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 02-25-2021, 10:21 AM
 
10,727 posts, read 11,598,075 times
Reputation: 5869

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
That deed included the phrase "heirs and assigns", which is everyone who has bought pieces of the property since that deed was recorded.
I understand what "assigns" means. That one acre property was sold 5 times.
  1. 18. Nov. 1941
  2. 13. Nov. 1950
  3. 01. Sep. 1997
  4. 29. Dec. 2000
  5. 22. Nov. 2004

But while that was the original home built in 1804 it had been included in a 100 acre plot since 1830. A second home was built in the 1920s and both homes and the 100 acres were purchased in 1930.

The original home was sold off as a single acre with the house in 1941. That's when the maintenance clause was inserted,

My question is how does phrases in one deed apply to multiple homes built later.


It's as if I had 20 building lots and I sold the first one with the caveat that a modular home could not be constructed on the site. But interest is poor so, I change the requirement and let the last 19 lots with no such restriction. Can the township hold me responsible for the restrictions on the first sale based on a deed?


Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
No, the metal on a bridge is not painted every year. That's overkill. Every 30 years, maybe.
I should say the I-beams should have been in a professional maintenance program.

Click image for larger version

Name:	bridge rust.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	54.7 KB
ID:	227727

Last edited by PacoMartin; 02-25-2021 at 11:36 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2021, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
10,685 posts, read 8,096,262 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
I understand what "assigns" means. That one acre property was sold 5 times.
  1. 18. Nov. 1941
  2. 13. Nov. 1950
  3. 01. Sep. 1997
  4. 29. Dec. 2000
  5. 22. Nov. 2004

But while that was the original home built in 1804 it had been included in a 100 acre plot since 1830. A second home was built in the 1920s and both homes and the 100 acres were purchased in 1930.

The original home was sold off as a single acre with the house in 1941. That's when the maintenance clause was inserted,

My question is how does phrases in one deed apply to multiple homes built later.



Attachment 227727
They're fruit of the same tree, or plat of land or deed as it were.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2021, 01:44 PM
 
7,666 posts, read 9,606,857 times
Reputation: 13957
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
I understand what "assigns" means. That one acre property was sold 5 times.
  1. 18. Nov. 1941
  2. 13. Nov. 1950
  3. 01. Sep. 1997
  4. 29. Dec. 2000
  5. 22. Nov. 2004

But while that was the original home built in 1804 it had been included in a 100 acre plot since 1830. A second home was built in the 1920s and both homes and the 100 acres were purchased in 1930.

The original home was sold off as a single acre with the house in 1941. That's when the maintenance clause was inserted,

My question is how does phrases in one deed apply to multiple homes built later.


It's as if I had 20 building lots and I sold the first one with the caveat that a modular home could not be constructed on the site. But interest is poor so, I change the requirement and let the last 19 lots with no such restriction. Can the township hold me responsible for the restrictions on the first sale based on a deed?


I should say the I-beams should have been in a professional maintenance program.
I can appreciate your frustration because I agree that, at some point in time, all of the deeds should have referenced the private road obligation. Be that as it may, however, if I were in your situation I'd probably want to see that the homeowners oversaw the reconstruction of the bridge--not the township. The township would probably have a higher standard to meet and there would likely be a much higher cost involved. As long as the bridge abutments were in good useable condition, I would think that it could be reconstructed for much less cost than you've been led to believe.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2021, 02:26 PM
 
10,727 posts, read 11,598,075 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
They're fruit of the same tree, or plat of land or deed as it were.
But that is not a legal argument. A deed covers only the one property including all the assigns.

It an easement existed that spelled out that the residents of the subdivision were obligated to pay for a maintenance program and annual inspections on a century old bridge and to replace it if need be, that would be a different story.

But you are talking about the deed for one parcel that used to be part of a greater parcel before 1941 with vague wording.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2021, 02:59 PM
 
10,727 posts, read 11,598,075 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan View Post
I can appreciate your frustration because I agree that, at some point in time, all of the deeds should have referenced the private road obligation. Be that as it may, however, if I were in your situation I'd probably want to see that the homeowners oversaw the reconstruction of the bridge--not the township. The township would probably have a higher standard to meet and there would likely be a much higher cost involved. As long as the bridge abutments were in good useable condition, I would think that it could be reconstructed for much less cost than you've been led to believe.
Of course! There are dozens of youtube videos on how to build a bridge for cheap. There are whole books about people with giant ranches out west that need to build a dozen crossings across streams. Most of them simply purchase an old railroad flatbed car for cheap and build concrete abutments.

The problem that we have is those youtube videos don't teach you how to survive a lawsuit from someone crossing your inexpensive bridge. Everyone knows you can get sued and you don't have to be guilty. Our personal homeowners insurance are understandably not interested in insuring a bridge that is not on our property.

Like I said the ideal solution would be for the township to build a new legal road in place of the 14' wide one lane emergency access road with dangerously poor sitelines before some elderly dogwalker or child gets hurt. They would do this because they vacated the legal 60' wide road in the original plans which was against the law requiring all public roads to be directly connected to other public roads (and not via a few hundred feet of private 25' lane).

The vacation of the alternate means of ingress and egress was handled in a criminal fashion. The Planning commission was never told that there was no other public means of access. Right in the middle of the vacation procedure a flood which peaked at over 90 million gallons of water per hour (the worst flood in the three decades since the USGS gages were installed) struck the area, and the township inspected all of the county owned bridges. Even though the township was not responsible for the county owned bridges, they were concerned about their citizens. They did not inspect the bridge that they were about to vacate. Since the damage to the I-beams developed over decades, it is almost certain they would have seen the condition of the bridge.

Secondly the township would acknowledge that the bridge is not in our deeds, and it is not in the deeds of the previous owners. We should not be liable for things that we don't own. Of course, they are making the same argument since the bridge was privately built in 1890-1914 time fram. But the township is the one that enlarged a 25' wide right of way road to 60' right of way leading to a 12' wide bridge.

IF IT IS NOT CLEAR in our state 25' is the maximum width for private roads. The statewide minimum for public roads in townships is 33', but most townships usually specify at least 50'. There is no specified minimum width for a public bridge and the county does own a few historic bridges that are one lane and only 17' wide. The 12' width is probably because when it was built it was primarily for horse drawn carts and farm tractors.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2021, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
10,685 posts, read 8,096,262 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
Of course! There are dozens of youtube videos on how to build a bridge for cheap. There are whole books about people with giant ranches out west that need to build a dozen crossings across streams. Most of them simply purchase an old railroad flatbed car for cheap and build concrete abutments.

The problem that we have is those youtube videos don't teach you how to survive a lawsuit from someone crossing your inexpensive bridge. Everyone knows you can get sued and you don't have to be guilty. Our personal homeowners insurance are understandably not interested in insuring a bridge that is not on our property.

Like I said the ideal solution would be for the township to build a new legal road in place of the 14' wide one lane emergency access road with dangerously poor sitelines before some elderly dogwalker or child gets hurt. They would do this because they vacated the legal 60' wide road in the original plans which was against the law requiring all public roads to be directly connected to other public roads (and not via a few hundred feet of private 25' lane).

The vacation of the alternate means of ingress and egress was handled in a criminal fashion. The Planning commission was never told that there was no other public means of access. Right in the middle of the vacation procedure a flood which peaked at over 90 million gallons of water per hour (the worst flood in the three decades since the USGS gages were installed) struck the area, and the township inspected all of the county owned bridges. Even though the township was not responsible for the county owned bridges, they were concerned about their citizens. They did not inspect the bridge that they were about to vacate. Since the damage to the I-beams developed over decades, it is almost certain they would have seen the condition of the bridge.

Secondly the township would acknowledge that the bridge is not in our deeds, and it is not in the deeds of the previous owners. We should not be liable for things that we don't own. Of course, they are making the same argument since the bridge was privately built in 1890-1914 time fram. But the township is the one that enlarged a 25' wide right of way road to 60' right of way leading to a 12' wide bridge.

IF IT IS NOT CLEAR in our state 25' is the maximum width for private roads. The statewide minimum for public roads in townships is 33', but most townships usually specify at least 50'. There is no specified minimum width for a public bridge and the county does own a few historic bridges that are one lane and only 17' wide. The 12' width is probably because when it was built it was primarily for horse drawn carts and farm tractors.
Between "Youtube" and "The Township" there exists "Contractors" and "engineering firms." They have interests in building a bridge that won't get them sued.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:11 AM
 
58 posts, read 7,579 times
Reputation: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
I understand what "assigns" means. That one acre property was sold 5 times.
  1. 18. Nov. 1941
  2. 13. Nov. 1950
  3. 01. Sep. 1997
  4. 29. Dec. 2000
  5. 22. Nov. 2004

But while that was the original home built in 1804 it had been included in a 100 acre plot since 1830. A second home was built in the 1920s and both homes and the 100 acres were purchased in 1930.

The original home was sold off as a single acre with the house in 1941. That's when the maintenance clause was inserted,

My question is how does phrases in one deed apply to multiple homes built later.



It's as if I had 20 building lots and I sold the first one with the caveat that a modular home could not be constructed on the site. But interest is poor so, I change the requirement and let the last 19 lots with no such restriction. Can the township hold me responsible for the restrictions on the first sale based on a deed?



I should say the I-beams should have been in a professional maintenance program.

Attachment 227727
That would be my question also. How does the encumbrance of roadway maintenance get transferred to those heirs and assignees without them becoming party to that agreement each time the property, or part of it, was transferred? That is probably something that would have been part of the title search with each transfer, if one was done and should have been part of each new deed.

It may be that in the absence of inclusion in each new deed the responsibility remains with the two original properties, or that part of the two properties that remain after the other lots were subdivided off since no such agreement or encumbrance appears to have been passed on. If true, that would make two of the neighbors very unhappy - they wouldn't happen to be the people who hired the lawyers, would they?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:13 AM
 
2,806 posts, read 950,816 times
Reputation: 8046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook View Post
Well, we don't all make stuff up and we're not all anonymous.
Thank you, I can't think of one time where I intentionally lied to someone on the web. Now, could I have passed on information that I believed to be correct but somehow wasn't? Maybe, but I learned early in my career that if I was stating something I "thought was correct but was not positive about it", to include that very disclaimer. We are not computers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
11,347 posts, read 10,088,496 times
Reputation: 18969
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
I get $3,886 per house per million, but that is quibbling. I have never seen the estimated principal as the letter was destroyed before I got here, but I was told it was either $1.4 or $1.6 million. About 6 years ago a cost of $675,000 was widely reported in the media for the replacement of a county operated bridge that was wider and longer and located less than 3 miles up the creek.
Different bridge, different location. Your bridge may require footing work the other one didn't. There are many variables on cost, and a civil engineer would be the qualified professional to justify. Bridge design will cost money of course, and that happens after you work out your legal issues.

Quote:
I wasn't here for the first 6 years of this 16.5 year drama, but the lawyers hired by the residents wrote a 29 page essay called "statement of just cause" that said the residents case was solid for 100% assumption of cost by the municipalities and estimates for legal fees were $20K to $30K.
Lawyer's opinions are just opinions. Court rulings are what matters.

Quote:

My biggest complaint about that phrase is it was in someone else's deed written in 1941. By simple calculation you have 13 homes that have been sold and resold multiple times since 1941. Rough estimate that is over 50 deeds. Who hires a lawyer to read 50 deeds and look for clauses that might affect you.
Reasonable, but that doesn't mean that the municipality is now responsible just because it is difficult for you to have found this. It is theoretically possible that you might have a lawsuit against a title company, a previous lawyer who wrote one or more of those deeds, or a previous owner who did not disclose. I suspect that the statute of limitations has long expired, culpable parties have died, evidence no longer exists.

Quote:
About 7 years after the subdivision was approved in 1958 the real estate lawyer who worked the project for over a decade bought a retirement home in the subdivision. A few months later a stolen truck crashed into the bridge bringing the issues to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. The lawyer wrote that they assumed that the township owned the bridge. The township solicitor disagreed.

Bottom line is if the lawyer who oversaw the subdivision development thought the bridge was owned by the township, then how would you expect homeowners to know the difference? If the township had spent $10 on a sign that said "Private Bridge" then each new homeowner would at least know the township's opinion.
So it has been known since 1965 that the township has disavowed ownership. Sounds like a good defense for the town, which pushes responsibility back on you.

The neighbors could also have put up a sign stating private bridge. After all, I don't feel any obligation to label things that aren't mine notifying the world that I don't own them.

When you purchased the property 10 years ago, you might have questioned why you had to cross a dilapidated bridge to get to your home, which might have prompted questions on your part.

It sounds like you are in a tough space, it is going to cost you money, but just because you don't want to spend the money it does not mean that the township is responsible to assume your liability.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:08 AM
 
10,727 posts, read 11,598,075 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
So it has been known since 1965 that the township has disavowed ownership. Sounds like a good defense for the town, which pushes responsibility back on you.
The township had records back to 1965 where they disavowed ownership of the bridge. The residents didn't know that. It turns out that you can google the township records back to 1958, but who would think to do that?

Googling township meeting minutes show that starting in November of 1971 they not only disavowed ownership themselves, but they were labelling the residents as "owners" of the bridge. There is no references to legal analysis, just claims made by Board of Supervisors. Once again, the residents only became aware of these meeting minutes after the fact.

In 1976 the township vacated a section of the road leading the to an alternative public access to the subdivision. They did this with the full knowledge that the front entrance was a private lane and a private bridge.



This part is strictly illegal decision on the part of the township. It's against state law and against tax reimbursement regulations to have a public road that does not intersect another public road. With the front entrace now being a 405' private lane followed by a private bridge, and the back entrance now grass and building lots there was no easy way to build a public road without condemning land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
It sounds like you are in a tough space, it is going to cost you money, but just because you don't want to spend the money it does not mean that the township is responsible to assume your liability.
My question is where did we assume liability? There is nothing in our deeds that mentions a bridge, nothing in the deed from 1930, and nothing in the deed from 1919 that mentions a bridge. There is no mention of a bridge in the easements. Even the deeds that talk about maintenance talk about maintenance of roads. That could mean repairing potholes, not major construction.

If the deed said "you must repair the bridge or replace it" then I wouldn't be posting this question. Of course, nobody would buy in the subdivision either,
Attached Thumbnails
Real Estate Law regarding neighbors deed-1975-vacation-bv-drive.jpg  
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

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