why couldn't a surveyor give their professional opinion that it's an implied easement??ÿ Don't we do that with the boundary itself? Surveyor's opinion is evidence, not proof or guarantee.
Where the access is located is a matter of practical location and boundary law.
What rights there are to it, and who has those rights, is a matter of title law.
I'm OK with showing where it is and letting the legal teams determine what it is.
Where the access is located is a matter of practical location and boundary law.
What rights there are to it, and who has those rights, is a matter of title law.
Exactly
@duane-frymire I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just wondering what to say when opposing counsel asks me how I knew it was implied...
?ÿ
Within any of these instances of potential unwritten rights, until a judge rules on it, to me it's all conjecture. I'd say much depends on how willing the two property owners are to reach some agreeable solution. In a similar situation I was dealing with last year, one of the owners was an attorney and they did a right proper job of turning the entire situation in to one big sh*t show, both literally and figuratively. Didn't have to go down that way. Cost everyone a pile of money and a lot of trees moving the access and nobody was happy with the end result.
No fewer then 6 reviewing County entities sign off on the subdivsion but not a soul looks at what got built. And I think we're overun by useless bureaucracy here in VT.
@dougie the easement arose at the time of the deed transaction between Brown and Smith. Jones took title subject to the easement.
@dougie I guess I don't see much difference between how much land you have rights to under a deed, and how much other land you have rights to under an easement.?ÿ When questioned about a land boundary, my replies regard the evidence I've found, and my opinion of what that means in relation to the law to a reasonable degree of professional certainty.?ÿ My replies regarding an easement issue would be exactly the same.?ÿ Either can be argued.
@lurker?ÿ
The surveyor isn't creating anything, the road is already there, the plat provides intent, the actions of the humans, the only thing that actually matters, are unambiguous.?ÿ I might simply label it as, Lot 4 Access, but I'd slap bearings and distances around it (maybe even a state plane coordinate too ???ñ ).?ÿ
I try to find ways to justify solving problems instead of ways to avoid them.?ÿ This becomes easier the more times I witness the fallout from?ÿ "Let the lawyers figure it out".?ÿ Calling the road that someone is using to get to their house, "access", doesn't frighten me in this particular situation.?ÿ
?ÿ
Calling the road that someone is using to get to their house, "access", doesn't frighten me in this particular situation.?ÿ
That's pretty much what myself and others have been saying throughout the thread.
But I would not explicitly label that road an "implied easement" on the face of a survey without some supporting evidence beyond the fact that the access road exists.
I think the person who is purchasing should protect their interests. ?ÿThat is accomplished by getting a survey and hiring an attorney who represents them at closing exclusive of the interests of others. ?ÿCaveat emptor. ?ÿ
and how do you justify spending thousands of dollars on a purchase you potentially won't make? And the seller (Brown) isn't going to like the fact that you're uncovering his dark secret...
The city/county did not even honor their own conditions on the plat before allowing a structure(s)(see snippet below).?ÿ This is why government should keep its nose out of platting unless the fixed works are dedicated/constructed and functional before signoff.?ÿ The plat just created a bunch of "what ifs" and future "shoulds" that average buyers don't understand and they believe they are buying a government approved unit of land complete with official stamps and signatures.?ÿ I think plats like this do more harm than good.?ÿ We have much of the same in the area I live and I tell people that if they are not going to do thorough due diligence then make sure they have lots of cash in reserve to fight for their property rights (perceived or real) in the future. My 2 cents, Jp
@jp7191 we own a parcel on a Parcel Map (a minor subdivision map in California) filed in 1984.?ÿ Similar situation.?ÿ We live on the largest lot and the house dates to 1935.?ÿ Our lot has a 10' drainage easement which serves the vacant lot which it runs to.?ÿ Same thing, there is a note that drainage is required before building permits.?ÿ The only construction happened on the other 4 parcels so the county didn't require the "drainage."?ÿ No permit was issued on our lot since 1984 so the "drainage" requirement didn't happen.?ÿ So the easement has no pipe in it.?ÿ Slight of hand by the subdivider and his engineering consultant.?ÿ We do have a set of "as-built" plans which at least show the pipe being stubbed to the R/W, guess what, it's not there. It was not built as shown on the "as-built" plans LOL.
On a regular subdivision map all the improvements have to be built before release of the bond.?ÿ On Parcel Maps (generally 4 lots or less with exceptions, ours has 5 lots because we are the remainder) it is tied to the building permits so if the required improvement is not on the lot for which the permit is being pulled it is not required.
@murphy?ÿ
I?ÿ think you're going out on a limb even calling it, "Lot 4 Access"
I'd label it something like, "dirt driveway currently being used to access Lot 4.?ÿ No easement document found"
?ÿ
