View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 14, 2002 | ROBERT FARLEY

[HairOfTheDog]

If I was a lawyer, I would make it a point to help these people.

I would too... That being said, if the county would have wanted to help these people, or have the land as a town park, they would have kept it when the original owner defaulted... I would not expect help from the county through eminent domain.

I would have thought the other property owners could have won under adverse possession... but I have doubts after reading post 41. If they had been accessing the property through permission granted by the original owner all these years... they were not assuming possession adversely at all, apparently, even if they had made improvements to the property.

[Minnesoootan]

Rain water runoff in an urban area is considered sewage,the article states what we are dealing with here is just that,runoff area,the ones in your area as well as mine are designed to keep the street sewer lines from being overwelmed because of the lack of normal seepage caused by roads and developement....I agree,the new ones and ones with good drainage don't stink,as long as you have enough rain,but get a short drought and some hot weather,phew!I certainly wouldn't want to own property on one!Let's not even talk aboot the skeeters! ;-)

[Lazamataz]

People are hooked on force as the first option, performed by government of course so they are not personally in harms way. They have been brainwashed for generations into thinking that force is the default position in all disputes.

If you ever type that again I will kick your ass.

;^)

[AppyPappy]

Never underestimate the depths of a neighbor feud.

[Minnesoootan]

He put up the fence to keep them off his chunk of land,that's all that he needs to say to settle this arguement in court.

[Labyrinthos]

Thanks for saving me from the task of writing an essay on the law of adverse possession. I can't tell you the number of times that I've had clients complain about my $750 bill for representing them as a buyer in a real estate transaction, because they didn't need a lawyer in Florida when they brought and sold their house there, so why should they have to pay a lawyer to close the deal in NY/NJ/CT. Why? Because a good lawyer would have picked up the potential problem before the transfer of title rather than many years after the fact.

With that said, there is probably more to this story than what was reported in the local newspaper. I suspect that the deeds may have contained reciprical easements regarding use of the lake even if title to the lake remained in the name of the developer. There might also be a subdivison map that provides for reciprical easements or even public use of the lake as a condition for the subdivision approval.

[AppyPappy]

It does matter. You cannot extort money from people. If he had drained the lake, I would say that is his business. If he had said "I cannot afford the liability, pay for the insurance or I'll drain the lake", I can understand that. But this method was clearly extortion.

[Lazamataz]

We're buying property on one. Skeeters won't be as much of an issue since the ponds will be fish-stocked and we are in the north, so there is a shorter hatching season. We are also in a suburban, not urban, environment in an area prone to slight flooding, so this is an absolutely necessary and desireable improvement.

[ThinkingMan]

And that is a risk that he runs- it is simply business, higher rewards usually come at a higher risk.

I actually think his risk exposure is at a minimum with this deal however. They will eventually pay, and he will turn a nice profit on the deal.

I would not sleep well at night if I was in this type of business, but it looks like a legal form of making a profit to me!

This is similar to those that purchase an expired domain name, post some porn, and then make the person who previously owned the domain name pay an excessive price to regain it. Distasteful, but legal, it is also totally avoidable if people would pay attention.

[A. Pole]

He built a fence because he can enjoy his property better that way (i.e., sell it for more money).

This is strange. Why someone would want the pink fence lake with the angry neighbours? He does not want to enjoy anything with the excpetion of extorted money (30K per neighbour) and some malicious satisfaction. He deserves a nasty revange for his greed and stupidity.

[AppyPappy]

Yes but that's not what he said. He's not denying them access, he is changing the enjoyment of their property. Especially by using pink paint and sparkles.

[Protagoras]

Your neighbors are stealing your property.

If a man cannot build a fence on his property because you have prevented him, you have stolen his property.

If I can see your house, I am not stealing your house. If I can see your car, I am not stealing your car. If I can see your lake, I am not stealing your lake.

You have no right to see anything. You have no rights to an unchanging view and you have no right to property value for that matter.

To use force to obtain/retain a view is immoral. You know it but your hatred of this swine obscures your thinking.

[Lazamataz]

It does matter. You cannot extort money from people. If he had drained the lake, I would say that is his business. If he had said "I cannot afford the liability, pay for the insurance or I'll drain the lake", I can understand that. But this method was clearly extortion.

Morally, obviously. Legally, no one cares.

I think the county can intervene and is more likely to due to his moral failings. But legally, he is untouchable.

[Wm Bach]

Running to the government and petioning them to use violence to solve the problem that they allowed to happen by their sloth and ignorance is a cherished American tradition. Embraced by liberals and consevatives alike.

Violence? Violence?

Please revisit your post with an eye towards the possibility of a wee bit of hyperbole having been employed in it's construction.

Do you imaging that the local government is going to send cops to drag the lake owner out of his car and beat him to death, or perhaps just shoot him?

[AppyPappy]

You have no right to stop me from enjoying my property as long as I don't hurt you in the process. Ever heard of Libertarianism?

[freedomcrusader]

If they decided to seize his property, and he resisted with force, you can be darned sure they'd shoot him.

[A. Pole]

The widow, being that, was in lack of money and wanted to replace her siding with low-cost vinyl siding. The town would not allow that for its desire to maintain historic appearances. The town insisted she use wood siding which she could not well afford.

It is amazing how stupid and petty people can be. Town could help the widow to pay for wood siding and everyone would be happy!

[Lazamataz]

He's not denying them access, he is changing the enjoyment of their property.

Dude, no offense, but you are not demonstrating a broad depth of real estate knowledge here. I explained what the term 'quiet enjoyment' means.

Outside of city, township, or county zoning, or outside of homeowners association contracts he may have signed, he is not in violation of penal or civil law.

[Crusher138]

In Florida there is a difference between a "natural" and a "created" lake.

Created lakes can be owned. Natural lakes cannot.

Imagine if it were otherwise. Buy 500 acres in Florida and put a 100 acre lake in the middle. Do you now not own that lake?

Developers often dredged out swampy areas, made a lake, and took the dirt from the dredging to make lots. The developer then still owns the lake, and he sells the lots around it.

We actually have a case down here of a developer selling lake front homes and condos and then selling the lake to another developer who filled most of it in to build more condo's. Instead of overlooking a 300 acre lake, the original home owners now overlook a 50 acre pond.

Read your deeds, or better yet, hire a lawyer to read it for you!