AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Ethics question

25 Posts
16 Users
0 Reactions
1,209 Views
lmbrls
(@lmbrls)
Posts: 1066
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I agree with the concept of bringing value to the Client and not just collecting a fee. We always have attorneys for the latter.


 
Posted : August 1, 2014 2:03 pm
paul-in-pa
(@paul-in-pa)
Posts: 6034
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

An Easement Is Not A Road

No one but the original fee title owner has any rights greater than access.

The underlying fee can be sold to anyone or all, and the mineral rights can be held or sold separately.

Paul in PA


 
Posted : August 1, 2014 6:50 pm
vern
 vern
(@vern)
Posts: 1514
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Together with and easement described as follows?

Do each of these 25 parcels contain a statement like that?

Sounds to me like the original owner (your client) has been paying the taxes on that easement all these years and he has only found two suckers to relieve him so far. Every little bit helps. If I owned one of those 25 parcels I certainly wouldn't be interested in bailing him out of the mess he created with my money, but if he wanted to Q/C the easement to me along my frontage I would take it.


 
Posted : August 1, 2014 11:25 pm
DavidALee
(@davidalee)
Posts: 1116
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Together with and easement described as follows?

That is the situation. The mineral rights are one of the main considerations here.


 
Posted : August 2, 2014 8:25 am
Kent McMillan
(@kent-mcmillan)
Posts: 11416
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Road Easements, Public and Private

> No one but the original fee title owner has any rights greater than access.
>
> The underlying fee can be sold to anyone or all, and the mineral rights can be held or sold separately.

I assume that you are posting only about private roads in the state where you practice. The case is completely different in Texas as the court held in Cantley v. Gulf Production Company and is probably the same elsewhere given that the same rationale would apply as that given by the Texas court.


 
Posted : August 2, 2014 9:40 am

Page 2 / 2