53
54

Non-documented "easement" agreement? (self.legaladvice)

Revlis-TK421 が 投稿

I bought our land 5 years ago. 1.5 acres. When I did, there was a gap in the fence between me and one of my neighbors. He put up a temporary fence a few months after we bought, but came over one day and claimed that he had an easement agreement with the previous owner to let large trucks up into the back of his property - he was developing his land (12 lots went in) and had been driving over our side to get large trucks up into the back lot.

I took a look at the paperwork and there is no such easement on the property and I told him so. He told me I'd be hearing from his lawyer.

Then he died and I heard nothing more about it.

The temp gate has never been opened, and in fact he's got a massive junk pile sitting in front of it on his side and I have trees and a garden in front of it on my side.

A few weeks ago a guy claiming to be his business partner showed up and re-iterated that hey had an agreement for access to my gravel road for access to the back of their lot. I told him it's not on any of my paperwork but if he had anything to please give me a copy. He left, again saying I'd be hearing from their lawyer.

In talking to some other neighbors it turns out that the business partner wants to subdivide their remaining piece into three lots but the only way for that to work is to have access to my road for their back lot. They had had an agreement with the previous owners of my lot to make a subdivision on what is now my land (8 more lots) with a road down the center of it. These plans were filed with the county but nothing ever came of them since the land was foreclosed on and nothing made it onto the deed.

Apparently I beat these people out on the bid for the land when I bought it and am apparently holding up completion of their construction plans for their last 3 lots (they put 12 houses up on their side) and are whining that they need the profits from these last three houses to "break even" on their costs.

Because there were plans filed with the county does that mean that I'm under any obligation here even if it's not on the deed? Do I need to retain a lawyer now, or do I wait to get served?

An aside - he dumped metric tons of earth on our land, before it was our land, illegally in order to bring the grade up high enough for him to build houses on his side. Talking to the old-timer on the other side it's anywhere from 4-8 feet higher than it used to be, and it was all done without permits. They were dumping dirt while the old owners were still here and even more while the property sat in foreclosure for half a year. When they got approval for their builds it seems like the county inspector just assumed the land was always at it's current height and left it at that. The land is stable enough, but I'm constantly finding buried shit - garbage, concrete, bricks, stumps, and it's cost me 4 or 5 thousand at this point to get rid of the stuff I've found. If push comes to shove with these people, will this illegal dumping do me any good to bring up or am I just opening myself up to a county order to remove all the excess dirt on my own dime?

Edit: My lot is an old lot. The last time a survey of any significance was done on it was when it was originally plotted out, in the late 1800s, when it sold for 11 gold coins. There was only the grossest of an elevation description put in then, referencing landmarks gone for the better part of a century. I don't see anything else describing elevations anywhere in the next 120 years of paperwork. Although I have to say, the 1920's permitting procedure was just so damn adorable =P

Edit2: This is in California, Bay Area

全 24 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]litmustest1 29ポイント30ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's no easement. If anything, it just sounds like an oral license from the previous owner, and that permission expired upon his or her passing. It sucks for the neighbors and their development, but if they want access to the road, they're going to have to pay for it.

[–]correon 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

This analysis sounds correct. An easement would have to be in writing and recorded. Permission to use a driveway without compensation is a freely revocable license. The only danger I can think of at this point are easements by necessity / prescription, but that seems unlikely in this situation.

[–]RonPaul_Was_Right 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Firstly, I agree with each of the above comments. But I wanted to expand upon their answers and provide a fuller context.

Generally, there are 3 ways to create an easement:
(1) Expressly, (2) by Implication, or (3) through Public Use.

{1} An Express Easement (which is what they were alleging) must be in writing and satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It may or may not be a strict requirement that the easement be recorded, but a subsequent bona fide purchaser who takes without notice of the written agreement can often defeat or nullify the agreement. Since no writing, signed by the previous owner of your land, can be found or was recorded, any litigation claiming an express easement would surely fail.

{2} An Easement may by Implied by (1) Prescription, (2) Conveyance, or (3) Necessity.
Prescription requires the open, notorious, and on-going use of that land/easement for the statutory period, without any consent or objection from the landowner [you & the previous owner(s)]. You've stated that there was not common ownership of the dominant [there's] and servient [your's] estate with an on-going use of the easement before and after severance...so there's no Implication by Conveyance. And third, there is no Necessity because their parcels are not landlocked with no access to public roads (creating a necessity).

{3} And last, there's no public use because this isn't a beach or something where the general public would assume they can traipse through your land because others do so regularly.

A License on the other hand is like an easement(-). It too is tantamount to receiving permission to enter the land, but it is not a right, it is merely a privilege. It can be made orally, it does not require a writing, and it is freely revocable at any time and for any reason.

However, a mere License can be made irrevocable in several circumstances.
(1) where it is coupled with an interest in the land. Usually where you purchase crops and it is implied in law that you may enter the land to harvest those crops you've purchased for as long as is necessary. Like if you go to a tree farm and buy a Christmas tree, they have to let you enter the land to cut it down (unless they're going to deliver it).
(2) An executed license--like basketball tickets.
(3) or Easement by Estoppel. For both an executed license and Easement by Estoppel, the plaintiff(s) (here, your businessmen neighbors) would have to show that in reliance on the oral easement grantor by your previous landowner, they expended significant money and labor and it would be detrimental to them if the easement were not granted. Now, it would appear that your neighbors have a prima facie case to argue Easement by Estoppel since they started a housing development in reliance on the previous landlord's oral promise/permission. BUT, again, this is not a true easement, but more like a license(+). They would only be granted an equitable license, and have permission to exercise that license until it wasn't "fair" any more--until they have reasonably recouped their reliance costs. Once I go cut down the Christmas tree, I can't bitch about not having a longer license. And how long is long enough for use of a road to pay for a housing development is fact-dependent, I'm afraid.
Anyway, it seems to me that their argument of there should be a permanent easement is unreasonable. Again, it seems possible to me that they could convince a judge to grant this equitable relief because they spent all this money believing they were going to have access to your land/road, but I can't envision it being made permanent. And if you don't want to sell them an easement, that's probably the end of it.

.

.

I hope none of that law & analysis is patently incorrect. Someone please let me know if CA differs from any of these general principles.
And thanks for helping me study for the Bar!

[–]SenorJuansie 19ポイント20ポイント  (1子コメント)

but the only way for that to work is to have access to my road for their back lot.

Other than spending his own money to build his own road, I'm sure.

An oral easement (presumably they're claiming it's uncompensated, even) for the purpose of giving construction equipment access does not sound like a winner in court. But let them sue you. When they sue to enforce the supposed easement, you can counterclaim for the trespass/damage of the dumping.

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

No room to continue the road up the the back part of the lot, it would make the two lots up front too small to pass the minimum square foot requirements. This is California, and the trend is to squeeze in every last possible home in the infill. I just fucked up their plans since I bought up 1/3 of their planned development.

[–]Sorthum 33ポイント34ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh dear. It's a post about an easement for a landlocked (of sorts) neighbor. Please stand by, OP; real estate lawyers will be parachuting in momentarily to provide you with many, many comments on how to proceed.

(In case you're new, this subreddit LOVES landlocked neighbor stories. You're in for a ride!)

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

They aren't really land locked, but want access to my road for a sub-division that would be land-locked if they were to build it. I apparently fucked up all sorts of plans when I beat their bid. I'm so torn up over that /s

From what I gather they can build 2 lots on the last bit of land with access to the street they have, but 3 lots if the back lot gets access to my land. Given this is California, and literally 5 minutes away from the downtown of a major city in the Bay Area, the difference between 2 and 3 lots is a half a million in profits.

[–]Reddisaurusrekts 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Half a million in profits? Well it sounds like if you're minded to, you could sell them a bit of your plot of land for quite a handsome amount of money.

Definitely get a lawyer to do that for you if you go down that route though.

[–]tang81 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

$500k in profit you say? Offer to sell them an easement for $250k. Not legal advice, but that's what I would do.

Depending on the amount of land they are taking you can always figure out a reasonable value.

[–]TechLaw2015 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plain and simple, they do not have an easement. Because an easement is an interest in land, it must comply with the statute of frauds, which requires it to be in writing.

If it is not in writing, they could argue two things. 1. That there is an easement by necessity. However, if they already have access to the road by some other means, they cannot claim this.

  1. That there is a prescriptive easement (adverse possession for easements). This is possible but unlikely. There are a few requirements, but the one that will make it fail is that use has to be open and notorious to the property owner. In this case, the owner actually granted access, so the clock did not start ticking until the old man died.

I apologize for any rambling, studying for the bar can do that.

[–]Dirty_Cop 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

This sub loves updates, especially with this type of situation. Please give us an update when the situation is resolved.

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Will do. I haven't heard back from the guy or his lawyer yet. I guess I'll know for sure that I'm out of the woods if they break ground on a 2-parcel sub-division instead of a 3-parcel.

[–]snakesign 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're going to need a crudely drawn map, preferably in MS paint.

[–]cld8 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they can produce a written easement agreement, signed by the previous owner, then it may be binding (emphasis on may, even then it's not a sure thing).

If it was just a verbal agreement, then it's not official and you can ignore it.

I suggest you offer to sell them easement rights for a mutually agreeable price.

[–]pinkflamingosHOA 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I took a look at the paperwork and there is no such easement on the property and I told him so. He told me I'd be hearing from his lawyer.

When you say you "took a look at the paperwork" do you mean the legal description on your vesting deed? Or did you have a full title search done on the property? Because I have certainly seen many deeds with erroneous legal descriptions... especially on deeds coming out of banks after a foreclosure.

They had had an agreement with the previous owners of my lot to make a subdivision on what is now my land (8 more lots) with a road down the center of it. These plans were filed with the county but nothing ever came of them since the land was foreclosed on and nothing made it onto the deed.

This concerns me. And it certainly suggests your property was surveyed more recently than the 1800's. This is not necessarily indicative of a problem but if I were you I would want to have a full title search done on both parcels to look for anything that may have been overlooked.

And so I can sleep at night... please tell me you have title insurance on this 1.5 acre parcel in one of the most expensive markets in the country...

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Full title search was done when we purchased, we had title insurance. No where in any of the documentation we received shows an easement for this part of the land. There is an easement down where we come onto the property from the street for fire department's access to another neighboor since his main drive was originally too narrow and steep for a fire truck, but he's since fixed that issue and the easement has gone unused. They've got a lock on their gate there that hasn't been opened in 2 decades, or so I'm told.

As for the surveys, I'm sure they were done privately to draw up the plans of course, but they were never filed with the county. The plans that were submitted aren't approved - no stamps- but tbey are on file. Those plans don't show elevations, just a gross top-down of property boundaries, building positions, and the road. The clerk said she wasn't sure why they were in the file since they were insufficent for any sort of building permit, but there they are.

[–]LocationBot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.

It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post.

Please update the original post to include this information.

Report Inaccuracies Here | Author

Original Post:

Non-documented "easement" agreement?

I bought our land 5 years ago. 1.5 acres. When I did, there was a gap in the fence between me and one of my neighbors. He put up a temporary fence a few months after we bought, but came over one day and claimed that he had an easement agreement with the previous owner to let large trucks up into the back of his property - he was developing his land (12 lots went in) and had been driving over our side to get large trucks up into the back lot.

I took a look at the paperwork and there is no such easement on the property and I told him so. He told me I'd be hearing from his lawyer.

Then he died and I heard nothing more about it.

The temp gate has never been opened, and in fact he's got a massive junk pile sitting in front of it on his side and I have trees and a garden in front of it on my side.

A few weeks ago a guy claiming to be his business partner showed up and re-iterated that hey had an agreement for access to my gravel road for access to the back of their lot. I told him it's not on any of my paperwork but if he had anything to please give me a copy. He left, again saying I'd be hearing from their lawyer.

In talking to some other neighbors it turns out that the business partner wants to subdivide their remaining piece into three lots but the only way for that to work is to have access to my road for their back lot. They had had an agreement with the previous owners of my lot to make a subdivision on what is now my land (8 more lots) with a road down the center of it. These plans were filed with the county but nothing ever came of them since the land was foreclosed on and nothing made it onto the deed.

Apparently I beat these people out on the bid for the land when I bought it and am apparently holding up completion of their construction plans for their last 3 lots (they put 12 houses up on their side) and are whining that they need the profits from these last three houses to "break even" on their costs.

Because there were plans filed with the county does that mean that I'm under any obligation here even if it's not on the deed? Do I need to retain a lawyer now, or do I wait to get served?

An aside - he dumped metric tons of earth on our land, before it was our land, illegally in order to bring the grade up high enough for him to build houses on his side. Talking to the old-timer on the other side it's anywhere from 4-8 feet higher than it used to be, and it was all done without permits. They were dumping dirt while the old owners were still here and even more while the property sat in foreclosure for half a year. When they got approval for their builds it seems like the county inspector just assumed the land was always at it's current height and left it at that. The land is stable enough, but I'm constantly finding buried shit - garbage, concrete, bricks, stumps, and it's cost me 4 or 5 thousand at this point to get rid of the stuff I've found. If push comes to shove with these people, will this illegal dumping do me any good to bring up or am I just opening myself up to a county order to remove all the excess dirt on my own dime?

[–]SamsquamtchHunter 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Does he only want to use it during construction, or is it their intent to use it as the road/driveway to that lot?

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It sounds like permenant access, though he hasn't told me anything yet. Another neighboor showed me the development plans they had 6 years ago, which had access thru my property for their proposed back lot

[–]available_username2 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Edit2: This is in California, Bay Area

.

they need the profits from these last three houses to "break even" on their costs

I hear the the housing market in the bay area is really low, I'm sure they're having a tough time making any money there.

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, that's what I thought but I don't really know how much of a loan they took out or what they owed to any financial backers, etc

[–]andpassword 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just want to know how you found an undeveloped 1.5 acre parcel in the bay area in the first place.

[–]Revlis-TK421[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It had a house on it that would have been red tagged if the county ever inspected it - rolled foundation so the ceiling joists were holding up the wall, sewer pipes rusted out in walls, electrical insanity, etc. We had to tear down and rebuild. Did most of the work myself (not stucco or drywall tho. man I hate stucco and drywall). Some day I'll post up on DYI if i ever get the photos organized.

We bought it at the bottom of the housing crash for a ridiculously low price. It's a manor part of our retirement plan so we really don't want to have to put a road in for some new development.

[–]panic_bread 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd get a lawyer and sue them first for illegally dumping on your land. And let them sue you if they want for the easement. It doesn't sound like they have a chance to win.