Post by estherlike on Jan 12, 2010 13:12:19 GMT -5
There is currently a piece of property in the Mapleton School District that was donated back in 1910 by Abbie Rees for the specific purpose and use of a school. In the deed that was recorded in September 1910 there is a reversion clause which states should the property ever cease to be used for a school the property would revert back to Abbie Rees or her heirs. This property ceased to be used for school purposes in 2006 and has not yet been deeded back to Abbie Rees' heirs even though the School Board was given, in writing, a list of located heirs and their contact information. The School Board is stating that it is not their responsibility to transfer the deed.
Keep in mind that as long as the School District (Board) continues to keep this property in their name it is not on the tax rolls and therefore no taxes are collected on this property for the district or county.
At the School Board meeting held on January 11, the Board voted to release and make public an opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney with regard to this property. This opinion was given in 2007. What the School Board is NOT telling the general public is the opinion was requested with the intent of the School Board hiring a private attorney, using school funds, to "clear the title" of this land so they (the School Board) could sell this land to a private party who wished to purchase it for development purposes. The district does not hold clear title not because of a lien or mortgage but because of the reversion clause.
Every person reading this needs to contact the local government and demand that property that by all rights should be on the tax rolls be put on the tax rolls. This property should have been collecting taxes for the last 4 years and has not due to the School District not having any "incentive" (the words of the treasurer of the district) to do so.
This is yet another example of our local government hiding things and trying to skirt the law for their benefit.
The Prosecuting Attorney did in fact render the opinion that the School District did not have the authority to seek clear title or otherwise sell this property, so why has the School Board not deeded this property to the heirs as the deed clearly states?
Keep in mind that as long as the School District (Board) continues to keep this property in their name it is not on the tax rolls and therefore no taxes are collected on this property for the district or county.
At the School Board meeting held on January 11, the Board voted to release and make public an opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney with regard to this property. This opinion was given in 2007. What the School Board is NOT telling the general public is the opinion was requested with the intent of the School Board hiring a private attorney, using school funds, to "clear the title" of this land so they (the School Board) could sell this land to a private party who wished to purchase it for development purposes. The district does not hold clear title not because of a lien or mortgage but because of the reversion clause.
Every person reading this needs to contact the local government and demand that property that by all rights should be on the tax rolls be put on the tax rolls. This property should have been collecting taxes for the last 4 years and has not due to the School District not having any "incentive" (the words of the treasurer of the district) to do so.
This is yet another example of our local government hiding things and trying to skirt the law for their benefit.
The Prosecuting Attorney did in fact render the opinion that the School District did not have the authority to seek clear title or otherwise sell this property, so why has the School Board not deeded this property to the heirs as the deed clearly states?