U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2021, 06:44 PM
 
12,237 posts, read 12,656,639 times
Reputation: 6641

Advertisements

I am assuming an obligation is a type of deed restriction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
The general property law rule is that deed restrictions on your property are applicable even if they are not mentioned in your deed.
Thank you for that intelligent comment. I would like to push you a little further.

As I understand it : the person conveying or selling land, known as the grantor, creates deed restrictions by placing them in the deed to the buyer, or grantee. Any restriction that is not illegal can be placed in the deed.

Purchase dates
  • 8. Jul. 1919 ~ 100 acres (new owner builds a second home on the property)
  • 29. Nov. 1930 ~ 100 acres (same property as above - purchaser in 1919 lost fortune in Wall Street Crash | new owner lives in newer of 2 homes)
  • 18. Nov. 1941 ~ 1 acres - includes original 1804 home - deed contains obligations (restrictions)
  • 13. Nov. 1950 ~ 1 acres (same property as above)
  1. 9. Nov. 1953 - building lot out of 100 acres
  2. 15. Jul. 1954 - building lot out of 100 acres
  3. 9. Jan. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  4. 9. Jan. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  5. 19. Jun. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  6. 25. Nov. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  7. 1. Apr. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  8. 1. Apr. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  9. 29. Oct. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  10. 01. Jan. 1960 - building lot out of 100 acres
  11. 29. Dec. 1961 - building lot out of 100 acres

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
That would be especially true in your case, because the restriction was applied to the land that eventually became the lot in question.
I don't understand this comment. If the deed restrictions had been placed on the entire 100 acres on the sale of 29. Nov. 1930, then it makes sense that all future assigns would be beholden to the restrictions even if it was not in their deeds.

But the deed restrictions was placed in the 18. Nov. 1941. So it seems to me that only the future assigns of that property including the 13. Nov. 1950 grantee would be beholden to the restrictions.

My question is why would the deed restriction be spread to the next 11 sales of building lots? They were not carved out of the 1 acre lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm View Post
That is why title insurance exists or, if the practice is your area is, to use title search or abstract of title.
I doubt we would have a claim today 16 years after the fact.

Last edited by PacoMartin; 02-28-2021 at 07:09 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2021, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
982 posts, read 379,862 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
I am assuming an obligation is a type of deed restriction.



Thank you for that intelligent comment. I would like to push you a little further.

As I understand it : the person conveying or selling land, known as the grantor, creates deed restrictions by placing them in the deed to the buyer, or grantee. Any restriction that is not illegal can be placed in the deed.

Purchase dates
  • 8. Jul. 1919 ~ 100 acres (new owner builds a second home on the property)
  • 29. Nov. 1930 ~ 100 acres (same property as above - purchaser in 1919 lost fortune in Wall Street Crash | new owner lives in newer of 2 homes)
  • 18. Nov. 1941 ~ 1 acres - includes original 1804 home - deed contains obligations (restrictions)
  • 13. Nov. 1950 ~ 1 acres (same property as above)
  1. 9. Nov. 1953 - building lot out of 100 acres
  2. 15. Jul. 1954 - building lot out of 100 acres
  3. 9. Jan. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  4. 9. Jan. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  5. 19. Jun. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  6. 25. Nov. 1957 - building lot out of 100 acres
  7. 1. Apr. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  8. 1. Apr. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  9. 29. Oct. 1958 - building lot out of 100 acres
  10. 01. Jan. 1960 - building lot out of 100 acres
  11. 29. Dec. 1961 - building lot out of 100 acres



I don't understand this comment. If the deed restrictions had been placed on the entire 100 acres on the sale of 29. Nov. 1930, then it makes sense that all future assigns would be beholden to the restrictions even if it was not in their deeds.

But the deed restrictions was placed in the 18. Nov. 1941. So it seems to me that only the future assigns of that property including the 13. Nov. 1950 grantee would be beholden to the restrictions.

My question is why would the deed restriction be spread to the next 11 sales of building lots? They were not carved out of the 1 acre lot.



I doubt we would have a claim today 16 years after the fact.
Usually (?) title insurance continues as long as you own the property.?? This is a wonderful thread! Why do internet maps show all those access roads all over the place? When that one acre house parcel was carved out, was anything recorded on the deed for the original parcel? On the down side You can easily win the argument that you are not obligated to maintain the bridge. Good bye bridge! I have some other thoughts, but I need a martini first
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 12:29 AM
 
12,237 posts, read 12,656,639 times
Reputation: 6641
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Usually (?) title insurance continues as long as you own the property.?? This is a wonderful thread! Why do internet maps show all those access roads all over the place? When that one acre house parcel was carved out, was anything recorded on the deed for the original parcel? On the down side You can easily win the argument that you are not obligated to maintain the bridge. Good bye bridge! I have some other thoughts, but I need a martini first
We have access both in the front and the back via private lanes that traverse private property.

The front also traverses a bridge with giant holes in the I-beams. Engineers tell us you couldn't pay them enough money to cross that bridge with their families.

The rear entrance is basically a 400' piece of paved dirt, and is not built to any road standards. It has a nasty blind curve which endangers the dog walkers, joggers, and children who use it. It is not wide enough to easily pass another car so you have to look ahead through the trees to make sure you are going through alone.

I have learned that while most of us are under the impression that every spot of ground given the coordinates can be associated with some owner (private or government). That is not true.

I am also surprised out how devious small government officials can be. There is a reason that there are laws that all public roads must be interconnected into a network. For one reason if you need an emergency vehicle they shouldn't have to traverse private bridges that are extremely unsafe, or 12' wide private lanes.

Mind you, if those two house built in 1804 and 1928 on 25' wide dirt roads without sewers had remained that way until present day, it would be perfectly legal for the township to say this is stricly a private matter. The two home owners could either upgrade a mile long farm road or rebuild a bridge. It is their choice.

But that is not what happened. The township approved widening the right of way from 25' to 60' while still terminating in an ancient one lane bridge. They installed sewer lines and underground power lines and gave permits for 150 building lots. They declared to the state that they should be reimbursed for a share of gasoline tax based on the length of these roads. This last declaration to the state carries a list of obligations that must be met.
  1. The road must have a minimum right-of-way of 33 feet.
  2. The road must have a minimum cartway of 16 feet, paved or unpaved. (Necessary shoulder widths are excluded).
  3. The road must be capable of being driven safely at 15 miles per hour.
  4. All dead-end roads must be at least 250 feet in length measured from the last intersection and be provided with a cul-de-sac having a radius of at least 40 feet.
  5. The roadway must be accessible from an existing public street or roadway.

The last requirement to "be accessible" means it has to intersect another public street. It does not mean you come within 400' of another public street and you can get to it over a private lane. The only exceptions are if the road terminates in a place like the parking lot of a church or a park that is attended by an average of over 100 people per week. Then you can drive across the parking lot and go out another public street, Or as one judge summarized "there is no authority in law for the opening of a road entirely detached from all other roads and leading nowhere."

The township vacated a planned 60' back entrance and replaced it with a 25' emergency right of way which wasn't even a dirt road, just a stand of trees. This completely violated the "be accessible" requirement. Today the wealthiest man in the township has a private museum built on the land where that road was supposed to be built.

I don't actually know for sure if he is the wealthiest man in the township, but there are fewer than 12,000 people who live here and he had thousands of employees. How many people have a private museum anyway.

Last edited by PacoMartin; 03-01-2021 at 12:41 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 04:03 AM
 
10,772 posts, read 6,122,557 times
Reputation: 22882
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
We have access both in the front and the back via private lanes that traverse private property.

The front also traverses a bridge with giant holes in the I-beams. Engineers tell us you couldn't pay them enough money to cross that bridge with their families.

The rear entrance is basically a 400' piece of paved dirt, and is not built to any road standards. It has a nasty blind curve which endangers the dog walkers, joggers, and children who use it. It is not wide enough to easily pass another car so you have to look ahead through the trees to make sure you are going through alone.

I have learned that while most of us are under the impression that every spot of ground given the coordinates can be associated with some owner (private or government). That is not true.

I am also surprised out how devious small government officials can be. There is a reason that there are laws that all public roads must be interconnected into a network. For one reason if you need an emergency vehicle they shouldn't have to traverse private bridges that are extremely unsafe, or 12' wide private lanes.

Mind you, if those two house built in 1804 and 1928 on 25' wide dirt roads without sewers had remained that way until present day, it would be perfectly legal for the township to say this is stricly a private matter. The two home owners could either upgrade a mile long farm road or rebuild a bridge. It is their choice.

But that is not what happened. The township approved widening the right of way from 25' to 60' while still terminating in an ancient one lane bridge. They installed sewer lines and underground power lines and gave permits for 150 building lots. They declared to the state that they should be reimbursed for a share of gasoline tax based on the length of these roads. This last declaration to the state carries a list of obligations that must be met.
  1. The road must have a minimum right-of-way of 33 feet.
  2. The road must have a minimum cartway of 16 feet, paved or unpaved. (Necessary shoulder widths are excluded).
  3. The road must be capable of being driven safely at 15 miles per hour.
  4. All dead-end roads must be at least 250 feet in length measured from the last intersection and be provided with a cul-de-sac having a radius of at least 40 feet.
  5. The roadway must be accessible from an existing public street or roadway.

The last requirement to "be accessible" means it has to intersect another public street. It does not mean you come within 400' of another public street and you can get to it over a private lane. The only exceptions are if the road terminates in a place like the parking lot of a church or a park that is attended by an average of over 100 people per week. Then you can drive across the parking lot and go out another public street, Or as one judge summarized "there is no authority in law for the opening of a road entirely detached from all other roads and leading nowhere."

The township vacated a planned 60' back entrance and replaced it with a 25' emergency right of way which wasn't even a dirt road, just a stand of trees. This completely violated the "be accessible" requirement. Today the wealthiest man in the township has a private museum built on the land where that road was supposed to be built.

I don't actually know for sure if he is the wealthiest man in the township, but there are fewer than 12,000 people who live here and he had thousands of employees. How many people have a private museum anyway.
What is the date of the adoption of those five standards required that you list for a public road? They certainly sound more recent than the dates you've given for the earlier subdivisions of the property, particularly the cul de sac rule. Wouldn't a road in public use, maintained by the township, that predates those standards have grandfathered acceptance?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 07:41 AM
 
12,237 posts, read 12,656,639 times
Reputation: 6641
The county assessor lists only 20 homes built in the township between 1900 and 1940 while there are over 900 built in the 1960s. Since 1930 the cities and boroughs in our township have only increased in population by 5% while the townships have increased by 349%. The 1804 home is basically a historic property and on the short list for National Register of Historic Places if the township gets a positiion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty View Post
What is the date of the adoption of those five standards required that you list for a public road? They certainly sound more recent than the dates you've given for the earlier subdivisions of the property, particularly the cul de sac rule. Wouldn't a road in public use, maintained by the township, that predates those standards have grandfathered acceptance?
I agree about the cul de sac rule, I think only 55 out of 83 road endings in our township actually end in a cul-de-sac (our roads do not have cul-de-sacs).

I tried to get the exact date of each rule, but with COVID they just ran me around in circles. I just assumed they had the old regulations on a shelf and could look them up, but everyone is working from home. But many of the restrictions like 33' and 16' widths and the requirement for public accessibility I know go back to the earliest decades of the automobile.

Besides the decision to vacate the 60' wide back entrance was not formally carried out until 1976 when the population was roughly 50% of what it is today.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
982 posts, read 379,862 times
Reputation: 1366
My next thoughts:

If the cost is going to be on the owners, "THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE" needs some definition.

At the inception it was 2 parties. a one acre parcel and the larger mother parcel. was it meant to be 1:1? or based on ratio of acreage? Or what? It could be that the first parcel carved out still shoulders half the burden of road maintenance. What if the mother parcel had built apartments, rental homes and additional family units without dividing the land, would that influence the maintenance?

I'll repeat this question from my previous post : " When that first one acre house parcel was carved out, was anything recorded on the deed for the original mother parcel?" If at the time of splitting off the first parcel the Mother parcel deed was modified for the road issue then all the subsequent parcels carved out inherit that. and ... the title company is on the hook for missing that for the later parcels that purchased insurance. Has anyone filed a claim yet?

When some original owner of the large acreage (>300 acres) occupied it a bridge was constructed. When someone later sold off the land east of the river the buyer apparently acquired half the bridge, but maybe not with any obligation to maintain. Shouldn't they have a share in the obligation? Hopefully an obligation to provide ROW is in tact. Or, maybe that current owner is on the hook for half the bridge maintenance ? But I don't see the basis for that argument yet. He doesn't need a bridge going to the private land of others. What does the language look like on the mother parcel and the east of the river parcel regards the road easement and maintenance?

What do we know about the bridge? Who all built the bridge exactly when? Who owned it then? If the tracks would be in danger by it's removal, was it built/designed in part to benefit the RR? Perhaps they share some liability to maintain it. Are there any property tax records for the bridge? only a public structure [or possibly a RR] would escape those taxes, so if it was not taxed as a land improvement that might mean the town was involved originally or the RR. Is it taxed now? If not why not?

Was the bridge there before the RR? What does the documentation look like regards the railroad land and the original 300+ ac. parcel? Who actually owns what and who has subsequent ROW/easement?

Where the RR crosses the private road next to the bridge might be an interesting key. The RR has deep pockets (and lawyers). But they might need to fund part of the bridge.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is probably not going to be just maintenance but rather an upgrade and it might require expansion of the easement/ROW for the road. That new work. Upgrades need to e paid for.

enough for now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
11,839 posts, read 9,223,794 times
Reputation: 16907
Have the homeowners thought about hiring a contractor to fix the bridge themselves without involving the township?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 03:03 PM
 
12,237 posts, read 12,656,639 times
Reputation: 6641
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
If the cost is going to be on the owners, "THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE" needs some definition.
It is indeed a very poor phrase to use in a deed

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
I'll repeat this question from my previous post : " When that first one acre house parcel was carved out, was anything recorded on the deed for the original mother parcel?"
No, nothing was recorded on the deed of the mother parcel.

That is the big problem. The deed from the mother parcel does mention rights, but it does not mention any obligations. I am inserting the excerpt from the deed with the names omitted (even though they have all been dead for decades).

INCLUDED IN THIS GRANT IS A RIGHT OF WAY-OVER THE LANDS OF -------, WHICH SAID RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR ONE HUNDRED YEARS (since 1830), OR MORE, AND THE COURSES AND DISTANCES OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY HAVING BEEN DEFINED IN THE GRANT OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY OBTAINED BY ----- BY AN AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1930, AND INTENDED TO BE RECORDED .

The easement was recorded but it says basically the same thing as the deed. No obligations are specified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
When some original owner of the large acreage (>100 acres) occupied it a bridge was constructed. When someone later sold off the land west of the river the buyer apparently acquired half the bridge, but maybe not with any obligation to maintain.
There is no mention of the bridge in the deed. The survey has the property lines miss the bridge entirely. It is as if he did not buy the land where the East abutment of the bridge lands. The West abutment has been owned by.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
What do we know about the bridge? Who all built the bridge exactly when? Who owned it then? If the tracks would be in danger by it's removal, was it built/designed in part to benefit the RR? Perhaps they share some liability to maintain it. Are there any property tax records for the bridge? only a public structure [or possibly a RR] would escape those taxes, so if it was not taxed as a land improvement that might mean the town was involved originally or the RR. Is it taxed now? If not why not?

Was the bridge there before the RR? What does the documentation look like regards the railroad land and the original 300+ ac. parcel? Who actually owns what and who has subsequent ROW/easement?

Where the RR crosses the private road next to the bridge might be an interesting key. The RR has deep pockets (and lawyers). But they might need to fund part of the bridge.
We have no written information about who built the bridge or when. We know the railroad track was built in 1867. The bridge has 5 I-beams and I-beams were very expensive before the 1890s and were never used in such a utilitarian fashion as a simple bridge across a creek. A railroad map posted in the courthouse from June 1919 indicates the bridge was there at the time. Since the land on both sides was owned by full time farmers until 1914 (and by cousins until 1896) my guess is the bridge was built 1890-1914 as a way to cooperate and share farming implements like tractors.

There are no property taxes for the bridge which is part of the reason we all thought it was owned by the township. It is not taxed right now since it is not in anyone's deed

There may have been another wooden bridge in the same location when the railroad was built in 1867.

The tax maps seem to indicate that the railroad right of way goes up to the east edge of the bridge,

The RR wants nothing to do with repairing the bridge, except they don't want to see their land impacted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is probably not going to be just maintenance but rather an upgrade and it might require expansion of the easement/ROW for the road.
Yes, it occurs to me that single lane bridges can't be built in this day and age.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 06:24 PM
 
12,237 posts, read 12,656,639 times
Reputation: 6641


I don't know if this subdivision plan from the 1950s helps people understand the situation. The original homes built in 1804 and 1928 are indicated along with the road that was vacated in the 1970s. The emergency road is not legal standard and is potentially very dangerous as it has limited sitelines.
The 405' private lane (25' wide) leading from the bridge to the 80' wide street has been owned by a family since 1914 and under formal easement since 1930 (for $1). They would like to close that lane to traffic for which they are getting no reimbursement.

There is potential ingress/egress points to the north (the right of the image), but that land has been declared a conservation zone by the county as it slopes down to a creek bed.

The Mill Race at the bottom of the photo is a result of economic conditions in the pre-industrial revolution America where water-power was very significant. The father divided his property up in 1830 among his son's families and one son got the mill. But in order to guarantee that he would have water to power the mill, he carved out a "mill race" out of the other son's property. By the 20th century the claim to a mill race and a portion of the creek was pretty much of no economic value since you couldn't build on the land especially after conservation movement in the 1960's. The actual mill was torn down after WWI and the stones were re-used in a mansion. But the owner of the land did not actually sell parcels until 1970 when three parcels were sold for $1 apiece to their abutting landowner.
Attached Thumbnails
Real Estate Law regarding neighbors deed-bvaplan.jpg  
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
982 posts, read 379,862 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post

I don't know if this subdivision plan from the 1950s helps people understand the situation. The original homes built in 1804 and 1928 are indicated along with the road that was vacated in the 1970s. The emergency road is not legal standard and is potentially very dangerous as it has limited sitelines.
The 405' private lane (25' wide) leading from the bridge to the 80' wide street has been owned by a family since 1914 and under formal easement since 1930 (for $1). They would like to close that lane to traffic for which they are getting no reimbursement.

There is potential ingress/egress points to the north (the right of the image), but that land has been declared a conservation zone by the county as it slopes down to a creek bed.

The Mill Race at the bottom of the photo is a result of economic conditions in the pre-industrial revolution America where water-power was very significant. The father divided his property up in 1830 among his son's families and one son got the mill. But in order to guarantee that he would have water to power the mill, he carved out a "mill race" out of the other son's property. By the 20th century the claim to a mill race and a portion of the creek was pretty much of no economic value since you couldn't build on the land especially after conservation movement in the 1960's. The actual mill was torn down after WWI and the stones were re-used in a mansion. But the owner of the land did not actually sell parcels until 1970 when three parcels were sold for $1 apiece to their abutting landowner.
The image is too low res but I'll guess this site has KB limitations.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top