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 03-01-2021, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
908 posts, read 343,108 times
Reputation: 1241

Advertisements

Wait now … are you saying the over all mother parcel >300 was the part east of the river? ( based on your edit of my reply you quoted) ...lets call it grandmother. It looked like that frontage was sold off and the folks west of the river retained the easement for access. That changes everything. (well changes some perspective anyway) ... Keeping with the previous vernacular … But even then, can you refresh us as to 'mother' parcel west of the river, which spawned the first one acre lot and eventually the subdivision. Did that contain an obligation to granny or was the only obligation ever recorded against the first lot cut from ma? Seems ma should contain the obligation in order to confer it. To be clear, was the 100 acres [what I thought was the mother and will keep refering to as such ] (west of the river) parceled out of the >300? And the east of the river is now the gramma? So what does the gramma deed say about it's obligations? And is it clear that a ROW/easement is on it? We do not know what the original bridge construction date or material was (probably wood) nor when it was replaced with I beams, right? I thought you said some one had half a bridge in their deed? I guess I need to go re read the thread. I hate it when that happens... It would be work for me, but could you lay out a tabulation of all the timelines in one chart? Especially regards the bridge existing before the RR. Showed up Does the RR Own land or just have a ROW easement? Either way They would have had to respect the road or obliterate it. The road is still there. It should have been mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
It is indeed a very poor phrase to use in a deed



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.



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.



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.



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, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
908 posts, read 343,108 times
Reputation: 1241
This might be important! We might be looking at 2 different private road easements. The first granted across the east grandma land and latter across the 100 acre mother land. might be huge distinction for bridge costs. I haven't yet wrapped my mind around if that is good for the people to the west or not yet
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 10:22 PM
 
11,967 posts, read 12,394,505 times
Reputation: 6484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Wait now … are you saying the over all mother parcel >300 was the part east of the river? ( based on your edit of my reply you quoted) ...lets call it grandmother.

The creek is on the right side.
The 300 acre grandmother property was intact from 1802 to 1830 when it was split up among the sons, The mother parcel is to the west of the creek.

In this image North is Up


In this image North is To the Right
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
908 posts, read 343,108 times
Reputation: 1241
OK, now I see it. So that land east of the creek was never part of the mother parcel. yet there must be an easement/ROW to cross it from the bridge. What do the records say over on east side of the river?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2021, 07:26 PM
 
11,967 posts, read 12,394,505 times
Reputation: 6484
The world's first skyscraper was the Home Insurance Building in Chicago, erected in 1884-1885. The so-called “Father of the Skyscraper” towered all of 10 stories with its peak at 138 feet, miniature by today's standards but gargantuan at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
OK, now I see it. So that land east of the creek was never part of the mother parcel. yet there must be an easement/ROW to cross it from the bridge. What do the records say over on east side of the river?
As I said the bridge that is there now could not have been built before 1890 because I-beams were super expensive before they started building skyscrapers. The bridge has 5 I-beams. Before that there was either a wooden bridge or a simple ford. There are no records.

There was a formal easement signed by the industrialist who owned the West end from 1919 to 1930 and built the second home. He signed the easement days before selling the ~100 acres in 1930 which stated the passage had been informally used since 1830. But that easement only conveys the right to traverse the land, and does not mention any agreement about maintenance. If it did mention maintenance (especially if it mentioned the bridge explicitely) this discussion would be radically different.

The other problem is that the private land enters the 80' wide street only 150' from a traffic light which was installed in the mid 1990s. In 1930 this was a country road and now it is a busy state highway with a dangerous intersection. So even if the bridge were fixed it would still dump into a private lane and into a bad intersection.
Attached Thumbnails
Real Estate Law regarding neighbors deed-bridge-i-beams.jpg  
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2021, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
11,625 posts, read 8,984,113 times
Reputation: 16491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
The world's first skyscraper was the Home Insurance Building in Chicago, erected in 1884-1885. The so-called “Father of the Skyscraper” towered all of 10 stories with its peak at 138 feet, miniature by today's standards but gargantuan at that time.


As I said the bridge that is there now could not have been built before 1890 because I-beams were super expensive before they started building skyscrapers. The bridge has 5 I-beams. Before that there was either a wooden bridge or a simple ford. There are no records.

There was a formal easement signed by the industrialist who owned the West end from 1919 to 1930 and built the second home. He signed the easement days before selling the ~100 acres in 1930 which stated the passage had been informally used since 1830. But that easement only conveys the right to traverse the land, and does not mention any agreement about maintenance. If it did mention maintenance (especially if it mentioned the bridge explicitely) this discussion would be radically different.

The other problem is that the private land enters the 80' wide street only 150' from a traffic light which was installed in the mid 1990s. In 1930 this was a country road and now it is a busy state highway with a dangerous intersection. So even if the bridge were fixed it would still dump into a private lane and into a bad intersection.
Have the homeowners thought about contracting a GC to fix/replace the bridge?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2021, 09:26 AM
 
11,967 posts, read 12,394,505 times
Reputation: 6484
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
Have the homeowners thought about contracting a GC to fix/replace the bridge?
Certainly. Estimated cost vary widely. But there remains several problems
(1) certification for emergency vehicles, electric and telecommunication repair trucks, fuel trucks, repair trucks, delivery trucks
(2) the private road leading 405' to the state highway intersects at a non-regulation intersection which is dangerous
(3) the owners of the 405' private lane would prefer that it go back to being private land
(4) fixing the bridge means that we are liable for an accident involving dozens of neighbors who would use the bridge for a short cut.

Right now ownership of the bridge remains in contention, but once we replace it, we have essentially claimed ownership and with it liability.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2021, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
908 posts, read 343,108 times
Reputation: 1241
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
The world's first skyscraper was the Home Insurance Building in Chicago, erected in 1884-1885. The so-called “Father of the Skyscraper” towered all of 10 stories with its peak at 138 feet, miniature by today's standards but gargantuan at that time.


As I said the bridge that is there now could not have been built before 1890 because I-beams were super expensive before they started building skyscrapers. The bridge has 5 I-beams. Before that there was either a wooden bridge or a simple ford. There are no records.

There was a formal easement signed by the industrialist who owned the West end from 1919 to 1930 and built the second home. He signed the easement days before selling the ~100 acres in 1930 which stated the passage had been informally used since 1830. But that easement only conveys the right to traverse the land, and does not mention any agreement about maintenance. If it did mention maintenance (especially if it mentioned the bridge explicitely) this discussion would be radically different.

The other problem is that the private land enters the 80' wide street only 150' from a traffic light which was installed in the mid 1990s. In 1930 this was a country road and now it is a busy state highway with a dangerous intersection. So even if the bridge were fixed it would still dump into a private lane and into a bad intersection.
Regardless of when the current structure was built, or if there was a predecessor, someone owns. Did you discover anything in the tax records? There should be old assessment records going back to the inception of property taxes there. We have them here. The bridge should show up on something. If a municipality built it, you are likely off the hook. I am not yet clear on the parcel east of the bridge. What are we calling that? What does that easement look like. Is any part of the bridge in the RR ROW? Does the RR own or have a ROW? What documentation exists about the RR crossing the road or vice versa? Date the RR was installed?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2021, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
908 posts, read 343,108 times
Reputation: 1241
The dangerous intersection thing could be alleviated with a right turn only in or out of the place.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2021, 11:35 AM
 
7,916 posts, read 10,227,950 times
Reputation: 14648
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Regardless of when the current structure was built, or if there was a predecessor, someone owns. Did you discover anything in the tax records? There should be old assessment records going back to the inception of property taxes there. We have them here. The bridge should show up on something. If a municipality built it, you are likely off the hook. I am not yet clear on the parcel east of the bridge. What are we calling that? What does that easement look like. Is any part of the bridge in the RR ROW? Does the RR own or have a ROW? What documentation exists about the RR crossing the road or vice versa? Date the RR was installed?
It would be highly unusual for a bridge to show up on tax assessment records.
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