Friday, August 31, 2007

If you are a surviving spouse, look out, Measure 49 will get ya!




Supporters of Measure 49 claim that Measure 49 will “extend” benefits to surviving spouses.

Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:

Section 21.(2) of Measure 49 says:

(2) if the claimant is the surviving spouse of a person who was the owner of the property in fee title, the claimant’s acquisition date is the date the claimant was married to the deceased spouse of the date the spouse acquired the property, whichever is later

This hypothetical will help you understand how Measure 49 works.

Suppose Husband purchases property in 1960. In 1970, Husband marries Wife and Wife moves onto the property with Husband. In 1980, Husband adds Wife’s name to the deed to the property. In 1990, Husband dies. On January 3, 2008, Wife makes a claim for compensation.

Under current law, because Wife moved onto the property in 1970, she became an “owner”, which means the rights she is entitled to are the rights on the property in 1970.

Wife was married in 1970, but acquired the interest in the property in 1980. Which means Wife gets the rights to develop the property that were on the property in 1980. This is a big difference, because in 1973 many property owners lost their rights when the state of Oregon adopted a centralized statewide land use planning system.

Measure 49 actually hurts surviving spouses, it does not help them.

When you take the time to read Measure 49, you realize that Measure 49 simply doesn’t work.

20 comments:

CommonSense said...

Just another one of the tricks buried in Measure 49. I wonder what else is in the 21 pages that the other side isn't telling us about.....

AngryOregonian said...

I read this section some time ago, and was wondering if I read it wrong or not. This is exactly what I thought it said...WHICHEVER IS LATER.

It is pretty clear from the language of Measure 49 that widows aren't "helped" at all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Measure 49's supporters are telling these lies. I am convinced they will do anything to stick it to the voters.

J Hoffa said...

Now if I only could the "Dummies" book on all of what Measure 49 gets wrong I will be a happy man.

But then only "dummies" want 49 to pass.

I say VOTE NO on Measure 49!

pelep said...

Ha ha ha, that's funny! Sad and disillusioning, but a funny graphic none the less.

Unfortunately, fear some folks will still be suckered in by the misleading and biased ballot title info put out for Measure 49.

Hopefully more people will read this site and learn of this fact and the other falsehoods of Measure 49 before they vote in November.

Remember - NO on 49!

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you what the commie land grabbers aren't telling you about what Measure 49 does - they aren't telling you or anyone else anything!

Because once the truth about all the lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations that make up what is known as Measure 49 are known by the voters this measure will go down faster than a PBR on a hot Summer day in Portland!

William Neuhauser said...

I think you misread that.

The two people referred to are (1) the “claimant” (the surviving spouse) in contrast to (2) the claimant's deceased “spouse” in “the claimant's acquisition date is the date the claimant was married to the deceased spouse or the date the [deceased] spouse acquired the property, whichever is later.”

The "spouse" refers to the "deceased spouse" not to the "claimant."

In other words, specifying that being married before the deceased spouse aquires the property doesn’t move the date back to the date of the marriage before the property was ever acquired! But it does give the claimant ownership dating to the actual acquisition by the (deceased) spouse otherwise.

CommonSense said...

Mr. Neuhauser-

Your interpretation violates ORS 174.010 "Do not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted."

The fact that Measure 49, in the same section, identifies a "deceased spouse" but fails to do so later in the sentence is evidence that the legislature intended "spouse" and "deceased spouse" to mean different things.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to employ a literal construction of Measure 37, you must also apply the same literal construction of Measure 49.

The Oregonion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unions-r-us said...

Oregon voters are brain-dead and will do whatever Our Oregon (SEIU/OEA) and The Oregonian want.

The unionists and journalists from New York (Nesbitt, Newhouse) will not quit until they turn Portland and Oregon into Moscow/USSR-on-the-Willamette.

They don't give a whit about either deceased or surviving spouses.

batmantempest said...

First off, you did not type the quote correctly. Double check your work, it should be "or the date..." not "of the date..."

Secondly, you are obviously reading it incorrectly as well.

There is no way a claimant can own the property sooner than when the spouse, who is now dead, acquired the property. How can this not be obvious to you? Let me spell it out so you hillbillies can understand it.

Elroy buys property in 1970, marries MaryBeth in 1980. 1990 Elroy dies. 1993 MaryBeth makes claim, she cannot be considered an owner when Elroy acquired the land in 1980, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MARRIED. She became the owner in 1990 WHEN THEY GOT MARRIED! WHICHEVER IS LATER.

Now you hillbillies reverse this and you'll see that it makes perfect sense. Elroy and MaryBeth got married in 1970, Elroy buys land in 1980 and dies in 1990 from drinking moonshine. WHICHEVER IS LATER. She cannot be the owner before Elroy bought the land, it is obviously only AFTER HE BOUGHT THE LAND is when she became the owner.

Do you understand it now?

CommonSense said...

Batman Tempest-

Why would we listen to you, you can't even get your own hypothetical right

"Elroy buys property in 1970, marries MaryBeth in 1980. 1990 Elroy dies. 1993 MaryBeth makes claim, she cannot be considered an owner when Elroy acquired the land in 1980, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MARRIED. She became the owner in 1990 WHEN THEY GOT MARRIED! WHICHEVER IS LATER."

I thought Elroy acquired the land in 1970?

And I thought they got married in 1980?

As far as the typo goes, it is of no consequence.

Finally, you simply do not understand the most basic rules of statutory construction. The second used of the term "spouse" is not qualified by the term "deceased", when earlier in the exact same sentence the term "deceased spouse" appears.

The courts, when interpreting a statute, will read the fact that the sentence says "deceased spouse" and "spouse" in the same sentence to mean something. That is, by using different terms, the statute refers to different spouses.

If the second use of the term "spouse" actually meant "deceased spouse", then the legislature would have said "deceased spouse", which the legislature did not say.

Good try though, but I would focus on understanding your own hypothteticals before you wade into the waters of statutory construction.

batmantempest said...

Oops, you're right, a minor misprint at 3:00 AM, but as you stated "As far as the typo goes, it is of no consequence."
I still understand my response perfectly well. Here, let me reiterate with bullet points:


-1970 Elroy buys property
-1980 Elroy marries MaryBeth
-1990 Elroy dies.
-1993 MaryBeth makes claim,
-MaryBeth cannot be considered an owner when Elroy acquired the land in 1970, because they were not married!
-She became the owner in 1980 when they got married! As the ballot measure reads, "WHICHEVER IS LATER".

As it is now, there is no clause for spouses. Your argument is full of hot air.

"As far as the typo goes, it is of no consequence." - It's plenty consequence. If you can't even spell the exact spelling of the ballot measure correctly you lose credibility.

Here is the actual link to the correct wording of
Ballot Measure # 49
You will have to page down about 31 times to find it, section 21 (2).
"Finally, you simply do not understand the most basic rules of statutory construction.
The second used of the term "spouse" is not qualified by the term "deceased", when earlier in the exact same
sentence the term "deceased spouse" appears."


Oh Really?? If you read the Section 21(2) again, you will find that it opens with respect to the Claimant, when it refers to the claimant is says... "claimant."
It then gives two examples of the claimant's spouse, when the spouse and claimant was married, or when the spouse bought the property:
“The claimant's acquisition date is the date the claimant was married to the deceased spouse or the date the spouse acquired the property." It makes no sense the way you WANT to read it.

Since you are attempting to supplant the word “Spouse” with the word “Claimant” and it simply does not work. Here, this is what you want it to say: basically "the claimant’s acquisition .... is the date the claimant acquired the property." See? Makes absolutely
no sense. For some reason you want it to be this way, but you saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

Anonymous said...

This anti-property rights bat guano is nauseating. It's time to muck out the batcave. Vote NO on Measure 49.

batmantempest said...

It's easy to shove your head in the sand and pretend life is the way you like. Much harder to actually think and reason through issues.

What's wrong, is the logic behind this argument against your guys' reasoning too much for you to absorb or understand?

batmantempest said...

Neocons who continue to push the Bush agenda won't be happy until them and their leader, Dubya, has every piece of land
stripped and planted with urban sprawl, be it protected forest or farmland as well as areas that have limited groundwater
availability. They don't care about anything other than their own pocket books and the right to build a walmart on farmland.
They won't be happy until every piece of farmland disappears.

Check out the State of Oregon's own report on the damage these claims are doing to our protected farm and forest land.

batmantempest said...

Hey Common Sense.. .where'd you go? You finally realized that your argument is lame after I pointed it out to you?

Come on, I thought you were all about 49 not helping the spouse, the widow, that it was... "out to git her! Gotchya!" Ha ha!

Next time spend a little more time on the can actually reading the ballot measure so you understand it.

Ballot Measure 49 is doing something that 37 never did, it's securing the rights for surviving spouses to make claims.

Currently ORS 197 doesn't secure that.

Have a nice day!

CommonSense said...

Batman-

Dude, you haven't given me anything to respond to. You are simply wrong. Your arguments are legally deficient and won't carry the day.

Look, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot read Measure 37 literally and NOT also read Measure 49 just as literally.

What is good for the goose....as they say.

I am perfectly confident that you are completely incorrect. Finish three years of law school, then come and talk to me.

batmantempest said...

Amazing. Impenetrable wisdom. Neither logic nor facts can penetrate it. Your so called law degree means nothing as long as you are a practitioner of cognitive dissonance.

Red Cloud said...

I suspect the example you cite will have to be tested. In your example, the couple married, but the property was kept separate until a later date.

The intent of this provision is to apply to cases other than the one you describe. It is somewhat disingenuous to take the example you pose and extend it to the univers.

Anonymous said...

1. It was explicitly stated on the record (read: Legislative Intent)that this provision is intended to move the date of acquisition for a widow who was added onto the deed after marriage backwards to the date of marriage, so he/she can enjoy the same benefits their spouse would have.

2. The original post is wrong in one MAJOR thing. It says current law says when the wife moved onto the property that is the date she can make a claim based on. TOTALLY FALSE.

Ask any County in Oregon what they are using to establish the ability to make a claim and the answer is the date the name appears on the deed.

STOP LYING