Yeah, don’t let one (well, two) bad lawyer put you off that track. Somewhere there is a good local attorney who well help you, it just might take a few tries.
That’s helpful if access was frequent and by car so there will be signs of it, like tire ruts. But hiking across a field twice a year? I don’t know if that’s enough to prove regular use, and there won’t be any way to prove it even if it were enough.
Unless I missed it I didn’t see this addressed. If I tell the owner we are using that strip for access, wouldn’t that meet the “open” criterium?
Yes, and then in 18 years if he hasn’t done anything about it, you can probably get your easement.
The real question is, have you been doing this in the open (and he was or should have been aware of it) for the past 18 years?
It was mentioned earlier that there have been multiple owners and the latest one has owned it for less than a year. Regardless, it’s clear that any owner going back over that time had not been informed and almost certainly has no idea that this has occasionally been going on.
Not required for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement.
I’m not a lawyer, obviously.
Legal or not, this whole thing stinks. If I am understanding correctly, OP wants to take something from the real owner, not pay them and never use it again. They don’t want it because they would use it all the time. They want it to make a little more money on the sale of the land. How is this not ethically bereft?
moderating
This is verging on attacking poster here. I’m not sure which side of the line you’re on but this post would be better suited to the pit.
Consider the alternative. Here we have a series of absentee landowners who get little or no use out of their property on the one hand, and SC on the other. The land may be worth essentially nothing to the absentees (except, maybe, as a speculative investment, which is problematic on its own). By contrast, SC does actually get some use out of the land, but in order to get the best use out of it could really use a perfectly reasonable easement allowing them direct access from the county road.
You would think such an easement would be easy to come by at a reasonable price. But when approached, you get these absentee owners who may be practically grinning at the prospect of gouging SC for it.
The theory goes that adverse possession and the like have their place under just such circumstances: it encourages property owners to diligently use and maintain their land, or else risk losing it to someone who is willing to get some use out of it. It’s actually a really good example of how property rights have never been so absolute as some people/corporations would like us to believe, as adverse possession and prescriptive easements (and, by extension, the forced transfer of property for social utility) have been a part of our legal system for centuries.
I am not against the concept in general and I appreciate your excellent post. That’s all I can say about it.
Is it always 18 years? That’s the sort of detail i would expect to vary by state.
Anyway, i am not a lawyer, but I’d be surprised if walking across the land a few times a year was enough use to trigger adverse possession. I think your lawyer is probably right, you have no right to and easement.
Yes, that makes sense. Why should you have a right to an easement?
That doesn’t mean you can’t buy one from the owner, but I’d be surprised if you can demand one.
Anyway, as others have said, you should hire a lawyer who specializes in this stuff in the relevant state.
Seems like a good time to bring up the concept of “corner crossing”. It’s a bit of this thread, but on a much larger scale, and also a LOTTTT lesser impact. We are talking about walking over the corner of a property vs driving over the entire property. How can a private property owner restrict access to public land when you may not even touch that private property? I know it’s not apples to apples, but it should show you the issues with private land rights and how they might have a bit of overreach.
It’s actually really hard for me to parse that line. Is it that SC has no right to a prescriptive easement at all, or is SC a must misunderstanding another aspect of easements: that the subservient property own gets to decide, within reason, the bounds of the easement. So while SC might, for example, want the easement (if one in fact exists) to permit him to cross on the north end of the subservient property, the owner can say “Actually, no, that would have you driving through my garden: drive through the southern end of my property instead.”
It seems unlikely to me that SC has any right to an easement. He already has legal access to the property, even if it’s inconvenient. And he hasn’t been crossing the other person’s property in a way that is as consistent and obvious as i would have expected one would need to to establish adverse possession. And the lawyer he spoke with thought he had no right to an easement.
You can buy lots of things that you don’t have a right to. He can probably buy an easement. And who knows, maybe he can demand one. But it certainly doesn’t sound like a slam dunk to me.
Apologies if I did not read the thread closely enough, and I’m far from expert.
I agree w/ puzzlegal that I doubt parking on the side of the road and walking across the property a couple of times a year qualifies as open, notorious, and continuous. But even if it does, what does that create an easement to do? A footpath easement impresses me as something different than a right to bring in construction vehicles.
The current situation might be inconvenient. But SC’s wife ought to have known of the access issues when she bought the property. And SC does not say the property is unsaleable - simply not for the price they desire.
The OP said he both walked and drove the 90 yards.
Thank you. As I said, I had not read the thread clearly enough. At first I thought he described driving across, but I sensed later posts described walking. Has the OP been clear about how often they cross the neighboring property and in what manner?
So you DO have an easement of your own? Why not upgrade it to a drivable condition, instead of spending all the legal effort to use someone else’s easement? It’s an investment that will pay off when you sell the property as well.
So when the previous owner put the land up for sale why didn’t Saint_Cad offer to buy a small strip on the edge?
Is it entirely clear from the prior discussion whether the desired access route is along the edge of the neighboring property, or across the middle of it?
Also, do we know how large the properties in question are and how they are situated WRT each other, their neighbors, and roads? I would suspect that might be relevant in any determination as to the neighbor’s responsibility for detecting ongoing adverse incursions.
If you are able to obtain and record an easement at no cost (other than some legal fees), why would you then seek to buy the land?
I’m not sure if this link will work, but what the hell:
My grandparents lived in the house with the $396 on it, that has a driveway to Larksburg Ave, directly north, which obviously crosses a tiny, useless strip of land that wasn’t theirs. That driveway was in use, continually, for the entire existence of the house since it was built 1925. After they died, and my parents tried to sell the house, there was no end to the legal BS despite the driveway being used openly, notoriously and continuously for 80 years. Note, they didn’t use the “paper road” that is directly to the east, as that is a completely impassable mess.
Even if you have this legal right, you may be in for a legal battle if the owners aren’t willing to work with you.