Mr. Lynch's attorney and his surveyor are going to be paid by the concrete block minister. Mr. Lynch is going to end up with a prescriptive easement at least. But I don't suppose it's going to be very neighborly, going forward.
The County GIS says the neighbor is right...
> The County GIS says the neighbor is right...
[sarcasm]OH! Well, I guess it's settled, then. [/sarcasm]
Perhaps the county GIS department aught to pay Mr. Lynch's attorney and surveyor then.
😀
Looks like a double driveway situation...
Here is the Aerial with plat overlay.
I think the driveway probably does straddle the property line, but this detail was located on the record plat:
Yep, looks like the original developer had double driveways in mind for this subdivision. I think the neighbor may have to get a jack hammer out for that wall.
Wonder if the neighbor planning to build had a survey or just looked at the GIS? The local TV station shows a ground photo of the "blocked" drive. In that photo it appears the block was completely across the drive at one point. I also notice that the block down the driveway lines up with what appears to be a privacy fence.
I also noticed in Bow Tie's subsequent post that he canal R/W and box culvert do not line up by an amount similar to the driveway. Lots to the top (North?) of the canal also miss the tree lines and other visual lines of occupation. Given the publicity this could be an interesting teaching opportunity for local surveyors.
EDIT: The detail shows a total width of 30 feet. The ground level photo appears to be less than this. From the block size it would appear to be the 12 foot on the odd numbered lot.
-----------
Looks like a double driveway situation...
I wonder if the new neighbor tried to talk to him first. If not, that would be a terrible neighbor to have, and a real idiot.
My driveway and my neighbor's driveway meet about 20' back from the road. I have been trying to get him to agree to pave the entrance (ice problem in winter), but so far no good. We are friendly, but he just moved in last year and said that he didn't have the money to do that after buying the house and moving. I accept that, but hopefully we can do it in the future. The other day he said he was wanting to pave his entire drive (lots of water/ice in the winter), so if he does I will pay 1/2 to do the entrance.
But no conflict, we both know the property line splits the entrance and then the driveways angle off. I would hate to have a problem neighbor like this guy in FL
The location of the PT might be a factor as well...
Also, the PT of the curve is 14 feet away from the actual lot corner. There is a possibility that whoever constructed the driveway mistook the PT to be the lot corner.
Although, there is a similar looking driveway just north of there in the same subdivision:
Looks like a double driveway situation...
That double driveway note on the plat is interesting, never seen that before. The odd/even lot numbers line up right, too ... as do they on the lot to the north that you found, with the driveway overlapping onto a vacant lot.
Question is, was double driveways an option if both neighbors agree, or can one neighbor force the property line straddling double drive on the other....
Looks like a double driveway situation...
This is from what appears to be the original Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions for the subdivision:
They may have loosened the requirement after the original declaration, which would explain why many of the lots don't adhere to the prescribed driveway location.
What a tool.
What are the adverse possession laws in FL?
Mr. Minister needs a lesson in how to treat people. I hope he loses his butt. Of course he'll have to remove his head from it first...
Looks like a double driveway situation...
Hmmmm .... tough one to interpret. Although it looks like there should be a shared driveway at that location, it does say (or imply) that you need to keep within your 12' area, which would mean staying on your side of the line.
Still, with it being somewhat supported that the intent of the developer was to have shared driveways, and this man using it for what I would assume would surpass the prescriptive easement time limit, he'd probably prevail (after spending more than the cost building a new driveway on lawyer fees). If the original developer was involved in building this house, it may be a slam dunk case.
The gentleman has lived there for 25 years?? Sounds like a really good "adverse possession" to me. I do not think that even in Florida anyone has the legal right to build a structure on an adjoiner's property without first discussing the issue or giving notice to the adjoiner. How did he determine where the line was and will that stand up in a court of law.
I'd get me the slimiest lawyer I could find and rake that "minister" over the coals. We are talking everything from adverse possession to practicing surveying without a license.
Looks like a double driveway situation...
> Hmmmm .... tough one to interpret. Although it looks like there should be a shared driveway at that location, it does say (or imply) that you need to keep within your 12' area, which would mean staying on your side of the line.
>
I would read the wording to mean your drive way must meet the road pavement at the curb cut provided by the developer. The driveway may not enter the right-of-way from any other portion of the lot. That sounds like a restriction imposed by a planning agency to limit the number of driveways entering the highway.
Is adverse possession really an option here?
> The gentleman has lived there for 25 years?? Sounds like a really good "adverse possession" to me.
The double driveway stipulation shown on the plat and contained within the original declaration of covenants and restriction might throw a kink in any adverse possession claim. The minister could just claim that his neighbor constructed a portion of his part of the double driveway (which was nice of him) that was supposed to be there anyway. Couldn't he in theory just finish off his side of the 12 foot driveway and still erect a wall or fence along the property line? Also in Florida, you have to be paying taxes on the property for the prescribed period for any adverse possession claim.
Looks like a double driveway situation...
It seems logical to me that a shared driveway was meant but the words don't make it clear. If all you get is twelve feet into the street that's very poor. Even if the line is correct, fencing you and your neighbor into just 12 feet of access to the street is kinda dumb in my opinion. To just do it (lay the blocks) while your neighbor is not home, somebody is itching for a fight here. But that's how some people are.
Those blocks just look like laid on top of the concrete to me. A Skidsteer would take them out in under a minute.
Looks like a double driveway situation...
Well, no, it's not 12' feet total ... it seems the intent is that it be a shared driveway that crosses into the right of way within 12' each side of the property line -- which could be 24' wide in total if both neighbors use their whole 12'.
Question is, to me, is -- is it a fair interpretation that one neighbor could center their driveway on the property line, crossing into the other neighbor's property -- I supposed under the assumption that the other neighbor would connect to their driveway when they develop their property in the future? Or, another way of looking at it, did that note on the plat basically created a 24' wide "ingree-egress" type easement that would allow the adjoining neighbors reasonable use of the 12' each side of the property line for a driveway that leads across the right of way line?
But, if I were the plaintiff, and this case goes to court, I'd first try to figure out if the original developer was involved in the building this house/driveway, as I think that would go a long way in showing his intent ... and focus on the prescriptive easement, in addition to arguing the platted shared driveway note.
Looks like a double driveway situation...
I'm of the same opinion. 24 feet shared ingress/access works OK. Fence it down the middle and now each only has 12 feet access to the street. Sure you stop the neighbor from using your 12 feet but now you can't use his 12 feet.
Looking at the news article there seems to be a new house under construction but no use of the 12 feet access to the lot. I'm sure there is more to this story than what the news reported. Every news story that I've ever been close to it always amazed me just how bad the reporting was.
