If land I own sinks into the ocean, do I own the corresponding part of the ocean? Let's say I buy a plot of land by the ocean, but then due to sea level rising a section of my land is now below sea level. Do I now own the corresponding part of the sea? This question seems to say that I cannot actually own land by the ocean or a part of the ocean itself. The most I can own is up to the high tide mark. However, if the sea level rises then the amount of land I own would also decrease, in which case do I get compensation?
In england-and-wales and scotland, no. At common law, with a hefty influence from Roman writers such as Gaius who tackled the topic, gradual changes in a natural boundary are distinguished from others. This is usually encountered in the case of a river, whose course may change slightly from year to year. New deposits are laid down and other parts are eroded, generally imperceptibly. These processes are called alluvion and diluvion, and distinguished from avulsion where a chunk of identifiable land is washed downriver. Deliberately-induced changes are also different. For those slow and natural changes, the position is that where ownership of the land is defined with reference to the natural boundary, the extent of ownership also changes when the boundary moves. This is a sensible rule in the absence of modern surveying methods, and generally matches what people expect - I own the land on the south bank, you own it on the north, and it doesn't make sense for me to gain a sliver of land on the other side if the river should happen to meander a bit. It is possible to override that assumption by agreement between the landowners (or else litigate it) but that is the starting point. The sea works in the same way, except that the &quot;landowner&quot; on the other side is the Crown. (Quotation marks because it is not the same kind of ownership that ordinary people exercise.) The intermediate area, the foreshore, has its own rules, so in fact there are multiple boundaries to think about - the mean high water mark, the mean low water mark - but it's the same idea. The foreshore might be owned by the Crown, as the sea is, but maybe by somebody else. Perhaps what was my land is now underwater at high tide, but exposed at low tide; and some other bit of land used to be foreshore and now is totally submerged. Everyday tidal changes do not affect ownership, nor do unusually large tides either way. But if I own land next to the sea, I may gain some land, or lose it, by natural action. Gradually rising sea levels move the tide lines and the property rights follow. Some riverbeds are also owned by the Crown, so the same principle is at work there too for the motion of Crown boundaries. The rationale for why the Crown owns these places is not clear: there are several possible explanations to do with it being for the common good, or alternatively just an old feudal rule. That might affect adjudication of rights in some cases, such as for access to the &quot;new foreshore&quot; for particular activities: see R (Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd) v East Sussex CC [2015] UKSC 7 for an investigation of the public right to swim on an English beach. Even in the case of Udal law in Orkney and Shetland, ownership does not extend to the sea beyond the low-tide mark, since the Crown has sovereign rights (Shetland Salmon Farmers Association v Crown Estate Commissioners 1991 SLT 166). In land registration, a boundary marked on a cadastral map is not taken as authoritative when the underlying geographical feature moves. That's in the Land Registration Act 2002, section 61(1) for England and Wales, and the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2002, sections 66 and 73(2)(i) in Scotland. Courts have inferred that a boundary coinciding with such a feature is &quot;meant&quot; to be this way, even if it wasn't defined like that in words - see for example Southern Centre of Theosophy Incorporated v The State of South Australia (Australia) [1981] UKPC 41 in the Privy Council. So, even if the map shows my coastal property apparently extending into the large blue area, that is not the real situation - it just means that the registries are not required to keep those maps up to date when the waters shift.
No, lowering the value of a asset does not constitute a "taking" of the property. The investors can still exercise their property and mineral rights, they are merely restricted from performing fracking. You mentioned drilling; as far as I am aware, the ordinance only prevents fracking, which I believe is a practice of inserting water in a well to force oil to the surface. There are several older techniques such as drilling and pumping that where developed centuries ago that could be used, that as I recall are not banned. For another example: Say you had a car that got low gas mileage, but was desirable because despite this it had low running and maintenance costs. If the government (federal, state or local) passes a sufficiently high excise tax on gasoline, the running costs of the car may exceed it's competitors, causing it to lose value: this would not be considered "taking" your car either, since you own the same exact vehicle.
The situation you describe is ordinary condemnation not inverse condemnation. If the government is actively taking legal/transactional effort to acquire the lot it is a condemnation. An inverse condemnation is when the government takes property without court process or trying to pay for it, and you sue for compensation for the property that was taken. If the government just bulldozed a sidewalk in someone's front yard without asking, and the owner sued the government for compensation, that would be an inverse condemnation case. The short answer is that the government has every right to condemn property adjacent to a highway for use as a sidewalk. This is a classic public purpose. Generally, the government must first attempt to acquire the property out of court by making an offer for the land, and, if it is unsuccessful in getting the owner to accept its offer, it will bring an eminent domain action to seize the land for public purposes. In the eminent domain case, the government will win on its right to condemn the land and to take immediate possession of it pending a determination of its value, because the government has the right to seize land to build sidewalks. Then, the rest of the eminent domain case will be over the fair market value of the land taken.
If you buy a house and your wife signs a quitclaim deed to you, that transfers to you whatever rights she has in the house. Similarly, if you and your wife sign an agreement that anything deposited in a particular bank account in your name would be your separate property, that would override the pre-nup as far as that account was concerned. Such an agreement could include a dollar limit per month or per year, or an explicit purpose, such as savings for a down payment. (It could be thought of as a gift to you of her share of any funds deposited.) Giving property to your parents or others with the understanding that it will be returned on your request might be seen as an attempt to evade the pre-nup, and a court might hold that the property was actually shared, if you ever do divorce. There might also be gift tax issues if the value is high enough. Whether asking your wife to agree to a quitclaim or any sort of agreement to modify the pre-nup would help or harm your marriage I cannot know, nor did you ask that. But I would think that for most people being open would work better than going behind a spouse's back. None of this should be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer.
Yes, this is illegal. If by "across the state" you mean some distance away but in the same state then the exact law will depend on which state you are in, but as a rule any "conversion" of property to the use of another counts as theft. In this case your aunt has "converted" the property to the use of your Nan (funny legal phrase). The fact that the people doing this are your relatives makes no difference. (When asking about the law here you should always say which state you are in.) Although theft is a crime, you could also start a civil case to get your property back without involving the police. The details depend on where you are, but try googling "(your state) small claims court". Many states have a process for collecting low-value debts or other property without needing lawyers. You need to have a firm conversation with your aunt about this. Tell her that you want your property back, and don't back down. Also call your Nan and explain this to her as well; she may not have realised that she is in possession of stolen property, which is usually a separate crime. If you want more advice on how to get your property back without starting a family row then you might ask on the Interpersonal Skills SE, but it might be better to start with "When are you planning to return my property?" and leave "You are a thief" as a last resort. Edit: As Eric Nolan points out in the comments, you may be a minor. If you are under 18 then your aunt has authority over you that she wouldn't have if you were older. For instance, if she is concerned about your use of video games impacting school-work then confiscating your console and putting it out of your reach would be perfectly legal.
It occurred to me after that the fence would have been at the edge of the Canadian landowners property and the land between the fence and the border was a road allowance on crown land. This is one possibility, others are: The border post is in the wrong place The fence is in the wrong place Both are in the wrong place The US rancher owns land in Canada as well as the US Obviously the Montana Rancher is using Canadian land, but where is his fence supposed to be? Well, its not so obvious but anyway: Who says he has to have one? I am not aware of a law that requires a person to fence their property. Should it be right on the border? Assuming that is the edge of his land (which it might not be, see above) and assuming he wants to put a fence up (which he might not want to do) and assuming that he wants to put it on the edge of his property (because he could put it inside if he wants to) then yes. Or is there a strip of land there which is national land reserved for border patrol purposes? You don't know, I don't know - if you are really keen land ownership is public information; check with the governments of Alberta and Montana.
The notice has a lot to do with legacy requirements in the United States to claim the copyright to a work. Up until 1989, the copyright notice was required. Today, the statements are mainly maintained to protect against "innocent infringement" which might reduce what a content owner can get in court. What exactly do those terms entail? That the owner stated owns all rights and you may do nothing with the content. My biggest concern is this: by writing that, is the company claiming to own everything on the website, even potentially copyrighted user-submitted material? That's exactly what they are doing. Depending on the terms of the specific site, content contributors generally either assign copyright to the site owner or license the content in a way that allows the site owner to do exactly what they want with it. Site creators with the smarts or money to do it right/get someone to do it right usually state something like: Copyright [Site Owner] and contributors. Other sites (like this one) state specifically what they hold the copyright to: site design / logo © 2015 Stack Exchange Inc THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY REGARDING YOUR SPECIFIC SITUATION.
Would capital gains taxes come into play given that the house is his daughters primary residence, but not his? Yes. He sold something that was his property, i.e., his [long term] asset. The fact that it was not his primary residence is irrelevant in this regard. The issue of primary vs. non-primary residence might be relevant only for purposes of computing the applicable credits and/or deductions, but that is very jurisdiction-specific.