Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just for informational purposes on C-D, speaking in generalities about easements is not really that valuable. Details of Ingress/egress/regress easements are all over the place in how many rights are granted to the second property owner. The location for an easement that I established on my farm was surveyed and written into both deeds. I specified a speed limit, a signage restriction, drainage requirements, maintenance responsibility, driveway construction requirements, and number of dwellings that could ever be served/built on that property.
I obviously don't know the practices of NC.
But as a real estate investor in several Rocky Mountain states where I've been doing my own due diligence researching the easements on properties under consideration, I'd say that less the 1% of the easements over rural properties are as specific as yours. Few, if any, have even been surveyed to document the location of the roadway. Not one has ever specified a speed limit, signage, drainage requirements, or driveway construction requirements. All have relied upon common practices and implied useage by common sense and purpose. I've looked at over the details of over 1,000 easements over the last 40 years of researching properties to buy, so it's not a small sampling.
Even yet more difficult is the thousands of the prescriptive easements where prior generations of neighbors never recorded anything or attached an easement to a deed, but the access use has been there for decades. These can be a real problem for a new landowner thinking they're buying property in fee simple without an easement because they don't see a recorded easement nor will a title company warranty search. But folk may find out to their detriment that an easement on their land does in fact exist. One of the big reasons why a boots on the ground property inspection is a very important detail in buying properties out this way, seeing roads leading to another property across yours and inquiring about it's use. Sometimes the easement user is the only resource for knowing about the use, but if they can prove that it's been used that way for the required minimum time, they have a provable easement which can be utilized and recorded if need be. Of course, this all starts getting into the realm of adverse possession, which could be a whole 'nother thread. Sometimes these cases reach newsworthy levels, where one land owner has been taken advantage of by another.
In my own case going on right now, the new property owner admits that they saw the obvious easement going through the parcel they were buying and they made no further inquiry about it. It's only been in continuous use since 1886 and shown on water survey maps from the State Engineer's office since statehood and the use documented each year by the Engineer. But never recorded as an easement on a deed. That's the process we're going through right now, to document and file the easement. In the meantime, the new property owner is trying to act like the easement doesn't exist on his land. It's gonna' cost him a lot to remove his blocking fences, he's been told so by his attorney ... but it's all a matter of principle to him that he bought his land and by golly, it's his land. The only folk who are going to benefit from this exercise are the lawyers.
In any event, such a detailed filing as yours of an easement in the OP's situation does not appear to be the case, does it?
Other people may not worry about eventualities so much, or might think such an invasion of privacy is no big deal, so they don't have such specific restrictions. Somewhere down the line they or their buyer may be in trouble.
Precisely. That's why so many easements around the country don't think of these details and go to the expense as you did.
And just FYI, police in NC do apparently have the ability to ticket motorized vehicles being driven dangerously on private property, even your own. The example I read about involved ATV's and partying.
absent a post clarifying the activity of the "ATV's and partying" as a situation involving being driven "dangerously" on an easement to which the ATV operators were on an easement to which they were entitled to use ... you've painted a situation with a very broad brush. What comes to mind sounds more like a trespass situation where the ATV's were operated across somebody else's private property.
In the western states I'm familiar with, if you want to party on your own property and operate an ATV in a dangerous fashion, you're on your own. The first responders will assist you after the fact if called upon to provide service, but you're not going to get cited for driving too fast by the deputies on your own property.
Again, I can't speak for NC. Maybe they have some strange laws about private use of your own property.
sunsprit--the ATV incident did not involve an easement, they were on the owner's property with permission, it was daytime, what we call a cookout here, just what the officer could see from the public road as he drove by
And yes, most of my post just above was to alert others as to what they should consider when granting some potentially random person the right to cross their land
sunsprit--the ATV incident did not involve an easement, they were on the owner's property with permission, it was daytime, what we call a cookout here, just what the officer could see from the public road as he drove by
what were the ATV operators cited for since they had permission to be operating their vehicles on that private property?
And yes, most of my post just above was to alert others as to what they should consider when granting some potentially random person the right to cross their land
indeed, many easement use problems that I've seen would have been totally avoided with such diligence in the filing as you did. But that's a rare exception to what I've seen.
Don't know why you'd label my posts as "on the limit edge of the area" ...
when you go on to assert "the dominant parcel owner has no right to touch the road or road bed on the servient property".
That's what I've been saying all along, although I've approached it from the servient property owner side which has the same burden. The OP has no right to unilaterally change the location or degrade the utility of the easement roadway to interfere with the easement user. Neither party here can change the roadway except by mutual agreement.
As far as asserting that such a roadway change by the dominant user would be "at least a misdemeanor if not a felony" ... now you're way off base. You're claiming that to be a criminal matter, not a civil issue. I don't see that action rising to a criminal matter and I defy you to cite case law or law where it's been found to be a criminal matter. Both parties have a vested interest in the roadway and a right to use it across the private property; this is not a public roadway under the jurisdiction of traffic code.
I'd further suggest that you're way off base to have the OP spend any money to detain or annoy her neighbor. You've captured the situation already by identifying him as "a bad dude". And I don't think it's in the best interests of the OP to "see how tight his backside really is". He's already proven himself to be prone to violence and anti-social behavior. Provoking the fellow to an irrational response isn't going to have a good outcome for the OP, and it won't otherwise change his behavior.
PS: as much money and time as I've spent on the easement access interference issue I'm dealing with, I WISH it was a criminal matter to interfere with my use of the easement. I'd be tens of thousands of dollars ahead and maybe the criminal court system would have resolved the problem years ago. But it's been strictly a civil matter and I've been writing new chapters in Bleak House with all the delays that the civil system can bring forth to resolving the dispute.
This is not anywhere near as clear cut as you imply. This is a right to pass on an existing driveway. I would expect nothing can prevent the lady from maintaining and improving her driveway. And that might well include speed bumps or barriers limiting the passage to the width specified...if specified.
Gating appears to be a local thing and gets into that terrible word "reasonable". You would have to know the local custom to answer that.
I would tend to agree she need be cautious in changes that apply only to the dominant owners easement...that is the portion of the easement used only by the dominant owner.
I am not a fan of simply backing off on a bad neighbor. That might work. But often simply moves to a new issue. YOu hope the dude is not completely irrational but the law will eventually resolve the matter.
I agree that much of the easement law is pretty close to insane. Particularly in the mountain states by true also in some ruralish states. The most interesting thing to me is that in some areas the law clearly says one thing but the courts enforce to an entirely different one. And the really bad news is that it takes forever and buckets full of money to resolve.
This is not anywhere near as clear cut as you imply. This is a right to pass on an existing driveway. I would expect nothing can prevent the lady from maintaining and improving her driveway. And that might well include speed bumps or barriers limiting the passage to the width specified...if specified.
Gating appears to be a local thing and gets into that terrible word "reasonable". You would have to know the local custom to answer that.
I would tend to agree she need be cautious in changes that apply only to the dominant owners easement...that is the portion of the easement used only by the dominant owner.
I am not a fan of simply backing off on a bad neighbor. That might work. But often simply moves to a new issue. YOu hope the dude is not completely irrational but the law will eventually resolve the matter.
I agree that much of the easement law is pretty close to insane. Particularly in the mountain states by true also in some ruralish states. The most interesting thing to me is that in some areas the law clearly says one thing but the courts enforce to an entirely different one. And the really bad news is that it takes forever and buckets full of money to resolve.
If the owner of the road is the OP in this case, wouldn't she be the one required to maintain the road, i.e. keep it gravelled or paved? And in that case, I would think it is her prerogative to install speed bumps.
Although I agreed, when I purchased my home, to allow use of my driveway if anyone ever bought the little piece of land in back of me, I never really expected it to sell. It's just a small piece, literally in the middle of nowhere.
It is not that to OP did not know about the easement. She admits that when she bought her home, she knew about the easement and agreed to let any person buying the other property, but did not think it was possible that the other property would ever sell, and someone would actually need to use her driveway to access the property. She allowed her dogs to roam around her entire property.
Suddenly they are using their legal easement that she agreed that a new owner of the property could use.
She is angry that someone had had the unmitigated nerve to buy that property and actually use the easement she knew was in existence but never thought anyone would ever use.
She is angry, that her dogs could not run all over her property without danger of being hit by a neighbors car. When dogs run free in another persons driveway (yes it is the neighbors driveway from the county road to their home as well as a driveway to the OP home) it is very common for a dog to be injured or killed. By letting her dogs run free around the driveway, she was the one that put them in danger of being killed. As I have spent a large percentage of my life living in rural areas, I have seen where many dogs were killed over the years as they ran in front of a car. I know I killed one myself, when it burst out of a driveway into the county road right in front of my car. I never even saw it before I had ran over and killed it, so I know how it happens. It is common occurrence in rural areas of the country, even with traffic is moving slow.
The big danger driving on country roads are two fold. Dogs and Deer. That is why Pickups and Big trucks that operate in rural areas where they can hit dogs an deer, put guards on the front of their vehicles to protect them if a large dog or deer, suddenly jump in front of them, as hitting an animal can do thousands of dollar damage to their vehicles. With the guards to protect their vehicles, they don't get their vehicle laid up for days or weeks. A dead animal, and no damage to their truck.
They don't spend that type of money on their trucks for looks, but to protect their vehicle.
I have even seen insurance companies that paid for the repairs, sue the dog owners for the repair costs, as it is really against the law to let dogs run free.
Quote:
If the owner of the road is the OP in this case, wouldn't she be the one required to maintain the road, i.e. keep it gravelled or paved? And in that case, I would think it is her prerogative to install speed
bumps.
A speed bump is a hazard and only used in places like parking lots, etc. Not on access lanes to someones property. If a speed bump causes damage to someones vehicle, the land owner can be held responsible except in places like parking lots were the people driving onto the parking lot of a business with proper signing and adequate painting them to make them obvious, where very slow driving conditions are expected. But you do not put them in a neighbors driveway (and yes that driveway is also the neighbors driveway as well as the property owners).
Many posters are claiming a brute lives next door, and are telling the owner ways to retaliate against the neighbor.
She has been at war, since they moved into their property. She does not want them there, but she bought her property with the full knowledge that the property could sell and someone move onto it. She is trying to make them so miserable they will leave.
When you have a lane situation (it becomes a lane when more than one home uses it for access), it works best if you and the other lane user or user, get along. She bought the property with full knowledge that the neighbor would have free use of the lane if someone bought the property, but is not willing to accept that someone wanted to buy the property. Instead of making friends with them so they could work out any problems, she has waged a war against them. Anytime that happens there are problems and sometimes the land owner (the OP) has even gone to jail or heavily fined, because they just do not accept the other party has free access to use the lane.
She has tried to cause enough trouble, the neighbor had grounds to file a complaint against her actions. The county will not let one file a complaint in this case, unless there are grounds. As they allowed the complaint, then there are grounds to file it due to actions by the OP. Doing so does not say the neighbor is a brute as some seem to think. What it means, is the OP has caused enough trouble the neighbor had no choice but to take such action to be able to peacefully use his access rights to his property.
She is at war with the neighbors, and is going to try any thing to drive them away. She has said because they have utilities, and she is sure they did that illegally, and is looking for a way to get their utilities cut off. The utility company is the one with the easements to put utilities to the property, and would not have done so if they did not have easement rights to do so. This is another sign that she is the one that is causing the problem, not the neighbor. When you break up a property, to do so there has to be ingress and egress rights to the property (the access easement), and utility easement rights. The access easement rights are held by the property owner, and the utility easement rights are held by the utility companies involved.
I know how this works, because I have developed and broken up land in the past, and handled the sales of land of that type helping others get the land broken up legally.
I know of a property in Oregon on the coast, where someone is trying to force a landowner to give them some utility and border easement rights on a in town lot in a very small town. The attorney has informed the person wanting the easements that it will be a minimum of $20,000 to get the easement through the court and they may spend the $20,000 or more and not get the easement (doubtful that they will). I know as I am consulting with the other party.
The best thing when another party has easement rights is to make friends not go to war as the OP has done.
This is a bad dude. I think I might acquire a couple of old junkers and start heading out slowly whenever he heads in. Wear a seat belt and see how tight his backside really is
All the other stuff I do not care to get into. But this lase part is my problem, and is the problem I have with a lot of the responses in this thread. We do not really know if he is a bad dude. We only get one side of the story and he may be a good person it is just that these two people do not get along and will never get along. But digging in your heels and deciding that you are in the absolute right and not taking into account that the other person may feel THE EXACT SAME WAY is not a good way to resolve the problem. Escalating to violence is silly to me. First I really just do not like other people so even if I "win" and get thrown in jail I am now exactly where I do not want to be and have to deal with a lot more people than some ass hat driving up and down my lawn. Also what would happen to the dogs.
This one up manship and my penis is bigger than yours nonsense is just nonsense. There are more productive ways to deal with this.
Thank you for your support and for your opinions in this situation. The neighbors are still at it with no end in sight.
Oldtrader, it is seriously difficult to understand where/how you continue to come up with these fabricated statements:
"She is angry that someone had had the unmitigated nerve to buy that property and actually use the easement she knew was in existence but never thought anyone would ever use it"
"She has been at war, since they moved into their property. She is trying to make them so miserable they will leave".
Instead of making friends with them so they could work out any problems, she has waged a war against them. Anytime that happens there are problems and sometimes the land owner (the OP) has even gone to jail or heavily fined, because they just do not accept the other party has free access to use the lane
"the OP has caused enough trouble the neighbor had no choice but to take such action to be able to peacefully use his access rights to his property"
"She is at war with the neighbors, and is going to try any thing to drive them away. She has said because they have utilities, and she is sure they did that illegally, and is looking for a way to get their utilities cut off"
Oldtrader, these are only a few of the latest statements you have made. Do you realize these statements have been drummed up in your mind only? I have made it clear from the beginning that despite being surprised to see the land sell, I was looking forward to having neighbors and did everything I knew how to welcome them.
You said you killed a dog when it burst into the road in front of you. I am sorry for the tragedy, but you can't possibly compare that to what happened to my dog on her own property. Not only was she on her own land, she was targeted. I was there, I watched the entire nightmare unfold in front of me. This driveway is narrow, flat and not very long. When the psychopath turned onto it, my dog was just coming from the flower beds where she had been lying in the shade watching me weed. She was not chasing cars, or bursting in front of anything, in fact she was lazily walking back toward the house, probably to get a drink of water. I saw his car, I heard his engine rev up, I watched in horror as this this crazed maniac gunned it and swerve TOWARD my dog and ran his car over her. My dog went under his tires.
At the point of impact, she was not even in the driveway, she was on her lawn. This "man" actually drove onto our lawn to strike her. It is clear we are not safe in our own yard. Oldtrader, I do not know the real reason you insist on believing I am doing something to provoke this hostility from this psychopathic, maniac, but I can assure you, neither my dogs or I have EVER done a solitary thing, nor did I do anything to provoke him into assaulting me when he got out of his truck while he was stopped on the same driveway where he, in your own words, has the right to ingress/egress only, walked over to where I was standing, and assaulted me. As far as I can tell, this man has no problem with hurting woman and animals and I have no doubt, if he is allowed around children, that they are not safe either.
We are no longer dealing with an easement issue.
An easement is a big deal. By creating this legal contract you are improving the value of the rear property, which may have NO value unless you provide an easement. You should be paid for this, and sometimes the payment is quite hefty. It is certainly worth going to a real estate attorney and stating your situation. Do not be afraid of repercussions, but do be prepared for them. For example you might see the attorney 'secretly' then establish a plan for providing information to the current land owner via a sheriff. And does the person with the mobile home actually own the land? He might just have bullied a relative to let him live there.
Sadly I think if he sales then potential buyers should be aware of his situation. No one should be scammed into buying his property with these issues.
You are missing the fact, that the easement existed prior to her even purchasing her property, and it was made clear to her that the easement existed. She knew all about it, but just assumed no one would ever put the real property to use and need to use the property. That was a bad assumption. The easement has always existed as far as she is concerned, from before she bought the property, and will exist forever in the future. No she will not receive any payment for the use of the easement by the rear property, as any payment was done long before she got into the picture. The sheriff will stay out of it, and tell her it is a civil matter and only the courts can make changes.
Quote:
When you say you agreed to allow the use of your driveway for the other lot, did you sign anything?
As she said at the start of the post, she knew there was a legal easement, which went with her property. She did not have to agree for the rear to allow the use of the driveway, nor would there have been anything to sign. The easement runs with land before she bought her property, and will run into the future no matter who owns it.
Quote:
Have the guy charged with theft of the pavement stones
Placing the stones in the drive, is creating a danger. If one was charged over them, it would be her. What he was doing is making the driveway safe to drive up and down.
Quote:
Oh, and there is no law anywhere that says YOU need to give anyone an easement.
She did not give him an easement. She bought her property, knowing he or anyone else that bought the property owned an easement to cross her property.
Oldtrader, it is becoming increasingly clear to me, that you have no interest in the real issue at hand. Instead, you exert much wasted time and effort in misconstruing the truth and completely fabricating lies on top of lies. You don't even appear to realize that the easement down this driveway is no longer the issue at hand, yet you insist on educating us with your vast knowledge of easement rights and infringements. I certainly don't mind you answering all the questions for me, however please consider answering them truthfully or not at all. Nobody here deserves to be lied to the way you have been lying to us.
I can't help but wonder, considering all the effort you are exerting, if you have a hidden agenda... the truth may never be revealed.
Last edited by wendy cummings; 06-03-2015 at 09:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
