Woman Buys Land Covered by a Lake, Sues for Drainage
By Foreclosure-Fighter Staff Writer
With the country in the midst of a foreclosure crisis, some real estate investors have seized the chance to scoop up properties at bargain prices in foreclosure sales. For some novices, though, the investments don't always prove lucrative.
Kristin Wallace, a North Carolina woman who began investing in real estate less than two years ago, has found herself in a bit of a predicament, according to reports from the Wake County News & Observer.
Apparently, Wallace purchased eight acres of land for the bargain price of $12,500, perhaps without realizing that land at the bottom of a lake is rarely worth much money. Now, the real estate novice has reportedly decided to sue Wake County and the city of Raleigh, insisting that they should drain the water on her newly-purchased land.
Lake Lynn wasn't always a lake—it used to be part of a farm. Sources indicate that the city of Raleigh created several lakes and dams in the 1970s as part of anti-flooding measures. The project, called the Crabtree Creek Flood Control Act, was designed to improve the overall quality of land in the area.
In the 1980s, Lake Lynn Development, which owned the dry land around the lake's borders, bought the lake as well. The shores soon filled with houses and apartment complexes, but Lake Lynn Development eventually went out of business.
As a result of the development company's insolvency, taxes had not been paid on the land beneath Lake Lynn for more than ten years, reports show. When county officials noticed the tax delinquency, they decided to put the land up for sale, more as a "housekeeping" decision than anything else, according to reports.
They didn't really expect anyone to bid on the submerged land.
Land bought at tax auctions is sold "as is," according to county officials. And Wallace reportedly claims that she was aware of the land's location when she made her purchase. Perhaps this is why county officials have expressed confusion at Wallace's decision to sue the county and city for drainage of the land.
Reports indicate that Wallace's lawyer announced the lawsuit after several of his requests that the city or county buy back the land were rejected. The suit allegedly cites continued pedestrian use of the footbridge over the lake as "trespassing," and claims that the county's decision to leave the lake flooded as part of an "anti-flooding" measure is "malicious."
But both city and county officials think the case should be dismissed, notes the News & Observer. A representative from the County's Attorney's office has pointed out that buying flooded land "as is" decidedly means buying that land flooded, and added that the laws permitting pedestrians on the footbridge under previous ownership of the lake are still in place under its new ownership.
Most people involved with the case have said it's the first of its kind. Most likely, Ms. Wallace will learn from this experience and do a bit more research before her next big land purchase.