Need advice on property dispute - please help!?

me | fishtank

[Taylor42]

Bottom line? If I were in your shoes I would first of all hire a lawyer to advise you of the legal implications of the sale, and second, pay a competant disinterested real estate dealer to be YOUR advocate during the process. It sucks to have to put out the money to do this, but you'll have your backside covered in the future......

First - I agree completely with the above statement.

Second - After that, I'd find a way to be as much of a pain in the a$$ to these people as I could.

[VA Advogado]

As far as your second point, I don't think any property owner can truly be "landlocked". From what I understand if you own property you always have to have access.

What if you split your property in half and sell the back part? The buyer is landlocked if the thought he had a legal ingress/egress and finds out he doesnt.

[AAABEST]

It's like selling a car with a bad bottom end to some woman who doesn't know better and writing "no warranty" on the bill of sale.

I dunno J. If he had "rotten beams" as Mamzelle pointed out, he would be legally as well as morally obliged to disclose such. That would be akin to your bottom end example. I'm not sure if he should disclose the fact that his neihbors are idiots.

Disclosing such may open a can of worms, if the buyers decide to start making trouble. From a moral standpoint disclosing such may actually hurt the buyers if their Realtor or fishtank decides to take action against them for bailing out on shakey legal grounds.

[KC Burke]

The only reason that I can understand for this to have been written up this way is that you have to cross his property to access the parking pad....In other words, its not on a public street, alley or access...is that correct?

If that is the case, the clause was written to be an entry easement for purposes of parking only, i.e. not for a driveway to a future garage for example....Is the pad on a public way?

[Jhoffa_]

From the sounds of it the neighbors haven't done anything wrong?

Okay, I see your point..

But, if the right's aren't exclusive then I would make no bones about it to the buyers.

I mean, he lives there and obviously had no idea and now it's causing him headaches. I wouldn't do the same thing to someone else in passing the land on.

[VA Advogado]

I mean, he lives there and obviously had no idea and now it's causing him headaches. I wouldn't do the same thing to someone else in passing the land on.

Of course there is a difference between a legal right and a moral obligation. They sometimes don't mix well. :)

[AAABEST]

What if you split your property in half and sell the back part? The buyer is landlocked if the thought he had a legal ingress/egress and finds out he doesnt.

He may be landlocked in fact but if I remember correctly, you can not be kept from ingress and egress. Now how that is defined and what problems you may run into could get pretty hairy.

It may eventually turn out that you can only cut through the woods after spending a lot of time in court, but I don't believe you can be denied access.

I'd probably just work something out with the surrounding owners in a situation like that.

[Jhoffa_]

Okay, okay, okay..

Like I said, I know nothing about this stuff.

BUT, I would be completely honest and I wouldn't hide anything. That's the best policy and that's the way fishtank would like to be treated I am sure.

As for the neighbors, dump some scorpions in their bedroom window and then call the cops and claim they are doing amateur atomic testing in their garage.

[Jhoffa_]

..then call the cops and claim they are doing amateur atomic testing in their garage.

PS: if they are really bigtime jerks.. Claim they are drunk and naked, exposing themselves to passers by while doing it.

[VA Advogado]

It may eventually turn out that you can only cut through the woods after spending a lot of time in court, but I don't believe you can be denied access.

So you're saying that some judge would be right in ordering the owners of the woods to allow a stranger on to their property? :)

[RightWhale]

I'm nearly certain that you must have ingress and egress to any property.

If the government participates in the creation of the subdivision, then the government guarantees access, that's the first thing they do. If the subdivision was done outside the law, state subdivision statute, and public hearing, --and there are many such,-- there is no guarantee. Be sure what you buy is what you think it should be; writing and recording a defective deed is very common. It's done for the best of reasons, but done wrong if the statute is ignored.

[AAABEST]

So you're saying that some judge would be right in ordering the owners of the woods to allow a stranger on to their property? :)

Heck I'd be pissed if a judge did that to me. I think it's the law though. I must admit, it's been quite a while, but I'm nearly positive that ingress and egress is an inherant right.

Thinking further, it might not come down to a judge actually granting him a right cut through my woods. I may bring suit against the offender and the judge may not rule in my favor, thereby giving the "cut acrosser" (lol) access by default. Geez now I'm way out there.

Again it's been a long time and I am by no means any type of legal expert.

[Lower55]

Cut the price and sell to Muslims.

[AdA$tra]

Relax and breathe easy!

I agree. You are granted a right of easement across their property. If they are not allowing the use of that land, then they are just jerks. As long as you don't hold out to the buyer that you OWN that land you park on. I would make it known to them, although they should look at the mortgage survey closely. The title policy for your property probably won't show the beneficial easement as it lies on or across the juxtaposed property. I have seen some that include beneifcial easement in the legal description. Something like this tacked onto the end of the legal description....Together With: an easement for belly dancing over and across the south 10 feet lof lot "x".....If it is on the subdivision plat it should be apparent on a survey as well.

[carenot]

I asked them last year if I could re-stripe the paarking spaces and they refused.

Why did you ask?

[Swordmaker]

Not to disparage anyone on FreeRepublic, but I see a pooling of ignorance!

Based on several courses in Business Law and a lifetime of reading legal documents, my interpretation (in bold italics) of the paragraph from the plat map description (which is part of the title) is as follows:

"The owners of Lot "B"(persons on the title of Lot 'B' at the time of the agreement), their successors (anyone who purchases or inherits Lot 'B' in the future are also included in the agreement) and assigns (all people to whom they may rent or give permission to occupy Lot 'B' in the future are also included in the agreement), hereby grant (give conditional usage of the designated area) to the owners of Lot "A" (persons on the title of Lot 'A' at the time of the agreement), their successors (anyone who purchases or inherits Lot 'A' in the future are also included in the agreement) and assigns (all people to whom they may rent or give permission to occupy Lot 'B' in the future are also included in the agreement), the right of ingress (entry), egress (exit) and parking (store an automobile) in the area designated as 2-Car Parking, Lot "A"."

To paraphrase:

The owners or occupants of LOT B give unrevocable permission to enter, exit and use a portion of their property for the sole purpose of parking a vehicle, to the owners or occupants of LOT A. This permission is binding on all future owners and occupants of LOT B. All future owners or occupants of LOT A are also given permission to do the same. Permission is not given for any other use. The right to enter, exit and park is part of the title of the property and is sold with LOT A.

Any act by the permitting party that prevents the permitee from exercising his right to park (encroaching on the space necessary to properly enter, exit and park, blocking access, etc.) would be actionable and a court could issue a restraining order.

The current occupant or owner of Lot B cannot infringe the right of the new owner of Lot A to use the parking space. I cannot see how a misbehaving neighbor could be construed as a "property defect" that must be reported in the sale.

[1rudeboy]

What if you split your property in half and sell the back part?

Be careful. The way property-law has evolved in this country would make a court look askance at your "arrangement." In fact, the court could find an "implied easement" in this case. In other words, it would be best to arrange in advance an easement with the purchaser so that a court might not step in and "find" one later (on a more valuable portion of your land, for example).

In sum, you sell a landlocked portion of your land, you are asking for trouble.

[glorygirl]

In other words, Fishtank, this is not your problem once the property is sold, although, as someone noted, you could end up in court eventually, disclosure agreement or no.

Sounds like you are more concerned about your current neighbors and how they might treat the person who buys your home.

If you are concerned, why not simply pin down your realtor? You certainly have the right to do that.

If there is ANY chance the buyers don't fully understand the terms of the agreement or the situation they may be getting into, you have the right to know.

Is there somekind of homeowner's association in your development? They might also be able to assist you with this.

Also, ask yourself this question: Are you worried about your neighbors "drifting into the parking space" because the new buyer might spot the vehicles and find out the truth?

They likely know you are moving and may simply be taking advantage of the situation for a few weeks. Have you asked them?

[fishtank]

Hey, you all have been great.

I'm going to go talk to the realtor in a while.

Some clarifications after having read everything here:

(1) The parking pad is part of a four-parking-space piece of concrete. The two spaces on the right of the pad belong to the owner of Lot B (my Ralph Vader neighbors). The two spaces on the left are my parking spaces. All four spaces butt directly up to the public street. There is no landlocked property.

(2) My house was the original dwelling on the property (about a 50 year old house). 13 years ago, before we lived there, the lot was about a half acre in size, and it was subdivided then (1990 AD) to create two separate lots. Lot A (my house), being original, was the original owner of ALL four parking spaces. When Lot B was created, this screwball situation was created by our local Planning and Zoning commission.

Therefore, I think they are the real culprits, with ultimate responsibility to fix the mis-interpretation.

(3) The house on Lot B is only about three years old.

(4) Yes, I am concerned about both the moral issue of selling the property without full disclosure, and I am also worried about future litigation against me.

My issue is: I think I am selling them "real" parking rights - the neighbors don't think so.


I'll let you all know what happens in a couple of hours.

Thanks.

fishtank

[Destructor]

Get yourself a good lawyer. That is the best free advice you will get from anybody.