school's use. It emphasizes that the land is to be used only for public school purposes. One record in December states that the school board must pay the damages within 6 months, and can at that time, take posession of the land. That gives them until June 1915... quite different from the superintendant's affadavit that they purchased it in May 1914. I'm curious to see if she will still hold her job when this all comes to light.

Regarding their "attempt" to contact us. In addition to the many other obvious ways they could have found us, I found another. They claim they made a diligent attempt using an impressive list of various resources, (although using the same resources, I can find us.) Apparently they never tried Google. I did a search from my great-grandfather's unusual name today and came up with exactly one reference... my lengthy post from five years ago on a genealogy message board detailing our branch from my great-great grandfather (who owned the land in question) to my grandmother (with her married name). A search for my grandmother's married name brings exactly one hit- again my genealogy. The school board's attorney claims they even searched surrounding counties trying to find the heirs. I guess they didn't think to try Google then type my grandmother's name into the online probate records! Due to my posted genealogy research, it would've been a matter of minutes to find the current heirs.

It is absolutely unbelievable all the extremely obvious ways the school board could have found us if they wanted to. I am incredibly angry every time I think about the phone call I made to the school board to see if the land reversion story was true. If they hadn't deliberately lied to me, and told me the land had nothing to do with my family, we wouldn't be going through all of this now.

As far as actual notice, I believe the important fact is that you personally told a school board member months before that your family members were the direct descendants of the person from whom they acquired the school land. As a representative of the school board, the school board member's knowledge is imputed to the school board itself. The school board member was aware that the school district intended to take legal action to quiet title and divest your great-grandfather's heirs of any possible reversionary interest they had in the land and therefore knew or should have known that your family was entitled to actual notice.