BajaNomad - Tenacatita Bay evictions

Tenacatita Bay evictions

BMG - 8-13-2010 at 09:09 AM

Interesting news about the forced evictions of hundreds of people by the State Police in Jalisco. How many Baja beachfront properties could also be cleared like this? The area is now sealed off but it appears the bulldozers are busy leveling all the houses and businesses in the village.

Quote:

Latitude 38

According to the Guadalajara Reporter, in the early hours of August 4, 150 members of the Jalisco State Police swooped down on the shores of Tenacatita Bay and evicted 800 locals who were living and working on a undeveloped section of beach. Some of those people, including many who served cruisers, have been living and working on the beach for 40 years. Twenty-seven people were arrested, although only 11 were held, and three suffered gunshot wounds. Just as bad, many of the 'homes' people have along the shore were badly damaged and their valuable appliances thrown into the street or taken away. And the former residents weren't being allowed back except one at a time, and when accompanied by a guard.

Guadalajara Reporter article

Latitude 38 article

surfer jim - 8-13-2010 at 09:46 AM

Mixed feelings on this for me.If I owned property there (or anywhere) No, I wouldn't want 800 squaters to move in next door.

Now...if I had an extra 150 police I might better use them to raid drug cartel locations instead of evictions.

Your choice?

comitan - 8-13-2010 at 10:12 AM

Here is a site about Tenacatita, this is what a rich Mexican is after.

http://sparks-mexico.com/costalegre/tenacatita/tenacatita-be...

In the picture Playa Mora is where we have spent many winters.

[Edited on 8-13-2010 by comitan]

BMG - 8-13-2010 at 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by surfer jim
Mixed feelings on this for me.If I owned property there (or anywhere) No, I wouldn't want 800 squaters to move in next door.

Now...if I had an extra 150 police I might better use them to raid drug cartel locations instead of evictions.

Your choice?

I don't know much about this situation. On the surface, it sounds like the village is/was on Ejido land. If so, that means the villagers were not squatters. Then you have a judge that says the land is not ejido and the landowner has the right to evict the squatters.

Udo - 8-13-2010 at 10:21 AM

You picked a better place to lay your shingle, Comitan. Playa Mora looked higly developed.

BMG - 8-13-2010 at 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Here is a site about Tenacatita, this is what a rich Mexican is after.

http://sparks-mexico.com/costalegre/tenacatita/tenacatita-be...

In the picture Playa Mora is where we have spent many winters.

I know a lot of cruisers that love anchoring in the bay. It certainly is beautiful, but I would wager it will look a lot different in 20 years.

jureal - 8-13-2010 at 10:24 AM

Lots of speculation over there right now. Much uncertainty as to whether any structures have been destroyed. Lots of rumors circulating. Too soon to make judgments yet.

vandenberg - 8-13-2010 at 12:03 PM

What happened to that tale I've always heard, that, after you've been there a certain length of time, you have squatters rights ??

Woooosh - 8-13-2010 at 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vandenberg
What happened to that tale I've always heard, that, after you've been there a certain length of time, you have squatters rights ??

Don't think those rules apply for Federal Zone squatters. Away from the beach there is a system to squat and get the actual land title eventually. On federal zone usage/rights are only granted by completion of a federal concession application and a Federal Title is issued.

When these people were handed the 220 land titles to their property- it would only have taken one of them to apply for the Federal Concession to protect it. The article says the old owner obtained the concession in 1993. You can only have one legitimate title for apiece of land- so the Federal Concession Title would win. Once the water advances inland- your land rights will be taken away once it lies in the Federal Zone and you need to apply for the concession title I think.

[Edited on 8-13-2010 by Woooosh]

Dave - 8-13-2010 at 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vandenberg
What happened to that tale I've always heard, that, after you've been there a certain length of time, you have squatters rights ??

Simple possession doesn't get it. You have to pay property taxes and normalize a title.

Udo - 8-13-2010 at 12:16 PM

From the photos that I saw, the buildings appear to be within the Federal Zone.

BajaBlanca - 8-13-2010 at 12:30 PM

scary information. don't like any of it. reminds me of the nightmare evictions in Ensenada way back when ...

Woooosh - 8-13-2010 at 12:56 PM

people gripe about the California Coastal Commission and all its regulations and restrictions- but any Mexican system that protects the beach, creates smart zoning and respects the people's rights who actually paid for the land and the taxes would be welcome.

toneart - 8-13-2010 at 01:12 PM

I know Tenacatita well! I have slept in hammocks at one of the beach restaurant concessions. A wonderful family owned and operated it. They had a young boy around 9 or 10 who had had schooling nearby, and also in the U.S. They said that when the boy returned from schooling in the U.S., he was behind in his classwork in Mexico. It was difficult catching up.

So, are all those that are being evicted Mexican locals? No Gringos? I have many friends, maybe a dozen from Nevada City, CA where I live when not in Mulege, who live in the next village called La Manzanilla. Most of them had their houses built on the hillside with a beautiful view of the cove and beach. I seem to remember one of them telling me that they don't have Fideicomisos.

I don't suppose they are also being threatened though. As others have stated here, it seems like it is either an ejido problem or a Federal Zone problem in Tenacatita.

Too bad! Although, if they were squatters, they have enjoyed years of a free ride. Doubt if any of them had a plan B. :?:

Lindalou - 8-13-2010 at 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
scary information. don't like any of it. reminds me of the nightmare evictions in Ensenada way back when ...

Also the evictions at Santispac. We didn't have our stuff thrown to the street (in our case the beach)but I'm sure we would have if we hadn't of left.

Santispac ???

BajaBlanca - 8-13-2010 at 07:39 PM

please enlighten me, must be b4 my time and I don't know what happened ...

stanburn - 8-13-2010 at 10:41 PM

I live in Manzanillo. Lots of rumors flying around on the net about the place. There were some gringos affected and as of 2 days ago nothing has been levelled.

Lindalou - 8-14-2010 at 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
please enlighten me, must be b4 my time and I don't know what happened ...

A few years ago, can't remember all the casitas, palapas and travel trailers on the beach were evicted. A lot of them moved and rebuilt at coyote bay.

BajaBlanca - 8-14-2010 at 07:38 PM

so, people had houses on the beach and they were destroyed ? People lived in them ? were they "squatters" ???

BMG - 8-14-2010 at 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stanburn
I live in Manzanillo. Lots of rumors flying around on the net about the place. There were some gringos affected and as of 2 days ago nothing has been levelled.

Would appreciate it if you would keep us posted on any new developments.

Udo - 8-14-2010 at 08:01 PM

To our knowledge, none were squatters, but a few built within the Federal zone. :?:

I think Pompano is a better authority on this than most of us. :bounce:

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
...were they "squatters" ???

Lindalou - 8-15-2010 at 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
so, people had houses on the beach and they were destroyed ? People lived in them ? were they "squatters" ???

(We), were not squatters, paid rent. They quit excepting it for a year to let us know we had to move. There were no houses, palapes and traveler trailers. Most everything was sold and removed from the beach. What wasent removed was mowed down. I think almost everyone left on their own. We were leaving anyway so no problem for us. We got most of our money back anyway.

BajaBlanca - 8-15-2010 at 10:09 AM

Thanks so much for explaining ... at least they gave you some advance notice and at least you were not an "owner" being kicked out ...

Am I correct in assuming that the reason for the oust was the proximity to the water ???

Hope the move was postive and that you are now in an even better location.

[Edited on 8-15-2010 by BajaBlanca]

toneart - 8-15-2010 at 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
Thanks so much for explaining ... at least they gave you some advance notice and at least you were not an "owner" being kicked out ...

Am I correct in assuming that the reason for the oust was the proximity to the water ???

Hope the move was postive and that you are now in an even better location.

[Edited on 8-15-2010 by BajaBlanca]

Blanca,

As I understand it, the ejido owns Santispac. There was deal made with a developer and the ejido had received a large sum as a down payment. Everyone who had built there had to go.
Then, as the economy started to deteriorate, the developer either backed out or put the plan on ice. (I am not sure exactly what happened).

Yes, they were palapas, but some were pretty elaborate. I hadn't heard of the Federal Zone being the reason for the eviction, but it certainly could have been as the palapas were right at water's edge.

Perhaps, because they were palapas, and could be considered temporary structures, they were paying rent to the ejido, who would have paid the government for the Federal Zone concession.

As I said, this is the way I heard it. Can anyone corroborate this information, or refute it?

Bottom line is, they had to move. They probably always knew that it could come to this someday. A few resisted for awhile, but most complied and even took down the structures themselves.

Lock, Stock and Teardrop... I'll Be Gone

Mulegena - 8-15-2010 at 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
Thanks so much for explaining ... at least they gave you some advance notice and at least you were not an "owner" being kicked out ...

[Edited on 8-15-2010 by BajaBlanca]

As I understand it, the ejido owns Santispac. There was deal made with a developer and the ejido had received a large sum as a down payment. Everyone who had built there had to go.
Then, as the economy started to deteriorate, the developer either backed out or put the plan on ice. (I am not sure exactly what happened).

Yes, they were palapas, but some were pretty elaborate.

... they were paying rent to the ejido, who would have paid the government for the Federal Zone concession.

As I said, this is the way I heard it. Can anyone corroborate this information, or refute it?

Bottom line is, they had to move... A few resisted for awhile, but most complied and even took down the structures themselves.

Everyone on Playa Santispac were, indeed owners; they owned the "construction and improvements", not the land itself, and as such paid rent to the property owner, in this case the ejido.

They took down their structures themselves and collectively left nothing behind for the ejido to inherit.

Playa Santispac now sits as the pristine beach it always has been with modest, self-contained camping available. The ejido collects a nominal daily fee for campers.

There is no longer a "For Sale" sign up.

In my opinion, the ejido got greedy, hoped for a several-million dollar deal, jumped the gun and evicted its tenants who had willingly paid them a goodly yearly income only to lose all when the tenants left and took their houses with them, a move the ejido was never expecting.

Lindalou - 8-16-2010 at 05:14 PM

Thank you toneart for explaining it better then I could have. We live in Punta Banda now and are happy with our lives there. Are in the states now but hope to get back soon.

Insurance could provide peace of mind

mtgoat666 - 8-16-2010 at 05:38 PM

I suspect that banks caused the invention of title insurance to protect their loan assets. Perhaps if more people would take out mortgage loans in Mexico, then maybe powerful banks would create or cause title insurance that protects banks (and owners)

------------------------------
a story from Guadalajara Reporter 8/13/10:

Foreigners – perhaps as many as 40, mainly Americans and Canadians – who purchased beachfront land in Tenacatita are outraged by the actions of wealthy Guadalajara businessman Andres Villalobos, who, with the support of dozens of armed Jalisco state police officers, has appropriated their properties, even though many have legal titles held in bank trusts.

Villalobos, who obtained a court order to carry out the eviction of around 50 low-income families, has vowed to demolish every standing structure in a 80-hectare tract of land bordering Tenacatita beach, regardless whether they are legally titled to others. State police and employees of Villalobos’ company, Inmobiliaria Rodenas, have blocked the road to the beach and are keeping everyone off the land.

As of press time, this newspaper has learned that while some palapa beach huts and restaurants may have been torn down, the concrete structures are still standing.

“(Villalobos) intended to demolish the buildings but appears to have suspended the work,” said Guadalajara lawyer Miguel Alfonso Medrano Chavez, who filed an amparo (a court order protecting individual and constitutional rights) on behalf of the local ejido (farm cooperative) last Friday. A foreigner who managed to get close to the beach in a boat this week also confirmed that buildings were still standing.

Tenacatita beach before the August 4 landgrab.
Medrano, who will file lawsuits on behalf of three foreign landowners this week, said Villalobos’ employees are erecting fencing to keep people out. He said police officers are not respecting the amparo, which legally permits ejido members and the owners of lots and homes to return to their properties.

Foreigners who believed they owned legitimate land in Tenacatita are horrified at what has occurred.

“If titled land can be seized like this then Mexico has a bigger problem than I do,” said Sylvia Fox, who bought a third of an acre in 2007.

“We’re sick over this,” said Canadian Doug Ewart, who purchased two beach lots in 2007. “You work your whole career and retire, go to Mexico are welcomed with open arms and then this happens.”

Over the past four to five years, many foreigners purchased lots that they believed in good faith to be fully certified land belonging to the Resbalse de Apazulco ejido in one of Jalisco’s most beautiful and undeveloped coastal areas, 30 kilometers north of Barra de Navidad.

Although buying ejido land can be complicated, some of the foreigners have already received legal titles to their properties. Many were drawn up by one of the area’s most respected notaries, who even purchased land there himself. As a rule, most ejiditarios don’t sell their land but sell the rights to it – a power of attorney with a 30 or more year lease. Some buyers, however, had their properties held in trust with a bank (a fideicomisio) – a standard way of buying beachfront property in Mexico, which under the law cannot be owned outright by foreigners. A few had already started to build homes and infrastructure on their land.

Many buyers, however, were blissfully unaware that the ejido had for years been involved in a court battle with Villalobos, the former president of the Guadalajara Chamber of Commerce and current president of Expo Guadalajara, whose claim to the land dates back two decades, when he says he purchased it from Paz Gortazar de Gonzalez Gallo, the widow of former Jalisco governor Jesus Gonzalez Gallo (1947-1953).

The full reality of the land’s murky history surfaced last week, when lawyers, acting on the ruling of a state circuit court judge in Cihuatlan, enacted an eviction order on all those living in the 80-hectare area.

Irene Stipperger, a German citizen and the only foreigner in the zone at the time, was one of the first to be roused from her bed when the lawyers and 150 “supporting” state police officers entered the area in the early hours of August 4.

Stipperger bought land in Tenacatita from the ejido in February 2009 through Gilberto Rodriguez, a realtor working out of San Patricio Melaque. She built a modest home and some bungalows and changed her immigration status to allow her to work as a hotel owner. She dumped all her savings into the business and opened her doors last December.

Stipperger held her ground for 13 hours, demanding to see the eviction order in her name – lawyers said individual names did not need to be cited in the document – and insisting that she had legal title to her property. Eventually forced to leave, she’s now living at a friend’s house in nearby El Resbalsito, while trying to get by on her 4,000-peso-a-month, euro-denominated pension.

This newspaper has learned tIrene Stipperger, a German citizen, was the only foreigner to be evicted from her home in the August 4 operation. Dozens of other foreigners, however, own land in the disputed area.
here could be as many as 40 foreigners with tiles in the disputed Tenacatita beach area.

Many of the deeds were drawn up by Narciso P. Lomeli, the most well-known notary public in Cihuatlan. Lomeli said to his knowledge the Rebalsito ejido was granted the land bordering the beach at Tenacatita in the 1960s and that in 2006 it was regularized under the Programa de Certificacion de Derechos Ejidales (PROCEDE), with the titles signed by President Vicente Fox. According to Francisco Martinez Flores, the leader of the ejido, 220 land titles were handed out and the deeds duly recorded in La Huerta’s municipal register. Once privatized, the owners of the lots were free to sell them as they pleased.

Villalobos’ lawyer Jorge Diaz Topete, who served the eviction notice, said he has never seen one of the PROCEDE deeds and claims the Supreme Court ruled back in 1977 that the land in question was not ejido land. “The ejidiatorios know that,” he told the Guadalajara Reporter this week. “The (PROCEDE titles) have got to be a manipulation on the part of the ejido and the federal government. Something is very wrong.”

The fact that both Villalobos and the ejiditarios apparently have titles to the same piece of land might not surprise some seasoned real estate veterans in Mexico but the contradiction looks set to open up a legal quagmire.

What many of the property owners find so incredulous is that a Ciuhuatlan judge was persuaded to issue an eviction order when he clearly must have known that dozens of people that he would effectively be throwing off their properties had legal titles.

Equally unclear is how PROCEDE, which is operated by several federal government agencies, chiefly the Procuraduria Agraria, Reforma Agraria and National Statistics Institute (INEGI), was able to issue titles for land that was still being fought over in the courts – something that the program specifically is barred from doing.

Clearing up the mess is going to take a legal magician, especially given Mexico’s laborious court system.

After obtaining an amparo for the ejido from a district civil court judge in Guadalajara, lawyer Medrano was contacted by other landowners asking him to take legal action against Villalobos.

“We have the amparo which says they must open up the area but the police are having none of it,” Medrano told the Reporter.

The way Diaz Topete spins it, the ejidatorios are to blame themselves. He says that in 1993 the ejido filed a claim in a civil court under a process called prescripcion positiva, similar to adverse possession, a principle of real estate law whereby somebody who possesses the land of another for an extended period of time may be able to claim legal title to that land.

Over the years, Diaz Topete said, courts at all levels have ruled against the ejidatarios, while they continued to encroach on and speculate with the land. Diaz Topete said that “activists” have infiltrated the community and manipulated the local population. “They’re using them as canon fodder,” he said.

Several local realtors, including Santana Realty, promoted the lots in Tenacatita, although some had doubts. Jim Monaco bought a home in nearby Arroyo Seco and got title insurance from Stewart Title. He was leery of buying land in Tenacatita, but started listing lots and a home there for a Mexican and two Americans. He had heard that ejido leaders were crooked and had been grabbing land that wasn’t theirs. “The ejido was evidently as crooked as they come,” he said.

Daniel Hallas of Costa Alegre Properties in La Manzanilla said he never allowed a client to buy land in Tenacatita, and just this week received a commission from a client for talking him out of buying land there.

“(The ejido) has to have a perfect track record. Here (in La Manzanilla), every time someone has a problem our ejido helps them out. I don’t think anybody has ever lost a dime here.”

But many people trusted the purchases because banks were doing proper due diligence before putting the properties in trust.

“We were told because we had a bank trust our property was very safe to own – no one could dispute ownership,” said Darcy Hagin, another buyer.

Ewart, who purchased two beach lots in 2007, said he knew nothing about the ongoing litigation between the ejido and Villalobos. When Villalobos’ henchmen squared up to locals in 2008 (police arrested eight people), he believed it was a dispute over the federal land concession rights with the palapa restaurateurs on the beach. (Villalobos obtained the federal beach concession in 1993 but locals say he has never paid the annual fees. Diaz Topete denies this.)

“We knew there was litigation concerning the concessions on the bay side but everyone said the ocean side is fine,” said Sylvia Fox. “No one ever said there was a problem. They told us Vicente Fox had issued the land titles. Everything was above board.”

Ewart is still waiting for his title but has constructed a seven-unit RV Park that includes underground wiring, water and two septic systems. He said he’s also invested heavily in a bathroom with toilet and sink and separate shower, as well as a storage room. He shared the expense with three other neighbors of putting in the culvert, road, transformer and electricity. “ I can’t afford to lose all this,” he said.

While Diaz Topete told the Reporter that it would be “prudent” for his client to sit down and talk to the foreigners who bought lots in the zone, he clarified that the demolition of properties would go ahead.

Sylvia Fox said there might be some room for negotiation. “If he wants to compensate me fully for my property I would be happy to sit down and talk to him with my lawyer.”

Said Ewart: “We believe they should be distinguishing between the land covered by the (federal) concession and the land that the ejido has been allowing to be sold off for titles.”

Although some of the landowners are in contact with each other, few are actually in the area. With the possibility of filing a class-action suit basically non-existent in Mexico, many are already hiring lawyers to see how they can protect their investments.

“The only way to get our rights back is strong and massive legal action. Everybody has to make a denouncement,” said Stipperger.

Diaz Topete told this newspaper that he did feel sympathy with their plight. But he added: “They now know what my client felt like for all those years he was unable to get into his property.”

Diaz Topete said it was too early to talk about how a future development might take shape, but a golf course was a “possibility.”

He denied that Villalobos planned to seal off public access to the beach area and construct a luxury resort for the rich.

While only one Guadalajara Spanish-language newspaper has followed the story with any real zeal, campesino organizations have been more active.

On Monday, August 16, at 9 a.m., hundreds of campesinos from diverse points in Jalisco are expected to converge on Guadalajara to march in support of their “brothers.” The protest is organized by the Confederacion Nacional Campesina (CNC), whose president Cruz Lopez Aguilar vows to “take the state palace” in protest at the way thousands of acres of coastal land is being “stolen” from campesinos, with the collusion of politicians, bureaucrats and the judiciary, to make way for elitist tourism projects. State riot police are expected to be out in force.

The politicians have also been quiet. Only one has entered the fray with any passion. To mark the 131st anniversary of the birth of revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, PRI Jalisco congressman Gabriel Ponce Miranda, the 72-year-old former leader of the Jalisco Agrarian Communities League, was stinging in his criticism for the government’s treatment of the working class and cited events in Tenacatita to make his point.

“The campesinos feel that history is being turned on its head,” Ponce said. “Today, in Jalisco and other parts of the country, the ejidos and unions are being crushed by a government that some might call fascist. They may not even be fascist, because at least the fascists of Mussolini protected the workers.”

The only comment from a state government official has come from Government Secretary Fernando Guzman, the governor’s second in command. He said state police were not the aggressors during the eviction and that the Gonzalez administration is taking no side in the land dispute, which he said was for the courts to decide.

Diver - 8-16-2010 at 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulegena

Everyone on Playa Santispac were, indeed owners; they owned the "construction and improvements", not the land itself, and as such paid rent to the property owner, in this case the ejido.

They took down their structures themselves and collectively left nothing behind for the ejido to inherit.

Beg to differ but all of the owners did not remove their palapas and belongings. Many removed belongings but few removed their palapas. Some were caught un-aware as they were up north when this all happened.
I was camping at El Requeson when they tore down the remaining palapas and sold the remaining improvements; solar panels, refrigerators, furniture, etc.
Some of the campers from El Requeson came home with goodies including whole wall and ceiling panels to construct a few new shelters at Requeson.

Mulegena - 8-16-2010 at 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diver

Quote:

As one can imagine it took several months for all the owners to the complete the process of having their palapas razed, if they chose to do so. As Tony said, they were palapas but many were elaborate two-story homes, some the principal residence of its owner. Others were hardly more than pleasant glorified beach shacks that their owners visited occasionally in winter. Its my observation that most owners did not abandon their home or possessions to the ejido. There was an on-going mega-yardsale held by the owners of the palapas, not by the ejido. The owners were in communique with each other. If someone did not return to Santispac to clear out their dwelling it was not because they were unaware of the proceedings, I believe.

(note: edited for spelling error)

[Edited on 8-17-2010 by Mulegena]

BajaBlanca - 8-16-2010 at 09:06 PM

I must say I am absolutely in shock over all this. To hold title and then be told it is worthless is hogwash, ridiculous and downright cruel. How do these people sleep at night ?

mtgoat666 = thanks so much for posting the article, which clearly shows the underhandedness that was going on

toneart=thanks for making the palapa situation clear, you must have read my mind, cause I assumed they were simple little palapa structures and not real homes. just terrible.

surfer jim - 8-16-2010 at 09:08 PM

All I can say is "What a mess". Every one of the big land disputes has the same issue. Ejido land...someone very rich with political connections....."owners" who "were sure" that this time it was different and "their" land could not ever be challenged. Good luck to all but no happy ending here.

k-rico - 8-17-2010 at 10:29 AM

This sounds similar to the Punta Banda debacle which I think stemmed from a fundamental dispute as to whether of not the land was Ejido land or private land. My understanding is that a judge in Mexicali eventually ruled it was private land, which resulted in the evictions of both Mexicans and Americans living there.

Is that true?

DENNIS - 8-17-2010 at 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Is that true?

That's one hellova question to ask in Mexico:

http://www.bajarush.com/docs/PuntaBanda.pdf

k-rico - 8-17-2010 at 12:04 PM

Thanks DENNIS. That article agrees with what I heard (true or not). I further heard/read that the Punta Banda issue did not arise until the property owners died and willed the property to their children. The children then decided to enforce their rights. The dispute was due to the Agricultural Ministry, which oversees Ejido land, having a map that showed the land belonged to the Ejido but the other gov. organization that oversees private land, had a map that showed the property to be private property. In other words, the Ejido folks weren't deceiving the people that rented the land, they actually thought the land belonged to the Ejido.

I understand it took 10 years in the Mexicali courts to resolve the issue.

A rare occurance that seems to be repeating, in a way, on the mainland.

[Edited on 8-17-2010 by k-rico]

DENNIS - 8-17-2010 at 12:10 PM

I have some more extensive info....somewhere. Let me go on a quest and I'll get back to you.

Bob and Susan - 8-17-2010 at 12:25 PM

Quote:

Everyone on Playa Santispac were, indeed owners; they owned the "construction and improvements"...

no...
improvments on rented land become the property of the landowner...period

the renter has no rights to take the improvments with them when they leave unless the landloard approves

the ONLY thing a renter owns is his furniture and clothes

the people at santispac were renters that were "asked" to leave

unless you have a "notarized" lease...
you have a month to month rental agreement
and live there on the "whim" of the landowner

toneart - 8-17-2010 at 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
Thanks DENNIS. That article agrees with what I heard (true or not). I further heard/read that the Punta Banda issue did not arise until the property owners died and willed the property to their children. The children then decided to enforce their rights. The dispute was due to the Agricultural Ministry, which oversees Ejido land, having a map that showed the land belonged to the Ejido but the other gov. organization that oversees private land, had a map that showed the property to be private property. In other words, the Ejido folks weren't deceiving the people that rented the land, they actually thought the land belonged to the Ejido.

I understand it took 10 years in the Mexicali courts to resolve the issue.

A rare occurance that seems to be repeating, in a way, on the mainland.

[Edited on 8-17-2010 by k-rico]

If they held Fideicomissos, the heirs would be written into the document and succession would execute according to law...no need to exercise "property rights". Did the Punta Banda homeowners have Fidos, or were they granted titles by the ejido?

Regarding those in Tenacatita:
If the Mexican Government doesn't stand behind the Fideicomissos, the instrument that the government established as the legal way to own property in Baja through a bank trust, then that would render all Fido holders with a worthless document, wouldn't it???

That would surely be the end of any more investment in Mexico. :fire:

Bob and Susan - 8-17-2010 at 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diver

Some were caught un-aware as they were up north when this all happened.

no...

rent was not accepted for quite a while

if the renters you talked to said they didn't know...
they were in denial

everyone around here knew what was happening

Santiago - 8-17-2010 at 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
unless you have a "notarized" lease...
you have a month to month rental agreement
and live there on the "whim" of the landowner

Bob: one question I've never been able to get answered and wonder if you know:
I assume that under Mexican law that if you've pre-paid for the month's rent, you have the right to live there for that month. However, most of us pay our 'lease' payment annually. If the landlord accepts the annual payment, are they then obligated to allow the renter that year?

Lindalou - 8-17-2010 at 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan

Quote:

Originally posted by Diver

Some were caught un-aware as they were up north when this all happened.

no...

rent was not accepted for quite a while

if the renters you talked to said they didn't know...
they were in denial

everyone around here knew what was happening

Yes, you are right we all knew for a year. I do mean all of us.

[Edited on 8-17-2010 by RichnLinda]

Lindalou - 8-17-2010 at 02:59 PM

Quote:

I don't think, in my opinion anyway there is anywhere in the world like stepping out your door onto the beach and then walk ten feet and be standing in the ocean.

We were not on the grid had to live on solor and generators, no running water or sewer hard to get TV and internet so it was beach living for sure. Couldn't live there in the summer, heat and humidity would almost kill a gringo but it was a beautiful place to live. Hey we lived right in front of Ana's and Rays before it burnt down while all this was happining. Ana's is still there though.

k-rico - 8-17-2010 at 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Did the Punta Banda homeowners have Fidos, or were they granted titles by the ejido?

I think all the houses were built on leased land. Land leased out by the Ejido which was judged to be land that was not theirs to lease, although they thought it was theirs.

[Edited on 8-17-2010 by k-rico]

Bajahowodd - 8-17-2010 at 03:47 PM

You're correct. This is a somewhat self-serving article, but does lay out the facts.

http://www.bajarush.com/docs/PuntaBanda.pdf

BajaBlanca - 8-18-2010 at 08:26 PM

Does anyone have friends in Costa Rica or Belize or Guatemala and do they have the same issues with their land being yanked over land disputes over and over like in Mexico ?