Geoff1131 wrote:Thanks, that answers some of my questions, but creates others. For ease of thought lets say your mother was one of four so she has 25% share in the property and the other three had 75% between them until they accepted the exchange property in the north as compensation. So now the authorities in the north own the 75% so who will decide what the property is worth whenever the situation arises, so that your mother can cash in, as it were her 25%? If it is the north's administration i would think they will put a low valuation on the property so as to take full control at the best price. If your mother puts too high a valuation on the property then i would expect the owner with the 75% stake to challenge the valuation. Otherwise you would have a reverse situation of the " Double Dipping " that you obviously feel to be unfair?
Once again, whichever system the regime in the north used to get the TCs to sign over their properties in the south to receive either stolen GC properties in the north or get some cash towards it means absolutely nothing to the RoC. As far as they are concerned, it was a scam what the north did, hence the fact, ALL the TCs who own property in the south are still the legal owners, and if and when there is a settlement, it is then the land ownership will be sorted out, but it is going to be very very messy for the TCs since if there were only 4 siblings as heirs to their parents property using your example back in 1974, now there may be 15-20 if any or all of the siblings are now dead. Their children are now the new heirs to their grandparent’s property. Good luck trying to get them all to agree on anything.
Now, to answer your question regarding the north who may be holding onto 75% of my mother's family property as "owners" and then they set a very low valuation on the other 25%, then my mother will offer to buy out the 75% at the same valuation set by the north. Simple really. But that won't even come to play I don't think, because none of my mother's siblings and herself are listed as the owners of their land in the south. All of the family property is still under the name of their parents at the RoC land registry office and not the name of the regime in the north. Now, unless the courts in the RoC through probate groups all the land and gets a valuation for the whole thing and then either the siblings can offer to buy each others equal share, or sell the whole thing and receive equal share each, or each piece of property is divided equally to each sibling, in another words, each piece of property would have 4 equal share owners, which is the worst of all other options.
There are many TCs in the situation where they got points but they never used them towards any stolen GC properties, nor did they sell them. You cannot tell these TCs that they no longer have ownership of their property in the south just because they received point in the north in some kind of illegal Ponzi scheme. The points are useless unless they are used for something. That's why the regime in the north would prosecute any TC who may have gotten points towards their property in the south and then used those points to “exchange” or cashed them in, and then they also went to claim their property in the south, because the regime in the north knows too well, that these TCs are still the legal owners of their property in the south, which is why they want to discourage the TCs going after their properties in the south. Naturally, the RoC has also made it hard for the TCs to get their properties back, but that is a separate issue to discuss at another time.
