How much ocean does a person with a beachhouse own and what can he do with it? Assume a person owns a beach house in California. How far into the ocean does this person own as a landowner? Does the person own all coral reef, rocks and other things in the ocean in his owner portion of the ocean? How far are ships allowed to sail in proximity of his shoreline? Can this person pile up rocks on his portion of his owned ocean and build a structure such as a guesthouse on it? Do these laws, permits and restrictions of building and ocean ownership change depending on the county of California or are they all the same? Do they change based on state or are they the same anywhere in the USA?
California has a particular set of regulations addressing coastal land ownership, detailed at https://www.coastal.ca.gov/laws/ In short, everything below the high-tide mark along the coast is public access. If you own coastal property, you don't own anything below that point and you cannot prevent public access, as explained in Why California's Beaches are Open to Everyone. (This high-tide mark is also rising due to sea-level rise, which has added additional complications.) Additionally, there is a designated coastal zone of varying width in which where all proposed development must be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. Not only would you not be allowed to pile up rocks in the ocean to build a foundation for a guest house, you'd even have to seek commission approval for significant changes to your existing house within the coastal zone. Coastal regulations vary in other states, but are generally shaped by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
To be able to sue the appraiser, he would have to have a duty to you. If he was hired by a bank, his duty is to the bank and not to you. Assuming that you directly hired the appraiser, then you would have to check the contract for limits on his liability – a clause that says "you waive your right to sue me for (certain) mistakes". Now supposing that you haven't waived your right to sue, you almost certainly cannot sue for misrepresentation, unless for some reason you can prove that he knew that he was lying to you. Your best bet is arguing that his mistake was negligent. You would have to establish that the first figure was incorrect (a disagreement in figures does not establish which figure is correct). A discrepancy between county records and an appraiser's estimate can be explained by numerous non-negligence related facts (unpermitted modifications of the structure, for example). Suppose that the source of the discrepancy is inclusion of finished basement space in the earlier appraisal, or perhaps measurement error. Then you would have to prove that that error involved a lack of professional care, which implies certain professional standards (not just your feeling that the error is egregious). This article explains the ANSI guidelines. The standard tends to increase square footage because it is measured from the outside. Then you would have to establish that you were damaged by the earlier figure. The law doesn't allow you to sue because someone does something that bugs you, you have to have suffered damage. You don't say how you were harmed – I presume the problem is that the buyer's bank is not willing to lend that much money, where you relied on an earlier incorrect estimate of square footage in advertising the house and setting the price. You may have contributed to the problem by relying on that estimate when you knew or should have known from the government records that the size is something less. There is some possibility of legal recourse, but it's not obvious (so gather all of your facts and talk to your attorney).
A lease of land is not the same as a residential lease, the latter being strongly regulated by special laws. So caveat emptor is the default rule for land leases (see this article). You have to look at the laws of your state, but let's take Washington as an example. This is not a residential tenancy which is subject to different laws, it's just leasing land, similar to leasing a chainsaw or a car. Your implied warranty would be that the land is fit for the ordinary purposes for which land is used, and that is all. It might be worth wondering about whether building a cabin on the land changes your property tax liability.
Summary: More information needed, but I have listed out some legal claims available to homeowners when they have similar concerns. There are several issues here which need elaboration before deciding if you can take legal action. The first is: "the destroyed some vegetation on my street." If the by "my street" you mean that the street is part of your property, you may sue the builders for trespass and/or damage to property. If the street isn't your property, but the vegetation is your property, you may sue them for destruction of your property. What you are probably looking for, however, is a prohibitive injunction. This is a court order forcing the builders to avoid doing something, e.g. An order forcing them to avoid using roads adjacent to your property. To obtain such an injunction you will have to prove that what they are doing is violating your rights, is somehow harmful to you or your property, or inevitably will do either of those things. One way to demonstrate this is if you can show that you have a claim under nuisance, or damage to property, or trespass. On the description you have given us, there isn't enough to say your rights are being violated, or that your property has come to harm or will come to harm because of their actions. You should also be aware of claims under nuisance. Nuisance is when someone is doing something that prevents you from "peaceful enjoyment of your land". It appears from your question that the actions of these builders have, in your mind, done this. However there are several aspects that have to be satisfied for this to amount to private nuisance: What the builder are doing must be a "continuing state of affairs." They may have annoyed you by trampling over vegetation, but if this is a "one-off" event, it is unlikely to amount to nuisance. A reasonable person must find the conduct to interfere with the enjoyment of their land. That is to say: it isn't enough that their conduct is making you unable to enjoy your land peacefully, you have to show that any reasonable person in the same situation would find this conduct unacceptable. Finally, the context of your neighbourhood matters: if the behaviour is something expected in a residential area, then it will not amount to a nuisance. For example, heavy drilling in an industrial location will not amount to a nuisance, while the same may do so in a normally quiet neighbourhood.
Not in the state of California. California law prohibits discrimination based on source of income; only discrimination based on amount of income is allowed. See the California Government Code, section 12955. It is not even legal to indicate a preferred source of income in the advertisement; landlords may ask prospective tenants about the source of income, but may not discriminate or indicate preference for a particular source (provided it's a lawful source). Also, you can't really force a city to re-zone based on "I'll make sure this bad thing doesn't happen." If the city doesn't want to re-zone, they won't re-zone. You have no right to force them to re-zone; this is especially true when the property was purchased under those zoning rules (if the buyer didn't like them, they didn't have to buy).
There are many ways that property can be owned other than by natural persons (not necessarily businesses). Property can be owned by entities and other legal personalities (such as corporations, corporations sole, limited liability companies, limited partner associations, nominees, non-profit corporations, cooperatives, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, trusts, business trusts, estates, conservatorships, governmental entities, unincorporated associations, tontines, funds, etc.), as well as by natural persons. Ownership of property by something other than natural persons dates, at least, to the Song Dynasty in China and to at least the 13th century in Europe. A good modern example is MERS which is the nominee holder of mortgages that are then traded commercially (often electronically, often in transactions not involving humans between entities). A similar example, is street name ownership of a publicly held security within which electronic trades are facilitated. Even when trusts are not created intentionally, they can be implied in law. In New Zealand, even a river can have corporate personality (an idea proposed in legal scholarship decades earlier) and thus has legal standing to sue and own property, through a representative appointed by a legal process. This river can bring lawsuits and own property. While these entities must be formed by individuals at the outset, some kinds of entities and trusts, such as non-profits and charitable trusts, do not have human &quot;owners&quot; in any meaningful sense. You can also have trusts that are for the benefit of animals or the graves of deceased people. The issue of &quot;dead hand control&quot; is a long standing one in the law, which was first addressed in the common law tradition in the Duke of Norfolk's Case of 1682 which gave rise to what is known now as the Rule Against Perpetuities (which now has many exceptions). There is also no prohibition on entities or legal instruments making decisions based upon formulas or programs, indeed, certain kinds of mutual funds (e.g index funds and exchange traded funds), which are generally organized as business trusts, are required to carry out their operational duties in a formulaic manner. Legal instruments such as deeds creating life estates and residuary estates, joint tenancy deeds, and beneficiary deeds have transferred real property by operation for law for hundreds of years without human intervention at the time of transfer, operating as simple &quot;programs&quot;. Likewise, business transactions are routinely effected electronically without human intervention. Lots of e-commerce is conducted in that manner. For example, you do that when you use an ATM or go to a self-check out kiosk for a movie or at an airport or in a grocery store. Sometimes these programs are called &quot;electronic agents&quot; but they need not be agents of a natural person, they could also be (and indeed, usually are) agents of a legal personality that is not a natural person. Even before electronics were invented, vending machines mechanically effected business transactions, transferring title to the personal property contained within them, without human involvement. An early non-human device that conducted business transactions without electronics. (Similar devices have existed as far back as antiquity in classical Greece, dispensing Holy Water.) An entity could be formed that transacts principally via blockchain and that entity would not even have to have owners. It would have to have natural persons affiliated with it in some way, but its main businesses could be conducted by a computer system that these affiliated natural persons put into place for an entity that they form. Legal instruments like paper currency, checks, negotiable promissory notes, bearer bonds, negotiable warehouse receipts, and derivatives all have some of the features associated with blockchains (i.e. incorporating a third-party non-natural person's involvement in a transaction without active management by natural persons). In general, a blockchain is not a legal innovation and introduces nothing that is legally new or revolutionary. It is old wine poured into new skins.
The mortgage is not relevant in the way you think it is What matters is who owns the property. The owner(s) of the property must agree with the tenant (or, more likely here, boarder) on the terms. The owner(s) need to agree between themselves how to split the income although for tax purposes it would generally be assessed in proportion to the owner’s shares. Note that the mortgage may not allow tenants or boarders or may require the permission of the mortgage.
germany German Länder do not provide any citizenship-like benefits. You are a resident and that determines your administrative duties like where you register your car, which public school you can go to, where and which taxes you have to pay etc. Some places in Germany differentiate their services between &quot;locals&quot; and &quot;others&quot;, for example beach access in tourist cities is sometimes locked behind a fee to non-locals (aka tourists). But that never depends on federal state, but on way smaller units. Residents of one beach town might be &quot;tourists&quot; 20km down the road at the next city's beach. It is more of a &quot;the people whose taxes allow us to maintain this, go for free&quot; approach. Outside of badly translated internet forms originally made for the US, I have never been asked for my Bundesland. The Bundesland is not printed on our national ID cards. Although anybody with a little knowledge of geography (or access to Google) can find out your Bundesland by just looking up the actual address that is printed on the ID card, the information of which Bundesland this is is really not important outside of government bureaucracy.