I would not want to be the owner of either of the adjoining homes. As the buyer of the strip of land pointed out, he apparently could legally cut through the building on his property to get to his air space (or sell the strip to someone else who might do so).

This brings up an interesting Objectivist ethical question. If you own property that has no positive use, but can create problems for neighboring properties if you choose to exercise your property rights in a certain way, is it moral for you to require payment from the neighbors in exchange for not exercising your property rights in this manner?

(In this case the owner of the "strip" could charge the neighbors rent for the privilege of retaining the portion of their homes and garages that were built over the land that he now owns.)

This is the perfect guy to grab the 5 Acre plot of Ocean Front Property out in Arizona that comes with the Nigerian Princess who is soon to inherit her late father's fortunes.

Despite the contract that appraisers & inspectors require, boiler-plate which basically absolves them from fault, I submit that this may rise to the level of negligence, and possibly a prevailing verdict against his agents for failing to clearly identify that which he paid them to inspect and/or appraise. Just my $0.02

As for the county, well, how do you spell 'Corruption'? "B R O W A R D". What else would one expect from Democrats?

Oh, these tax auctions are amazing things to behold. Often times you DO NOT get enough information. And the Tax Lien sale BREAKS a mortgage!

But I have heard horror stories (in Broward, where I live), about people getting the property under a great tax lien sale, ONLY to find out they have to REMEDIATE Environmental Damages with the EPA Breathing down their neck. Something the county knew but was not required to disclose.

Hmm. It's like THEY write the laws for them...

LOL

Best comment was "Uh, it's BROWARD County. That should have alerted him before he bought it." I'll echo that here.

There had to be some description of the property that he bid on besides a $177K assessment. Whatever that description, it was probably fraudulent, even if just the assessment, and that should be his avenue for recovery. Fraud applies to local governments too!

OUCH!

The buyer was dumb but this looks like deliberate for deceptive criminal fraud to me dino.

Didn't he look at the "property" before he put his money in?

You can't get protections for stupidity.

He should have inspected the property prior to bidding on it or wasn't inspection allowed?