I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
That person is a random clerk
> possibly after appeals
I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction).
I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession.
But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules").
You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
Can you name a country that behaves differently?
It's more like you lease the land :)
Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.
Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.
It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.
Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
>>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion.
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...