Edward Reading, post: 404641, member: 132 wrote: It's not a "County Housing tract map" It is a Tract Map prepared by the subdivider's Surveyor. The County's only part of it is to approve it and in this case accept the offer of dedication. It is in no way a County map. You really need to understand that. It was prepared by a private Surveyor, for a private subdivider on private property.
If indeed, the key issue is who owns the parkway trees in the parkway, you need to leave the right of way issue out of it, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. As a California County Surveyor part of my job is to accept offers of dedication, and abandon the County's interest in rights of way. I work with our County Counsel in doing these things. Please believe me when I say that you do not understand this issues as well as you think that you do.
In the sidewalk decisions I have read technical ownership is not really even relevant. They talk about it in imprecise terms like a lay person would. Mentioning ownership, like the City owns the street which technically they don't. Generally in the absence of a duty of care ordinance or statute it seems it is presumed the City or County is liable for sidewalk injuries unless the property owner did something to cause the defect and knew about it (such as tree roots from a tree outside of the street) or in one case the property owner had a fence at the back of sidewalk although the right-of-way was 2 feet behind the sidewalk so the Court said although they don't own it the fence would lead an ordinary person to believe they own and control it therefore the property owner was liable (this is in line with other cases where the courts have held owners liable for injuries in a fenced yard although the injury occurred over the property boundary, the fence was not on the boundary). In another case in Berkeley the plaintiff slipped and fell on a steep brick walk (in the parkway) down from the curb to the sidewalk; although the brick walk lined up with the front walk to the house the Court treated it as part of the public sidewalk anyone could use and the property owner was not liable.
The City of Sacramento's ordinance Section 12.32.040 quoted in Jordan vs. City of Sacramento, 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, 2007, (at 1491): "An owner who has a defective sidewalk fronting on such owner's lot, ...shall bear the civil liability, if any to a person suffering personal injury or property damage caused by the defective sidewalk. In the event that the city is held liable in any civil action for damages for personal injury or property damage caused by a defective sidewalk, the city shall be entitled to full indemnity from the owner." Justice Davis opines in footnote 2 that this is probably an unconstitutional shifting of all the liability to the adjoining property owner and the City should consider revising its ordinance.
The City did revise its ordinance in 2010 to: "12.32.040 Civil liability for injuries. Each owner required by Section 12.32.020 to repair a defective sidewalk shall owe a duty to members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewalk area in a nondefective condition. If, as a result of the failure of any owner to maintain or repair the sidewalk as required by Section 12.32.020, any person suffers injury or property damage, the property owner shall be liable to such person for the resulting injury or damage. (Ord. 2010-010 å¤ 2)"
The County of Ventura ordinance is similar: "12703 - Liability for injuries to the public. Any person required by Section 12702 of this chapter to maintain and repair the sidewalk area shall owe a duty to members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewalk area in a safe and nondangerous condition. If, as a result of the failure of any person to maintain the sidewalk area in a safe and nondangerous condition as required by Section 12702 of this chapter, any person suffers injury or damages to person or property, the owner shall be liable to such person for the resulting damages or injury."
The Courts have implied that these ordinances would be legal but as far as I know it hasn't been tested yet. These ordinances do not cancel the City or County's liability, what they do is give a potential path to impose liability on an adjoining owner if someone is hurt on the sidewalk out front of the owner's property. The City or County is still liable but now they share it with the owner, maybe, possibly, it hasn't been tested yet, as far as I know.
-NEW TOPIC-
Here is the key phrase from Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal.App.3d 301 (1975):
"Consequently, fee title in the land underlying Ash Street was always in the abutting land owners as a matter of law. The abutting land owners did not acquire such fee title to the underlying land when the street was vacated since such fee title was always vested in the abutting owner. The vacation of Ash Street merely terminated the surface easement for highway purposes and vested surface rights in the abutting land owners. Streets and Highways Code section 8324 reads (in material part): "Upon the making of such order of vacation the public easement in the street or part thereof vacated ceases and the title to the land previously subject thereto reverts to the respective owners thereof free from the public easement for street purposes.""
And the principle is stated here:
"The fee in the half of the street along which the land abuts is part of the lot; any conveyance of the lot conveys the fee in the street as part of it. The Anderson court held that the rule should be the same even if there is no public street, provided the conveyance describes the lot as bounded by a street. A street is then created between the grantor and grantee. ( Id. at p. 393.)
The policy behind the law is to avoid ownership in land in strips and gores by attaching the underlying fees of streets, both active and abandoned, to the adjoining lots. If this portion of the abandoned street in the present case belonged to Safwenberg, the public policy would be defeated because the land would be divided into a strip, even though Safwenberg had adjacent land."
This is sometimes called the Strips and Gores Doctrine.
Dave Karoly, post: 404654, member: 94 wrote: In the sidewalk decisions I have read technical ownership is not really even relevant. They talk about it in imprecise terms like a lay person would. Mentioning ownership, like the City owns the street which technically they don't. Generally in the absence of a duty of care ordinance or statute it seems it is presumed the City or County is liable for sidewalk injuries unless the property owner did something to cause the defect and knew about it (such as tree roots from a tree outside of the street) or in one case the property owner had a fence at the back of sidewalk although the right-of-way was 2 feet behind the sidewalk so the Court said although they don't own it the fence would lead an ordinary person to believe they own and control it therefore the property owner was liable (this is in line with other cases where the courts have held owners liable for injuries in a fenced yard although the injury occurred over the property boundary, the fence was not on the boundary). In another case in Berkeley the plaintiff slipped and fell on a steep brick walk (in the parkway) down from the curb to the sidewalk; although the brick walk lined up with the front walk to the house the Court treated it as part of the public sidewalk anyone could use and the property owner was not liable.
The City of Sacramento's ordinance Section 12.32.040 quoted in Jordan vs. City of Sacramento, 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, 2007, (at 1491): "An owner who has a defective sidewalk fronting on such owner's lot, ...shall bear the civil liability, if any to a person suffering personal injury or property damage caused by the defective sidewalk. In the event that the city is held liable in any civil action for damages for personal injury or property damage caused by a defective sidewalk, the city shall be entitled to full indemnity from the owner." Justice Davis opines in footnote 2 that this is probably an unconstitutional shifting of all the liability to the adjoining property owner and the City should consider revising its ordinance.
The City did revise its ordinance in 2010 to: "12.32.040 Civil liability for injuries. Each owner required by Section 12.32.020 to repair a defective sidewalk shall owe a duty to members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewalk area in a nondefective condition. If, as a result of the failure of any owner to maintain or repair the sidewalk as required by Section 12.32.020, any person suffers injury or property damage, the property owner shall be liable to such person for the resulting injury or damage. (Ord. 2010-010 å¤ 2)"
The County of Ventura ordinance is similar: "12703 - Liability for injuries to the public. Any person required by Section 12702 of this chapter to maintain and repair the sidewalk area shall owe a duty to members of the public to keep and maintain the sidewalk area in a safe and nondangerous condition. If, as a result of the failure of any person to maintain the sidewalk area in a safe and nondangerous condition as required by Section 12702 of this chapter, any person suffers injury or damages to person or property, the owner shall be liable to such person for the resulting damages or injury."
The Courts have implied that these ordinances would be legal but as far as I know it hasn't been tested yet. These ordinances do not cancel the City or County's liability, what they do is give a potential path to impose liability on an adjoining owner if someone is hurt on the sidewalk out front of the owner's property. The City or County is still liable but now they share it with the owner, maybe, possibly, it hasn't been tested yet, as far as I know.
I dont believe that any of these Ordinances have been taken to court, so a Judge can decide. It is my understanding, based on SHC 5600-5630, that this only purpose was to have the Municipality get paid back for the repair. In Williams vs Foster and Schaefer vs Lenahan, the courts ruled that the adjacent property owner owns no duty to a pedestrian . Therefore no pedestrian can sue an adjacent property owner for an out of repair sidewalk. I cant name one lawsuit, where an adjacent property owner lost a lawsuit in California, in a housing tract. I dont believe any municipality can pass 100% liability to adjacent property owner. If you read Ordinance 4355, this is what this performs. There is no County liability. I dont think this will hold, because the County owned parkway trees caused the damaged, owned by the County. I dont see any lawsuit, where the County owned the parkway trees, by Ordinance. How can a Judge allow a Municipality to transfer their own liability, where they are responsible to maintain? Lets say you own a tree on your property. Lets say that tree root messed up the public sidewalk. Who should be responsible? A Judge will determine how the sidewalk was put out of repair. If its your tree, you should fix it. If its a County tree, then County repairs the sidewalk, its their tree that caused the damage.
Barry G, post: 404655, member: 12296 wrote: I dont believe that any of these Ordinances have been taken to court, so a Judge can decide. It is my understanding, based on SHC 5600-5630, that this only purpose was to have the Municipality get paid back for the repair. In Williams vs Foster and Schaefer vs Lenahan, the courts ruled that the adjacent property owner owns no duty to a pedestrian . Therefore no pedestrian can sue an adjacent property owner for an out of repair sidewalk. I cant name one lawsuit, where an adjacent property owner lost a lawsuit in California, in a housing tract. I dont believe any municipality can pass 100% liability to adjacent property owner. If you read Ordinance 4355, this is what this performs. There is no County liability. I dont think this will hold, because the County owned parkway trees caused the damaged, owned by the County. I dont see any lawsuit, where the County owned the parkway trees, by Ordinance. How can a Judge allow a Municipality to transfer their own liability, where they are responsible to maintain? Lets say you own a tree on your property. Lets say that tree root messed up the public sidewalk. Who should be responsible? A Judge will determine how the sidewalk was put out of repair. If its your tree, you should fix it. If its a County tree, then County repairs the sidewalk, its their tree that caused the damage.
Our Supreme Court gives a pretty extensive discussion of premises liability in Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4th 1149 (1997). With respect to Tort liability exact or technical title is not relevant, apparent control and possession is relevant.
Dave Karoly, post: 404660, member: 94 wrote: Our Supreme Court gives a pretty extensive discussion of premises liability in Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4th 1149 (1997). With respect to Tort liability exact or technical title is not relevant, apparent control and possession is relevant.
I was scanning through the lawsuit, thank you. I agree with the court. I look at ownership, possession, and control when it relates to property. Who owns the parkway tree, the County. The County is in possession of the tree. It controls what is planted on the parkway, by permit. It trims the parkway trees, when the branches goes in the streets. It maintained the parkway tree roots at one time. If someone gets hurt by the parkway tree, I look at the 3 criteria, who is responsible. The parkways tree made the sidewalks out of repair. I look at the cause, what caused the sidewalks to go out of repair, who controls the parkway. Answer, the County. If I want to change the sidewalk, I need a permit. I do not own a public sidewalk, yes, based on my property line on housing map. I dont possess it, I dont own it, it not a tangible asset, for my purpose only. My house, my car, I possess, not the public sidewalk. I have no control over a public sidewalk, cant change it, modify it, build on it, etc. Again, I did not make it out of repair. If someone falls over the public sidewalk, due to County owned parkway trees, I cant be liable. County cant assign me the duty to maintain their tree and their roots, cant hold me liable for their property that caused the damages. I will think of consideration. When I require the County to maintain property, I pay taxes to the County, for maintenance. If the County requires me to maintain County government property, that I pay taxes you maintain, they owe me consideration for this maintenance. So they should pay me to maintain their property, my time, my effort, materials, etc. There is only consideration one way, from adjacent property owner to County, not the other way around. If I am to maintain their property, and accept any liability, I need to be compensated, like the County gets from me. Private property, I own, I possess and have control. I dont need a county permit to plant a tree on my property. I possess private property, in my deed, pay insurance to pay for any liability. I also control what I do on my private property. I cant build a wall, grass, I control what happens on my private property. That is the different between private property and public, by defining the 3 criteria. Let the County prove I own a parkway tree, that state they own. Let them state that I possess something I dont own. Let them explain how I control whats planted, when I need to permit from the County, they approve or deny what goes on the parkway.
Barry G, post: 404664, member: 12296 wrote: I control whats planted, when I need to permit from the County, they approve or deny what goes on the parkway.
And you need a permit to shingle your house. Or a major remodel of the inside. And in many places a permit to cut down a tree in your back yard. Do you own those?
Bill93, post: 404673, member: 87 wrote: And you need a permit to shingle your house. Or a major remodel of the inside. And in many places a permit to cut down a tree in your back yard. Do you own those?
So government controls and charges for these decisions also, for private and public property. Its also for a safety issue, to make sure other houses in that area dont burn down, in case of a fire, or that the remodel is performed properly. Lets say the permitted shingles on the room that caught fire? Who should be responsible for that decision. Lets say the remodel falls down, cracks, etc. after a permit is generated. Who is responsible? Should it be the Contractor that built it, and the government for permitting low quality Construction? The Contractor, after payment, should transfer their work back to the Adjacent property owners, hold them accountable for their bad decisions, correct? Lets apply the same concept to County owned parkway trees? Who permitted the large trees on a 4' wide parkway with no root barriers? Who owns, controls, maintains, possess the parkway trees? Who is responsible to maintain the public rights of ways, after the dedication is approved? Who is responsible to maintain their parkway trees, trim branches and roots? I have a letter from CEO stating this is County responsibility. So their failure to trim roots back or prevent them from damaging is the property owners fault? So the people who made errors in their decisions, by permitting these incorrect trees, failure to maintain their own property, should have no responsibility, should be able to transfer all liability to the adjacent property owner? If I fail to maintain my trees on my property line, and I mess up my neighbors property, or the government sidewalks, Im responsible. If someone trips on my property, Im responsible. If the government tree is not maintained (as per the dedication) and per letter that they maintain parkway tree roots, the government should be allowed to delegate their failure from them to me? Please read SHC 22060, state law on who is responsible to maintain the parkway trees. It appears a local general law county ordinance replaces State law, dont think so.
So the public sidewalks, destroyed by County owned parkway trees is my fault, I need to pay for that repair. I did not maintain property I dont own, dont control and dont possess. That does not matter, its all my fault for another's property to go destroy another's property. Only a government worker believe this, to protect the government from accountability and liability.
Barry G, post: 404613, member: 12296 wrote: Only possible explanation is when the Municipality signs the dedication, then prepares an easement. The public owns it, once the dedication is approved.
Here you go again - professing your assumption of "only possible explanation" as truly the ONLY possibility. That is NOT the only possibility - you just don't want to accept the other possibilities established, such as case law.
The easement was already created on the map, and the right-of-way is inferred from the map, that is then accepted and signed by the county. No easement is then prepared. It is implied and accepted via the map.
"The public Owns it" is your assessment, and your personal belief is contrary to laws and ordinances long established.
Barry G, post: 404664, member: 12296 wrote: I was scanning through the lawsuit, thank you. I agree with the court. I look at ownership, possession, and control when it relates to property. Who owns the parkway tree, the County. The County is in possession of the tree. It controls what is planted on the parkway, by permit. It trims the parkway trees, when the branches goes in the streets. It maintained the parkway tree roots at one time. If someone gets hurt by the parkway tree, I look at the 3 criteria, who is responsible. The parkways tree made the sidewalks out of repair. I look at the cause, what caused the sidewalks to go out of repair, who controls the parkway. Answer, the County. If I want to change the sidewalk, I need a permit. I do not own a public sidewalk, yes, based on my property line on housing map. I dont possess it, I dont own it, it not a tangible asset, for my purpose only. My house, my car, I possess, not the public sidewalk. I have no control over a public sidewalk, cant change it, modify it, build on it, etc. Again, I did not make it out of repair. If someone falls over the public sidewalk, due to County owned parkway trees, I cant be liable. County cant assign me the duty to maintain their tree and their roots, cant hold me liable for their property that caused the damages. I will think of consideration. When I require the County to maintain property, I pay taxes to the County, for maintenance. If the County requires me to maintain County government property, that I pay taxes you maintain, they owe me consideration for this maintenance. So they should pay me to maintain their property, my time, my effort, materials, etc. There is only consideration one way, from adjacent property owner to County, not the other way around. If I am to maintain their property, and accept any liability, I need to be compensated, like the County gets from me. Private property, I own, I possess and have control. I dont need a county permit to plant a tree on my property. I possess private property, in my deed, pay insurance to pay for any liability. I also control what I do on my private property. I cant build a wall, grass, I control what happens on my private property. That is the different between private property and public, by defining the 3 criteria. Let the County prove I own a parkway tree, that state they own. Let them state that I possess something I dont own. Let them explain how I control whats planted, when I need to permit from the County, they approve or deny what goes on the parkway.
For purposes of TORT liability only, the Courts seem to look at possession and control differently from how they would in a Title or Boundary dispute. For example, say your rear fence is ten feet into your neighbor's lot. For title and boundary purposes you don't own the ten feet of land but if someone visiting you gets hurt in the ten feet then you could be considered to be in possession and control for Tort liability purposes.
The Supreme Court case I cited is unusual, it has a majority opinion written by Justice George (I'm not a fan, he tends to strain to get what he thinks is the correct answer...I've seen this in other cases), a more logical concurring opinion by Justice Mosk, and three separate dissenting opinions. Justice Kennard criticizes the Court's loose ownership reasoning.
What I did was pick up the cases which cite SHC5610 to get a bunch of cases on the Law library's Westlaw subscription. When you look up the annotated code it has a series of tabs across the top, one of them is citing references. You can print a table or the documents which is the cases. Sacramento allow me to print to a PDF. Ventura has Westlaw and Lexis. We have Lexis Advance but I haven't used it very much, it's different.
At a certain depth of legal language, you don't own any of it. You gave it to the County at closing or upon inheritance and they hold it in trust for you and rent it back to you in return for property taxes and other obligations, like fixing their sidewalk. Quit paying the property taxes and see what happens. Fail to fix the sidewalk and they will lien "your" house. You are fighting an invisible weightless abstract foe possessed of infinite resources that include what you perceive as yours. Stop resisting. Agree with thine adversary or be crushed.
half bubble, post: 404698, member: 175 wrote: At a certain depth of legal language, you don't own any of it. You gave it to the County at closing or upon inheritance and they hold it in trust for you and rent it back to you in return for property taxes and other obligations, like fixing their sidewalk. Quit paying the property taxes and see what happens. Fail to fix the sidewalk and they will lien "your" house. You are fighting an invisible weightless abstract foe possessed of infinite resources that include what you perceive as yours. Stop resisting. Agree with thine adversary or be crushed.
His Supervisor is already sympathetic. She has fought the battle because 60% of the sidewalks are in her district. On the County's trees uplifting the sidewalk issue she might be able to shake some funds from the tree.
I certainly wouldn't take them on in the Courthouse (which is funded by the State) because 99% of that is going to be navigating the legal procedure. The law is only a sideshow, there are so many ways they can trip Barry up on procedural issues that his case will never get put on. And dont forget the rules of evidence. A Lawyer friend told me the whole game is to be an expert on the rules of evidence...stop the other side from putting on their case using the rules of evidence. On a multi lawyer legal team they will have an evidence expert whose job is to get our evidence in and keep there's out. This is why it costs 50 to 75k for a litigator...they have the education, knowledge, and experience to maybe possibly win and even they get tripped up a lot.
I'll say right now having done a little expert work, there is no way I would be an expert for an in pro se client, no way. Get a lawyer and we can talk.
Dave Karoly, post: 404702, member: 94 wrote: I'll say right now having done a little expert work, there is no way I would be an expert for an in pro se client, no way. Get a lawyer and we can talk.
Totally agree Dave. Could you imagine being deposed without an attorney to represent you? No thank you.
epoch date, post: 404694, member: 485 wrote: Here you go again - professing your assumption of "only possible explanation" as truly the ONLY possibility. That is NOT the only possibility - you just don't want to accept the other possibilities established, such as case law.
The easement was already created on the map, and the right-of-way is inferred from the map, that is then accepted and signed by the county. No easement is then prepared. It is implied and accepted via the map.
"The public Owns it" is your assessment, and your personal belief is contrary to laws and ordinances long established.
So lets get this straight. So the easement is not on any document, its an implied easement, correct. So the County has an implied easement over the public rights of ways, the Utility has a direct easement that is identified in a subdivision housing tract map. Its your belief, that the public right of ways (public dedicated road, parkway and sidewalk) the public does not own it, the adjacent property owner owns the actual underlying fee of the public street, the public parkway and the public sidewalk, the ownership (asphalt, cement and dirt on the parkway) is private property. So the public street, adjacent to my home, I own it, dont possess it, dont control it, its not on title or deed, still I own it. That is why the County maintain it, because I own it. Same applies to the cement sidewalks. I own it, dont possess it, dont control it, not on title, yet still I own it. The only rights I have is collective, we all can walk, ride, ingress and egress, I pay twice for maintenance. When the sidewalks, that I dont possess or control, go out of repair, its an individuals responsibility to maintain. I use it, Im responsible, we use it, Im responsible to maintain. So when the parkway trees, owned by me, permitted by the County, owned by the County by Ordinance, I should be responsible for the damage to the sidewalk, since I must own both parkway trees and sidewalks, underlying fee, with no possession, no control and no title. When the dedication is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the State law states, the Municipality claims the affirmative duty of maintenance. So they dont need maintain it, they can transfer 100% maintenance in an Ordinance to adjacent property owner, can take the liability on their parkway tree damage, that they own, and give this liability to adjacent property owners, for parkway trees damages to public sidewalks. SHC 22060 must not apply to the responsibility of maintenance of parkway trees. After all, we own the underlying fee to the middle of the street and they can write Ordinance transferring all government responsibility/liability to adjacent property owner, going above State law. We need to change the word Public Roads to Private Roads, since I own the underlying fee to the middle of the street, I own that section of the street, the easement allows others ingress and egress. The intent on the property map dimensions is not to show who owns what, its already established that the adjacent property owner owns out to the middle of the street. Its only for tax purposes, not who owns what. I will tell that to my neighbor, it we have a dispute on who owns what property, housing maps dont define ownership of property. Its therefore private property on a public road, its private property with the possession and control given to the County, in an easement. By signing the dedication, the road still remains private property, easement is created, no need for Municipality to maintain it, it can transfer the maintenance and liability at any time to adjacent property owner, while collecting gas taxes for maintenance. Do I have this correct? They fail to maintain this property, we adjacent property are liable. So, their property makes the sidewalks out of repair, we get to pay for the damage and liability, due to their failure to maintain their own property. What a great deal for the government, we use it, I get to pay for it when its our of repair, in weekly taxes and when they go out of repair, double charges. Where can I sign up for this, to get other to pay twice for the same repair, can transfer all my liability to someone else, for my failure of maintenance. What a deal.
Barry G, post: 404705, member: 12296 wrote: So lets get this straight. So the easement is not on any document, its an implied easement, correct. So the County has an implied easement over the public rights of ways, the Utility has a direct easement that is identified in a subdivision housing tract map. Its your belief, that the public right of ways (public dedicated road, parkway and sidewalk) the public does not own it, the adjacent property owner owns the actual underlying fee of the public street, the public parkway and the public sidewalk, the ownership (asphalt, cement and dirt on the parkway) is private property. So the public street, adjacent to my home, I own it, dont possess it, dont control it, its not on title or deed, still I own it. That is why the County maintain it, because I own it. Same applies to the cement sidewalks. I own it, dont possess it, dont control it, not on title, yet still I own it. The only rights I have is collective, we all can walk, ride, ingress and egress, I pay twice for maintenance. When the sidewalks, that I dont possess or control, go out of repair, its an individuals responsibility to maintain. I use it, Im responsible, we use it, Im responsible to maintain. So when the parkway trees, owned by me, permitted by the County, owned by the County by Ordinance, I should be responsible for the damage to the sidewalk, since I must own both parkway trees and sidewalks, underlying fee, with no possession, no control and no title. When the dedication is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the State law states, the Municipality claims the affirmative duty of maintenance. So they dont need maintain it, they can transfer 100% maintenance in an Ordinance to adjacent property owner, can take the liability on their parkway tree damage, that they own, and give this liability to adjacent property owners, for parkway trees damages to public sidewalks. SHC 22060 must not apply to the responsibility of maintenance of parkway trees. After all, we own the underlying fee to the middle of the street and they can write Ordinance transferring all government responsibility/liability to adjacent property owner, going above State law. We need to change the word Public Roads to Private Roads, since I own the underlying fee to the middle of the street, I own that section of the street, the easement allows others ingress and egress. The intent on the property map dimensions is not to show who owns what, its already established that the adjacent property owner owns out to the middle of the street. Its only for tax purposes, not who owns what. I will tell that to my neighbor, it we have a dispute on who owns what property, housing maps dont define ownership of property. Its therefore private property on a public road, its private property with the possession and control given to the County, in an easement. By signing the dedication, the road still remains private property, easement is created, no need for Municipality to maintain it, it can transfer the maintenance and liability at any time to adjacent property owner, while collecting gas taxes for maintenance. Do I have this correct? They fail to maintain this property, we adjacent property are liable. So, their property makes the sidewalks out of repair, we get to pay for the damage and liability, due to their failure to maintain their own property. What a great deal for the government, we use it, I get to pay for it when its our of repair, in weekly taxes and when they go out of repair, double charges. Where can I sign up for this, to get other to pay twice for the same repair, can transfer all my liability to someone else, for my failure of maintenance. What a deal.
No it's not an implied easement.
Dave Karoly, post: 404702, member: 94 wrote: His Supervisor is already sympathetic. She has fought the battle because 60% of the sidewalks are in her district. On the County's trees uplifting the sidewalk issue she might be able to shake some funds from the tree.
I certainly wouldn't take them on in the Courthouse (which is funded by the State) because 99% of that is going to be navigating the legal procedure. The law is only a sideshow, there are so many ways they can trip Barry up on procedural issues that his case will never get put on. And dont forget the rules of evidence. A Lawyer friend told me the whole game is to be an expert on the rules of evidence...stop the other side from putting on their case using the rules of evidence. On a multi lawyer legal team they will have an evidence expert whose job is to get our evidence in and keep there's out. This is why it costs 50 to 75k for a litigator...they have the education, knowledge, and experience to maybe possibly win and even they get tripped up a lot.
I'll say right now having done a little expert work, there is no way I would be an expert for an in pro se client, no way. Get a lawyer and we can talk.
Agreed. The County knows that people here wont pay an attorney 75K to fight this case, on a $200-$3000 sidewalk and parkway tree maintenance issue. They know the Judge will support the government's position, over the people, giving the government the right to do whatever it wants to his taxpayers. If the County loses, they will appeal to a higher cost, keep the meter running. That is their game, that they know so well.
Barry G, post: 404705, member: 12296 wrote: So the easement is not on any document, its an implied easement, correct.
The Tract Map is the document that creates the easement.
Dave Karoly, post: 404702, member: 94 wrote: His Supervisor is already sympathetic. She has fought the battle because 60% of the sidewalks are in her district. On the County's trees uplifting the sidewalk issue she might be able to shake some funds from the tree.
I certainly wouldn't take them on in the Courthouse (which is funded by the State) because 99% of that is going to be navigating the legal procedure. The law is only a sideshow, there are so many ways they can trip Barry up on procedural issues that his case will never get put on. And dont forget the rules of evidence. A Lawyer friend told me the whole game is to be an expert on the rules of evidence...stop the other side from putting on their case using the rules of evidence. On a multi lawyer legal team they will have an evidence expert whose job is to get our evidence in and keep there's out. This is why it costs 50 to 75k for a litigator...they have the education, knowledge, and experience to maybe possibly win and even they get tripped up a lot.
I'll say right now having done a little expert work, there is no way I would be an expert for an in pro se client, no way. Get a lawyer and we can talk.
Hello Dave. I know my Supervisor, helped her get elected. She tried to get the Board of Supervisors to pay for this repair, when they received a 600K of additional funding. She also tried to get them to grind, at their own expense, with my help. They votes to pay for the grinding, then reversed this decision 8 months later. She was the Chairman of the Board, who signed this Ordinance on 23 December 2006, not knowing the laws, just approve it, with 4 others on the Board. I requested in MAC meetings, that our Supervisor go after the illegal Ordinance issue, to remove it first, then they cant charge us or hold us liable for pedestrian injuries, we all know is illegal. She did not want to confront the Board to get rid of the Ordinance, begged them for money to pay for damaged, they all refused. The Board refused because of the Ordinance, being on the books. She did not want to confront them, it would not be politically correct for her career, she is a lifetime politician. Its better to bed, then get turned down, just a side show, to show the residence that she cares about this issue. Her results were a waste of time, Ordinance is still on the books, they are invoicing for this repair, placing bill on property tax bills for all who refuse to pay, placing a lien on property, for as little as $80, 23 properties have liens. All of the other 4 Board Members dont respect her, they always vote against her, he pay the price. Im hoping people find someone else, in the Unincorporated Areas to fight for our community. Someone who is not a career politician, someone who actually cares about people in my community, not for political gain.
Edward Reading, post: 404709, member: 132 wrote: The Tract Map is the document that creates the easement.
The Tract Map creates the easement. What are duties, responsibilities and liabilities that go along with the easements on the rights of ways
in housing tracts, in regard to maintenance, after the dedication is approved?
half bubble, post: 404698, member: 175 wrote: At a certain depth of legal language, you don't own any of it. You gave it to the County at closing or upon inheritance and they hold it in trust for you and rent it back to you in return for property taxes and other obligations, like fixing their sidewalk. Quit paying the property taxes and see what happens. Fail to fix the sidewalk and they will lien "your" house. You are fighting an invisible weightless abstract foe possessed of infinite resources that include what you perceive as yours. Stop resisting. Agree with thine adversary or be crushed.
Which is not to say you could not eventually find a sympathetic ear at the County and get them to fix their own sidewalk and plant new trees with proper root barrier material, etc., however, to approach it from an adversarial stance, threatening to sue or somehow administratively "make" them do what you want based on your own interpretation of the law will not open any doors. Agree with thine adversary. You get more flies with honey. Somewhere in your area there is no doubt a homeowner who called the County and said pleasantly, "I wonder if you could help me fix my sidewalk where the tree roots are pushing it up, and I'm concerned someone might get hurt?" and a mid-level County employee said "Sure thing, we'll take a look tomorrow!" and a truck rolls out and a crew fixes the sidewalk, no charge no fuss no lawsuit no lien. People generally want to help if you aren't making them wrong from the get-go.
I watched my Dad sue a government entity as a "pro se" for 15 years. It ate him alive and kept him ostracized. It has taken me years to unlearn his attitudes. Been there, done that, lost the t-shirt with everything else. Agree with thine adversary. You get more flies with honey. Be the guy who gets things done for free with a pleasant phone call.
Barry G, post: 404711, member: 12296 wrote: The Tract Map creates the easement.
Yay!
baby steps...
half bubble, post: 404713, member: 175 wrote: Which is not to say you could not eventually find a sympathetic ear at the County and get them to fix their own sidewalk and plant new trees with proper root barrier material, etc., however, to approach it from an adversarial stance, threatening to sue or somehow administratively "make" them do what you want based on your own interpretation of the law will not open any doors. Agree with thine adversary. You get more flies with honey. Somewhere in your area there is no doubt a homeowner who called the County and said pleasantly, "I wonder if you could help me fix my sidewalk where the tree roots are pushing it up, and I'm concerned someone might get hurt?" and a mid-level County employee said "Sure thing, we'll take a look tomorrow!" and a truck rolls out and a crew fixes the sidewalk, no charge no fuss no lawsuit no lien. People generally want to help if you aren't making them wrong from the get-go.
I watched my Dad sue a government entity as a "pro se" for 15 years. It ate him alive and kept him ostracized. It has taken me years to unlearn his attitudes. Been there, done that, lost the t-shirt with everything else. Agree with thine adversary. You get more flies with honey. Be the guy who gets things done for free with a pleasant phone call.
This is how this all started. 15 years ago, I called the County Department of Transportation and established a good relationship with him. He came to my house, inspected my property, we had a long talk. I requested that he take out the parkway trees and repair the sidewalks, due to root damages from the parkway trees, before someone gets hurt. I also requested that my block wall, on my property, damaged by the parkway tree roots be repaired. He looked at the damage, cited me for having an unsafe block wall on my property, stated that I must repair the wall, at my expense. This is how this all started. I fixed the block wall, requested compensation, he said no. He told me SHC 5600-5630 allows them to transfer this responsible to adjacent property owners, we are responsible for all the damage to the sidewalks. He then walked away, allowing the sidewalk to stay out of repair. One year later, an 84 year old blind lady, walking out of her house, while it was raining, fell over my neighbors sidewalk. She sued both the Municipality and the property owner. The property owner and I were good friends. I called the ladies attorney and explained the law, that adjacent property owners owns no duty to a pedestrian, and the County has already been warned, in writing to repair the sidewalks, they refused. The Attorney agreed 100%, sued the County only. The County quickly gave the lady 50K, under seal, told her to keep quiet, walk away. The sidewalk repair, at neighbors home would have cost the County $100 to repair. 50K was their solution to this problem, of taxpayers dollars. They ignored their duty to maintain public sidewalks, children and the elderly were getting hurt over the property, for 30 years, County did nothing. They had no policy of what is an out of repair sidewalk, did nothing. Their failure resulted in 10 people getting hurt, children and the elderly, that is why Im so frustrated, the damage to people, physically and mentally, this has caused. In 2006, they decided to write an Ordinance, transferring all liabilities to adjacent property owners, subverting State law. If they would have taken out the liquid amber trees in our front yards, that messed up the sidewalks, trimmed back the roots, taking out the roots under the sidewalks, this would have been resolved, 30 years ago, that simple, no one gets hurt. They failed to maintain this dedication property, they signed up to maintain, failed by permitting large trees on 4' parkways with large roots, then transferred this to us, with no consideration. This started out as a friendly conversation with Board Supervisors, Dept of Transportation and Public Works, politely requesting help in our neighborhoods. They rewarded us by ignoring us, then approved an Illegal Ordinance, invoicing us for property we dont own or control or possess, placing liens on property, putting invoices on property tax bill. The County Counsel was ordered in a meeting (Board of Supervisors) to answer my questions, same with Dept of Transportation, so I could get a full understanding of the law, and their side. After asking a few questions, being professional and polite, Counsel Counsel smiled, looked at me, my son and my neighbor and stated, and a Quote "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself". He took my prepared questions in a letter, same with Department of the Transportation, gave it back to me, told me they would not answer any questions, then walked out of meeting. This is now personal, as you can tell. Your Dad and I have this in common.
