|
A land trust that I am somewhat involved with owns a parcel of land in
Pasco County, Florida that is a Road. Apparently it was owned by the
developer of the property who did not pay taxes on it, then our land
trust bought the tax deed.
Before I go any further, here is a link to the property appraisers
data sheet on the parcel;
http://appraiser.pascogov.com/search/parcel.aspx?sec=10&twn=26&rng=21&sbb=0000&blk=02200&lot=0000
Here is a link to an aerial view / map of the parcel;
http://maps.pascogov.com/maps/redir.asp?dest=map&parcel=2126100000022000000
I have studied the statutes and case law in florida on this subject to
some extent.
I understand that the residents that live on this road may get a
prescriptive easement.
Such an easement does NOT currently exist, but will ONLY exist if they
sue and win.
From what I have read, such suits are VERY difficult and expensive to
win, these easement are difficult to get.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
704.01 Common-law and statutory easements defined and determined.--
(1) IMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY.-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because all the property (the street and houses) was owned by the same
owner (the developer), the residents could also sue for an IMPLIED
GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY.
I have read case law that suggest that if I block access it could
create some liability.
So, I have made it clear to the residents that I do not intend to
block their access.
I have explained to them that I would possibly intend to reroute their
access. The two to the north, who live on either side of Plaza View
Drive at the intersection of Geiger Road can be legally forced to
access their property via. Geiger Rd instead of Plaza View Drive.
The residents of the other 11 houses can legally be forced to access
their property by taking 'Wilson Drive' to the strip of land between
the red lines that is not paved. The strip I am refering to is part of
this same parcel. It is not paved, but asking these residents to use
it via Wilson Drive would, according to my perception of the case law,
eliminate the possible liability that can come with 'Blocking Access'.
SO.... Feel free to comment on, agree with, or disagree with any of
the above. I'll read any and all posts.
NOW... The question arises... What to do with the land... How do I
get the residents to feel compelled to purchase it for as much as
possible?
Ideas;
The first idea would be to just do nothing except send everyone a
certified letter explaining that there may come a day that access may
be rerouted, then just do nothing until one or some of the residents
want to sell their houses.
I believe that these houses may be VERY difficult to sell with this
question of legal access looming.
I have posted on Craigs list offering to let people use the paved
portion of the land only for storing old furniture like couches, fill
dirt, Etc.
I have also offered free R.V. and boat storage.
I am looking for people who might want to use the property to Drag
Race and for 'Burn Out' Contests Etc.
I read something about some guy that would allow the homelsess to
occupy his property so I am looking into that.
I understand that we would be legally within my right to remove ALL
pavement from the parcel including the parts of driveways that are on
our land.
So... Lets see the love... Send me your comments, questions, ideas,
input, thoughts, Etc....
I'll read it all.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 5, 4:41=EF=BF=BDam, LandTrust...@yahoo.com wrote:
A land trust that I am somewhat involved with owns a parcel of land in
Pasco County, Florida that is a Road. Apparently it was owned by the
developer of the property who did not pay taxes on it, then our land
trust bought the tax deed.
Your land trust bought a road via tax deed in Florida.
IANAL nor do I know FL law but I believe you have purchased "a pig in
a poke".
If it was me, I would quit claim to the affected parcels to gain good
will and avoid future property tax liability.
<snip>
Regarding a Prescriptive easement, you say:
Such an easement does NOT currently exist, but will ONLY exist if they
sue and win.
NOT TRUE, at least in California. While a trip to court might be
needed to perfect the easement, it is not really the same as obtaining
a prescriptive easement. There is a pricicapal in easement law which
seems to apply here. The parcels were developed from the same owner
with Plaza View as the access. It is not unsuual for a developer to
retain fee ownership of the access road as a remainder ownership while
development progresses. This fact does not diminish the implied
easement granted to those who have purchased parcels dependent on that
access.
From what I have read, such suits are VERY difficult and expensive to
win, these easement are difficult to get.
There is no need for a prescriptive easement here (based on CA law)
the easement already exists. The cost to perfect the easement, if
needed, is little more than the filing fees, presentation of the facts
and a summery judgement. Again, all the trust bought at the tax sale
was the right to own somebody else's road and pay taxes on it. Thats
why the developer walked away. The County planners should have had
map conditions, etc. where the road would have been dedicated to the
Public or quitcliamed to the owners or something.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
704.01 =EF=BF=BDCommon-law and statutory easements defined and determined.=
--
(1) =EF=BF=BDIMPLIED GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY.-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because all the property (the street and houses) was owned by the same
owner (the developer), the residents could also sue for an IMPLIED
GRANT OF WAY OF NECESSITY.
I have read case law that suggest that if I block access it could
create some liability.
You bet your booty! See above.
So, I have made it clear to the residents that I do not intend to
block their access.
Smart move...
I have explained to them that I would possibly intend to reroute their
access. The two to the north, who live on either side of Plaza View
Drive at the intersection of Geiger Road can be legally forced to
access their property via. Geiger Rd instead of Plaza View Drive.
How generous of you <grin>. You have no right.
The residents of the other 11 houses can legally be forced to access
their property by taking 'Wilson Drive' to the strip of land between
the red lines that is not paved. The strip I am refering to is part of
this same parcel. It is not paved, but asking these residents to use
it via Wilson Drive would, according to my perception of the case law,
eliminate the possible liability that can come with 'Blocking Access'.
You can't force them to do diddly. If you wan to throw away more
money, you could go to court and try if you want.
Again, in CA you might get away with this for large, undeveloped rural
parcels where alternative access exists (the affected owners just
don't want to use it) and you want your road back. That is not the
case here. Basically, they can force you to continue to pay taxes for
their road...
SO.... Feel free to comment on, agree with, or disagree with any of
the above. I'll read any and all posts.
I don't know if FL reuires an ackwnoledgement, from the grantee, for a
quitclaim deed to be recorded or not. But, if it were me, I would get
rid of this liability either to the people using it or by public
dedication. The only exception I see is if the road is access to
other trust land and there is some compelling reason to control the
road.
NOW... The question arises... What to do with the land... =EF=BF=BDHow do =
I
get the residents to feel compelled to purchase it for as much as
possible?
At least in CA, there is no way. Why buy something you already have
an absolute right to use and someone else is paying the taxes on?
Ideas;
The first idea would be to just do nothing except send everyone a
certified letter explaining that there may come a day that access may
be rerouted, then just do nothing until one or some of the residents
want to sell their houses.
This is good PR for your land trust...not...
I believe that these houses may be VERY difficult to sell with this
question of legal access looming.
They have the access...you just have the right to pay taxes on the
dirt. They sold before, what's new here? Now if there was Lis
Pendens, that would be different.
I have posted on Craigs list offering to let people use the paved
portion of the land only for storing old furniture like couches, fill
dirt, Etc.
I have also offered free R.V. and boat storage.
How generous of you. What an ass...
I am looking for people who might want to use the property to Drag
Race and for 'Burn Out' Contests Etc.
I read something about some guy that would allow the homelsess to
occupy his property so I am looking into that.
Looks like your "land trust" is content to become a public
nusiance...more liability...
I understand that we would be legally within my right to remove ALL
pavement from the parcel including the parts of driveways that are on
our land.
I don't think so...
<snip>
good luck shmuck,
Larry
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:41:42 -0400, LandTrust818@yahoo.com wrote:
A land trust that I am somewhat involved with owns a parcel of land in
Pasco County, Florida that is a Road. Apparently it was owned by the
developer of the property who did not pay taxes on it, then our land
trust bought the tax deed.
Just out of curiosity, is the street in question public or private?
That is, "dedicated"?
That may make a difference on what you can do with the "easement".
But as I see it, if you legally own the entire property outright,
easement is your choice. You can deny access all you want. But I don't
think you have the room there for a "drag strip". The idea of boat
and rv storage would be a better choice.
Where I used to live in Cincinnati, there was a street with a similar
problem. For years, it was totally private. The guy who owned the
property had allowed many homes to be built on the property. Because
it was private, neither the county nor township would touch it for
maintenance let alone snow removal.
And just recently I learned of another totally private street so close
to my old house I could walk to it in minutes and never knew it
existed as a named street. I just thought it was somebody's private
driveway. But according to google maps, it's a regular street.
|
| |
| |
Land,
A land trust has obtained the tax deed to a private road. From your post
it does not sound as if the trust, as yet, has a clear title to this land.
There are approximately a dozen houses that have used and continue to use
this road. You believe that there is not, at present, any sort of easement
with regard to the use of this road. You further believe that prescriptive
easements are expensive. You seem to wish to remove this paved road and
instead wish to construct a new road, which you indicate on your map. You
ask for advice.
Get a lawyer asap. You need to obtain clear title to this land. I don't
follow the reasoning behind tearing out the old road and putting in a new
one but it strikes me as very expensive. The new road will certainly need to
be up to code. That probably means grading, paving and drainage. I doubt
that with a dozen households using the road that a lawyer would be a great
burden for them. They'll also probably try to embarrass the trust in the
local news papers. The dump site and drag strip ideas are really stupid.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to gift this road to the town or county?
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:fhihv39ifeehg5rr35bj917ffiij7ek8ni@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:41:42 -0400, LandTrust818@yahoo.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is the street in question public or private?
That is, "dedicated"?
That may make a difference on what you can do with the "easement".
But as I see it, if you legally own the entire property outright,
easement is your choice. You can deny access all you want.
This is manifestly untrue. If someone requires access across your land
to reach his, then he obtains an easement by necessity, whether you like
it or not. To obtain such an easement, there must be no other reasonable
route the owner of the "landlocked" property can take to get to his land.
The question the OP asks is whether he can provide an alternate route and
thereby extinguish the existing easement.
I find that it's possible to extinguish an easement by
consent -- everyone agrees to it
merger -- the same person owns the easement and the property using it
adverse possession -- unchallenged barring of use for a "long" time
statute -- the law lets the easement lapse
misuse -- but only in extreme cases
uselessness -- easement is no longer suitable to its intended purpose
There are lots of jurisdictions, and this is a rich area for disputes and
appeals, but I think it unlikely the OP can force the homeowners to
abandon their right to use his road.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:39:44 -0400, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote in
news:fhihv39ifeehg5rr35bj917ffiij7ek8ni@4ax.com:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:41:42 -0400, LandTrust818@yahoo.com wrote:
But as I see it, if you legally own the entire property outright,
easement is your choice. You can deny access all you want.
This is manifestly untrue.
It is manifestly untrue.
If someone requires access across your land
to reach his, then he obtains an easement by necessity, whether you like
it or not.
Easement by necessity is only created when there is a prior common owner of
the two tracts of land in question. If you purchase landlocked tract X, which
is surrounded by A, B, C, and D, you don't get an easement by necessity no
matter how much you may need it. Some jurisdictions wisely outlaw the
practice of creating such a situation (France springs to mind).
Your necessity doesn't implicate burdens on the property rights of unrelated
people who have nothing to do with your predicament.
To obtain such an easement, there must be no other reasonable
route the owner of the "landlocked" property can take to get to his land.
Depending on where you are, it may be worse than that. It may require that
absolutely no other way exists, i.e. "strict necessity."
The question the OP asks is whether he can provide an alternate route and
thereby extinguish the existing easement.
I find that it's possible to extinguish an easement by
consent -- everyone agrees to it
merger -- the same person owns the easement and the property using it
adverse possession -- unchallenged barring of use for a "long" time
statute -- the law lets the easement lapse
misuse -- but only in extreme cases
uselessness -- easement is no longer suitable to its intended purpose
There are lots of jurisdictions, and this is a rich area for disputes and
appeals, but I think it unlikely the OP can force the homeowners to
abandon their right to use his road.
If they and their predecessors have been using it for a lengthy period, it's
entirely possible they are entitled to use it by adverse possession, so long as
the use was not by permission. Even if it was by permission, it's conceivable
they have acquired the right to continue to use it by estoppel or some other
mechanism.
The OP seems to indicate there was a prior common owner, so easement by
necessity is entirely possible. He also linked to some technical data
concerning the property which I haven't looked at, which may have clarified
that.
Sounds like an issue for a local lawyer.
|
| |
| |
|
