What is the source for ‘it is the golf course’? Just the neighbor?
It could be that the golf course was built at the same time as the pipe, and they assumed it was for the course.
And a 20’ easement is not excessive.
And there might be some provision of local law that allows for an easement to be registered without updating the plat. Get a statement from the County Recorder as to the existence of a legal easement. Get it in writing, on letterhead - it will come in handy in court, should it go there.
If there is a manhole on your property and it looks like a fresh cover, you will want an attorney.
It is one thing to not remember the pipe, another to actively conceal it.
The manhole was not necessarily deliberately hidden. I had to check flow in a few storm drain lines going down to the downtown channel. I had maps. One was in a park. I could not find it.
Finally, I used the map’s scale to calculate the distances and paced it out and started feeling in the grass where it ought to have been. About two inches down, I felt metal. I pulled off a thick pad of grass and the mulch from years of grass being there. I checked the flow. I came by three months later, and the grass was already sending runners a few inches in from all sides. It was going to “bury” that manhole again.
Maybe if the parks guys trimmed it every time that they mowed, it would stay clear. But they’re probably not thinking of manhole access as they’re steering their riding mowers.
The story is background to saying that it’s probably not necessary to claim or prove fraud. Assuming that you’re dealing with an oops will probably not lose you anything.
I’m with **Omar **on this one. You are in too deep to be checking in with other people’s licensing agencies on your own authority. Have the lawyer get onto the seller, agent and the title company. Make sure that he isn’t related to the seller or agent or title interest.
It occurs to me that if the pipe is part of the city drainage system, that may explain why the easement is not shown on title. In some jurisdictions, public utilities have statutory easements for their facilities that do not need to be registered on title. Pure speculation on my part - just emphasizes the need to talk to a lawyer who is familiar with real estate law in this area.
I think you need to find out exactly what kind of drain pipe it is, and where does it end up? Is it a french drain dewatering the ninth tee, is it a storm drain that directs runoff from streets to a nearby pond or swale? Does your city have a combined storm/sewer system where all storm runoff is connected to the sewer system?
manholes are usually associated with sewers, and sewer and fresh water lines should be marked on docs as an easement.
I note that a number of posts here suggest that the previous owner may have been “paid off”. When you get a lawyer (which I agree you should do), find out if maybe you can be “paid off” too. (I know you want a garage, etc., but maybe they can pay you enough to make not having one worth it.)
Also: find out what the pipe is made of, and find out if it’s likely to leek. A flooding pipe in the yard, even if it doesn’t go in the street, is a major headache. My husband will back me up on this.
I would get a good real estate attorney to pursue this. I’d be concerned about lack of use of your property because of the buried pipe, potential damage to your property because of this pipe, and possible loss of value in your property when you go to sell having to disclose this. I know I wouldn’t want to buy property that has a problem waiting to happen with water. Who knows what could happen, the constant rush of water down there could create a kind of sink hole or something else troublesome.
As for the golf course, it’s in their best interests to say anything to you to get rid of you. It is also in their best interests to delay replying or doing anything. If it were me, I would want either the problem solved by them removing the pipe so that not a drop of water from it is on my property, or have them give me fair market value for my home so I could move. I would also want to be fairly compensated for the inconvenience of this. The fact that you said it was not disclosed to you at the time of purchase makes this whole thing highly suspect.
If it’s not legal, then you can certainly demand that it be moved, though I don’t know how all that works with the title insurance. I’ve never had occasion to deal with title insurance, fortunately. Would they try to decline coverage because the issue was not on any legal documents?
Was the basement flooding disclosed at any point? if not, how did you find out about that? (from the neighbor?). That’s the kind of thing that the former owners should have disclosed, I’d think.
The downside of forcing them to move the drainage pipe is that it might lead to worse water issues, including basement flooding issues recurring.
Personally, I’d be tempted to make the title insurance company buy me out and move someplace without these defects.
This seems a complicated issue. Although I am a lawyer, I wouldn’t feel comfortable offering advice. Your state and city laws will play a large part in the ultimate resolution of this matter.
But generally speaking, an interest in land is not valid against subsequent bona fide purchasers for value unless those purchases are given notice, either actual notice by the seller, constructive notice by a recording in the county clerk’s office, or a type of notice that one would see by “taking a view” of the property.
From the things you have said in this thread, my initial thought is that the interest that the golf course has is not valid because there was no notice.
Ultra Vires, in the US, does that hold true for public utilities? For instance, are there easements shown on title for telephone lines servicing the house? Gas lines? Power lines? Water and sewer lines?
In my jurisdiction, those matters are dealt with by statutory easements that do not need to be registered on title to be effective.
YMMV, of course, based on the local laws. All the more reason for the OP to talk to a local lawyer who knows the land and easement law of his state.
Again, I won’t speak for every state, but around here, lines servicing the house are a license granted by the homeowner. If I cancel the land based phone service or natural gas, then I am free to chop up the lines as I generally paid for them to begin with.
If you are talking about an easement (like say telephone or electric lines passing overhead to service other houses) those are recorded by an easement to the telephone company or electric company. If not, then adverse possession or a prescriptive easement applies, and/or a subsequent purchaser is placed on notice of their presence by “taking a view” at the land.
And “registered on title” *snickers. We don’t have such a straight-forward common sense approach to recording. We just allow anyone to record something on a napkin.
If it’s got full manhole access this is quite possibly the correct answer, and it does not bode well for any options you have re removal of the pipe. It would also make your legal claims for compensation a bit more difficult to pursue.
So a municipality grants itself statutory easements for utility infrastructure without even any requirement to document the easement any place where a property owner (or seller or buyer or title insurance company) could reasonably be expected to discover it? Sounds like just the kind of shitty thing that a municipal government would do.
Wait – why would a city install a drainage system in some outlying area, except in contemplation of that area being developed? And would significant parts of such a system be hidden? Seems that an undeveloped area could deal with surface runoff with large landscape features like ditches and berms. No need for drains and gutters to go around a building or drain a street if there are none. Such features should be “obvious on inspection”, unlike buried pipes.
If there are indeed hidden features, failure to disclose their presence to a developer seems highly counter-productive. Roads, new drainage, foundations, etc. will conflict at random with historic items, and cause no end of confusion and additional expense. That just seems too stupid even for a municipality to indulge in.
We don’t have such a straight-forward common sense approach to recording. We just allow anyone to record something on a napkin. 