Legal Advice Please

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Ok so the road to get to the bridge and to your house, means you have to use a private easement. Once over the bridge, you are on publicly approved but not accepted roads? Did the private easement show up on your title report?

I believe he said the homes are on public and town accepted roads. They however appear to be fed from an easement on private property at the bridge which is in term fed from public roads on the other side...

That of course says the properties are directly accessible from the public road. And that was certainly true when the tract was established and the virtual back exit existed.

Ohh what webs we do weave...

[manderly6]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Yes they agreed to it and even signed a quit claim deed. Most of them are dead, and one is in a nursing home. But it seems as if they were never told that that the bridge entrance was not a public road, and by agreeing to vacate the road they were now personally responsible for replacing the bridge when it failed.

Not to talk ill of the dead, but to sign a quit claim deed without doing their homework seems a bit negligent on their part.

[cully]

As far as the roads being public or private....what does the town do for the roads? Do they push the snow? Salt? Whatever one does on public roads there? Have they maintained any potholes?

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Ok so the road to get to the bridge and to your house, means you have to use a private easement. Once over the bridge, you are on publicly approved but not accepted roads? Did the private easement show up on your title report?

The private easement has been in place from 1790 and presumably was simply for horses since there was no bridge. Thomas Penn (the last son of William Penn) died in 1775 and prior to his death the land had been personal property.

Wagons were brought over other bridges hundreds of yards away and driven over fields and dirt roads which no longer exist. On the opposite site was a single cabin. There was 12 acres orchard an attached 75 acres of farmland. A very large mansion was built around 1929, and presumably the bridge was built at the same time to carry building materials. The 12 acres were developed into a subdivision and 9 homes were built from 1954 to 1962 (initial plans were submitted in 1955 and final approval was dated 1958). The development had as a front entrance the bridge (built circa 1928-1930) and as a back entrance a planned road to extend to future development of the farmland.

In 1958 the subdivision roads and bridge were made public according to the solicitor. In 1963 the owner of the main house and developer of the subdivision died.

In 1965 the attorney representing the estate said in a letter to the township "the logical viewpoint would be that when the owner dedicated the streets and roads for public use they must have necessarily also dedicated the bridge access to such streets and roads".

It is not clear who fixed the bridge in 1965 after it was damaged by the stolen truck. There are no records

The solicitor for the township in a private council meeting disagreed, and said that there should be no formal dedication of the bridge (now at least 35 years old). The decision made at this meeting did not result in a change to the deeds, nor was it recorded in the courthouse, nor did they notify property owners, and was simply noted in the minutes that they thought the county should accept the bridge. But there is no record of the county review. So none of the normal title insurance searches would show up any documents.

When the back road was abandoned a decade later, there was no mention of the front entrance not being public. Not by the township, not by the county planning commission, and the property owners were blissfully unaware. Today it seems impossible that even the planning commission didn't mention the issue, but it is all a result of no one recording the decision made by the council.

Originally Posted by cully

As far as the roads being public or private....what does the town do for the roads? Do they push the snow? Salt? Whatever one does on public roads there? Have they maintained any potholes?

Yes they do all those things. They also collect their share of state funds for maintenance on these roads. But they do not dispute that the roads are part of the township.

[cully]

Mulling over angles that might inspire or force action.

Public roads only accessed by an upaved easement, perhaps unsafe at night, sounds like there might be the argument that taxpayer's public roads are not wisely protected and accessed. What about emergency vehicles on that unpaved access. And not just you 13 as taxpayers but the entire town.

So, how do the machines come in for the public road work? I guess that private home easement you mentioned at the back?

Is that easement specific did you say? Suppose everyone in your neighborhood got together and used only that easement access. Would that wake up that homeowner to help?

Can an area with public roads have only one safe access and that being an easement? That sounds ridiculous but may be common in your area. If not, sounds like it might be interesting to look into. I mean to the degree that the town is supposed to address this, not just that they are to sit back and let you pay.

Have you contacted the media? The forgotten stepchild. Cinderella. Whatever. Could play well at this time of year. How many people in your neighborhood have a medical condition?

Just tactics to try to get the muni govt to care and to do the right thing.

However, don't let it backfire and have the town say well, the roads were never that great, need work now, we'll just let them go. Don't know if they could even do that.

Have you gotten in touch with government reps from the local...whatever...alderman...to Congress and Senate?

I hope no one is trying to sell at this time. Couldn't be a good situation.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

The solicitor for the township in a private council meeting disagreed, and said that there should be no formal dedication of the bridge (now at least 35 years old). The decision made at this meeting did not result in a change to the deeds, nor was it recorded in the courthouse, nor did they notify property owners, and was simply noted in the minutes that they thought the county should accept the bridge. But there is no record of the county review. So none of the normal title insurance searches would show up any documents.

What a mess. I feel bad for all of you living in that subdivision.

Can you have public streets that are under police and fire protection without providing police and fire safe access or do they come through that back easement?

[Teddy52]

.........."it is not clear who fixed the bridge in 1965"


Ask around !

I got drafted in 1965 and that entire year before and after getting my induction notice are very clear.

You make it sound like it was 1865 !

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Teddy52

.........."it is not clear who fixed the bridge in 1965"


Ask around !

You know that is a good point. Any long term business owners, residents, local historical society??

[Teddy52]

Originally Posted by silverfall

you know that is a good point. Any long term business owners, residents, local historical society??

bingo !

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

What a mess. I feel bad for all of you living in that subdivision.

Can you have public streets that are under police and fire protection without providing police and fire safe access or do they come through that back easement?

Police use the bridge anyway. The steel girders are very strong and even with two foot holes in them, they could last for decades. Of course it is all guess work as no engineer will speculate on something that is in that condition.

I haven't seen a fire truck, but most utility vehicles and other heavy trucks come in the back way. Surprisingly the back easement is on google maps, and some direction searches specify to use it.
=============================
I might be able to find some records about the stolen fuel truck in 1965 that hit the bridge, but I think the damage was probably superficial (a knocked down railing). A 1971 case indicates that small charges paid by one side or the other are not binding. In the 1971 case the township paid $85 for a surface treatment of a road, but it was not considered definitive in proving that they claimed the road. The court ruled that the road was not owned by the township.

=============================
Details of the 1971 near Philadelphia at 40° 6'37.24"N 75° 7'22.27"W. It is a 350 yard road that parallels route 611.

"1. Facts favorable to defendants:
(a) The Township has from time to time cleaned the gutters of Merritt Road both by hand and by machine [the last time was eight to ten years ago].
(b) The Township provided trash collection to the two houses on Merritt Road.
(c) Merritt Road appears as a public road on the maps and street directories prepared by Abington Township and has so appeared since at least 1941.
(d) Township Officials erected a street sign bearing the name`Merritt Road' at the point of intersection with Old York Road and house numbers were assigned to the two houses on Merritt Road.
(e) Merritt Road was submitted by Abington Township in reports to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of obtaining liquid fuel tax allowance.
(f) No taxes are assessed on the bed of Merritt Road.
(g) Once in 1957, Abington Township, at a cost of approximately $85.00, surface-treated Merritt Road."

These facts alone were not sufficient to establish an acceptance by the municipality, especially in view of the following additional facts found by the court, which indicate that no such acceptance took place:

2. Facts favorable to plaintiffs:
(a) The residents on Merritt Road shoveled the snow by hand and cindered, swept and policed the road.
(b) Plaintiffs hired snowplows to clean the snow off of Merritt Road from 1963 on to the time of hearing.
(c) The plaintiffs had the road repaved by a private contractor and had other contractors roll new blacktop on the road and fill in pot-holes.
(d) Public use of the road was practically nonexistent, the only use being as an occasional turnaround and once or twice a year for parking by members of the public attending functions held in nearby churches and halls.
(e) There was never any official, formal or authoritative acceptance of the road by Abington Township officials.

In thise case the court found that The Township did not unequivocally accept it as part of its street system, and, therefore, assume the responsibility for repair and maintenance.