I think you’re talking about the opposite of what I was. I know that if A crosses B’s property for 17 .5 years and A then sells it to C who keeps using it that way for 6 months it will all count towards the 18 years.
I’m talking about the opposite where A crosses B’s property for 17.5 years and B then sells to D and A continues crossing what is now D’s property for six months. My understanding is that the underlying reason behind prescriptive easements is that the owner loses some rights because they didn’t enforce them - and it really doesn’t seem that I should lose rights after a month because the prior owner didn’t enforce them for 17 years and 11 months.
If the easement you do have is, for practical purposes, impassable, and the parcel is otherwise landlocked, isn’t that an argument you can do something with?
I don’t see how the easement you have can count if it is something you can’t navigate with the vehicles you have access to. Or is it that you can, but you just don’t want to? Or is that you don’t much care, but potential buyers care a great deal?
In other words, I understand what you want, but I think the answer as to how to get it is really complicated by the existence of the other easement, and weakens your case dramatically. Can one reject or otherwise remove an easement if you have it? Would that make a difference legally?
I still think the simplest answer is “pay more than you’d like for better access, ideally by purchasing land but perhaps by purchasing an easement.” I imagine there are brokers who specialize in negotiating this sort of thing, and that might be something to pursue. I’m certain this will end up costing you more than you’d like no matter which way you jump; might as well do it right.
Just chiming it - lots of stuff here so I"m not sure if this has been said yet:
It seems the choice is being put forward as either a prescriptive easement (or adverse possession) and outright buying the strip of land.
I’m sure there are differences in jurisdictions, but this is what happened with a similar situation in my family:
My dad approached the landowner to discuss an easement. There was no thought of doing it through a lawyer first and certainly no thought of purchasing the strip of land.
The offer was that my dad would pay for the required survey, and for all legal fees required to create the easement. The legal document would include wording to make sure that liability concerns were taken care of, and that the neighbour would not be responsible for upkeep or maintenance of the driveway on the easement, and that the neighbour would have full and complete access to the easement. He retained ownership.
The neighbour negotiated a “consideration” of $1000 in addition to this.
Done deal! I think this was a good first step. If the neighbour had refused to negotiate, my dad would have then proceeded to next steps (possibly prescriptive easement, as they’d used this entry for decades)
Considering the size of the land in question and that this is a minor part of the edge, I foresee that being done but purchasing the land instead of an easement.
Apologies if answered above, but had the prior owner given you permission? Just wondered if that came up when you expressed your desire to purchase it.
And I really did not intend anything personal by my prior use of the word “scam.” IMO, obtaining rights to property via adverse possession smells a tad “scammier” than via open negotiation.
Nope. If he had this would not even be an issue because it would not be notorious. But I’m still curious if saying, “I’m using your land for this purpose.” counts as open.
If i own an incredible parcel of land, i don’t see how that makes any one of my neighbors liable to get me to it. I’ve never heard of anyone having a right to a free easement just because they need it to use their land. Usually, that’s something negotiated before buying the land.
They might do it despite not having any right to. Near where my brother lives there’s a road that is often closed off, because the neighbors don’t want traffic. There has been a fight between those neighbors and the town for years now. For a while they hung a chain, but that would have kept our fire trucks, and the town made enough of a stink that they had to back down. But last time i was there there were traffic cones. According to my brother, it’s not a private road, it’s a town road, and he drives through the barriers routinely just because he has the right to.
So. If I’m reading this correctly you want a framework to legally take land belonging to someone else because it’s marginally more convenient to you than driving the long way around. Do I have that correctly?
I should think that would be covered by disclosure requirements during the sale. I don’t know what the laws are like elsewhere, but here in Hawai’i the sale of residential property includes an exhaustive list of things that the seller must disclose, or be subject to sanction if they fail to do so.
If you were fully landlocked, IE no easement at all, many states have easements of necessity where you can sue to get access to your land (but not necessarily through the shortest or most convenient route). But once you have an easement, and you just don’t want to pay to maintain it, you have no argument there. The OP could if he wanted, at his own cost, upgrade the existing easement he already has to support driving by a regular vehicle. I still think the most likely and simplest resolution is a purchase of an easement from the adjoining property owner. The second most likely is probably that they sell the property for less than it could be worth and the new owners keep driving over the neighbors property illegally.
Is this strip you want in the middle of the lot or is at the edge? You’ll likely have better luck buying a strip at the edge of someone’s land than than in the middle. I’m not sure that many people want to have their single lot split into two lots separated by a strip of what would be your property. If it’s in the middle, take a look at the property lines around your lot and see if there’s a way to buy a strip along the property line of one of the surrounding properties that could be used to get to your land.
I could easily the legal fees for getting an easement costing much more than the $20k you’re losing in selling price if there is any resistance at all. The other property owner is going to be highly motivated to stop the easement since it will likely lower the value of that property.
Sure, but if they were blocking it off without any right to , you’d think the county/sheriff would have done something other than say “sounds good to me”
But would you have to disclose something that hasn’t happened yet ? There’s a difference between having to disclose that an easement exists and having to disclose one that might come into existence in a month or two.
I am not a lawyer, so who knows? But I would think that if the seller knew that their land was being used regularly as a passageway, then yes, that would have to be disclosed. At the very least, if I bought a property and found out later that people were going across my land to get from point A to point B, and the seller didn’t tell me, I’d potentially have a civil case against them (assuming I could prove some harm, such as decreased property value or liability or something).
If I understood correctly the plan is to sell the land and it would be more valuable if the easement is in place. They may never actually use it again.