Undisclosed easement on newly-bought house

In My Humble Opinion
61

There are multiple levels of “surveys” available for a potential purchaser when buying a house. Some people assume a “survey” will show everything and this is absolutely not the case. A basic metes and bounds lot line survey which most banks will accept in “mature communities” can be just a few hundred dollars and will show the outline of the property lot lines. More involved full bore surveys that would show all easements, topography, historical features etc. are considerably more expensive and can be well over a thousand dollars, and are not always required by banks.

If the pipe was never approved by the city there’s probably some cash on the table for the OP, but if it was major enough to need a manhole it’s hard to believe it would have been done without tacit municipal approval on some level.

62

I don’t get it either.

SOMEONE owned the property at whatever time the drainage was installed. It is hard to imagine the government not wanting to record the impact of their improvements on the property owner’s rights.

Also, you’d think the gov’t would have some interest in recording where the pipes were, in case maintenance or alteration was needed at a later date.

In the 5 or so municipalities I’ve encountered this sort of thing (all in IL or IN), prospective developers are required to submit plats of the intended development, including specific info as lay out of streets, locations of utilities, drainage, etc. Hard to imagine the village not having an interest in ensuring that their existing interests are respected/protected - if only to avoid this sort of hassle later on.

I’ve never seen a proposed development where the utility easements went willy-nilly across the proposed lots. Instead, there is generally a general easement for all utilities across the rear and/or front of the lots.

The government accepts or rejects a proposed plat. A valid basis for rejecting a plat would be that it does not identify or provide for existing infrastructure/interests. Simple matter of the municipality comparing the developer’s proposed plat with the municipality’s plat of record showing the big old pipe they buried however many years ago.

Of course, having said all that, screw-ups happen, and exceptional circumstances occur.

Couple of things I don’t think have been cleared up.

-I don’t know that the OP ever stated that the government owned the golf course or the pipe. If it is a private golf course, I could imagine them making some sort of arrangement with the previous property owner - maybe a farmer - to lay a pipe across his land and never recording it.
-Where does the pipe go? For example, does it hook up to the gov’t storm sewers, or does it direct overflow from the GC ponds into a stream?
-The term “manhole” has been used, giving me the impression that this is something more substantial than mere drainage tile. Perhaps the OP might wish to clear up whether this is actually a big, heavy, 2-3’ diameter manhole, or instead, more akin to an access port for rodding out clay or PVC drainage pipe?

63

Not sure why I, the city, would want to install a system to drain an area outside my limits, or what rights I would have there that would exceed those of any other private property owner.

I’d think that they’d have to record the drainage system on the plats of any private property it was under, even if the property was a cow pasture at the time. Not so?

And if some of the drainage system was on public property, I’d expect they’d have to record the public easement if they sold the land to a private owner. No?

Because it’s one thing when there’s an ordinance that dictates a utility easement along the street, extending X feet into the property. That’s normal and expected. But finding unexpected pipes under random parts of one’s yard is a whole 'nother deal.

ETA: Looks like everyone else beat me to the punch during their lunch hours.

64

It’s a private golf course.

Apparently the pipe runs across my yard to connect with the main storm drain pipe which runs under the driveway on the side of my yard, in the easement which *is *shown on the official plat.

The manhole- large and heavy cast iron- appears to be where the undisclosed pipe meets up with the disclosed pipe. That manhole, as I said, was buried under an inch or two of dirt. The pipe is apparently unused most of the year- but when they drain the ponds in the golf course once or twice a year, there’s a lot of water going through it.

65

I’m curious about one thing. If this played out as expected, suppose OP and neighbor didn’t discuss The Pipe yet, or OP had gone ahead with building the garage and pool right away, before neighbor said hello. All permits are there. He calls Dig Safe (or the local equivalent), and Dig Safe reports all underground utilities, gas, water, etc. The Pipe, because it was never officially recorded with the city, is not shown. (I’m not sure how Dig Safe works with this: is there someone that comes out and shows odd pipes?) OP starts digging and discovers The Pipe. All I can see is fingers pointing at each other, and OP with a non-cement pond.

OP: Have you moved since your resume? The nearest golf course is 1.5 miles away. (Sorry :o just curious. Cool work you do!)

66

If the area was subdivided later, the pipes should have been included in the subdivision maps and on the individual plats. The subdivision maps sould have had declarations of all easements.

In our area, pipes that are slanted through lots or have other odd configurations are a sign of one of two things. One is that a storm drain line was installed to run from within the city to a natural waterway or lake outside of the city, through farm land that was later subdivided.

Two is that the storm drain line was installed a hundred years ago by filling in a creek or slough that ran through the city. ** Lightnin’ **just posted more information, though and neither of those would seem to apply. The line may be a lateral owned by the golf course or the city may own the part that’s not on golf course land. If the easement was never recorded, the golf course and city may even disagree on who owns what.

67

Here’s a question. So let’s say Lightnin’ digs his pool, and in the process, ruptures the pipe. Next time the golf course drains its ponds (I’ve golfed 10s of thousands of rounds at hundreds of courses, and never heard of courses draining their ponds on a regular basis) instead of going through the pipe to the sewer, the water causes roads to buckle, invades basement, and otherwise damages public and private property. Who is liable?

Just re-read the OP - hard to get my head around the seller not disclosing that they had entered into a contract allowing a pipe to be laid. Pretty much a blatant example of a material encumbrance of which they have specific knowledge. Of course, an unrecorded interest is generally worth the paper it isn’t printed on.

68

I know. We just spent over $14,000 for such details on an acquisition property. More than thirty items (easements, reservations, encroachments, etc.) were identified as potentially problematic. (It’s a half section, so a good bit larger than a residential lot.) Most could be ignored as inconsequential for the proposed new use. But one actually required a “quiet title” court action to resolve. Our title insurance company demanded the survey work before they would even consider our application.

So I’d be surprised if the title company here was remiss. Instead it appears likely that the former owner (immediate former, or more historic) and the golf course colluded to withhold important information. My bet is that, regardless of the jurisdiction, one or both of them will be liable.

69

I’m still finding out stuff about this pipe.

Near as I can tell, the builders thought it was a dead pipe and ended up blocking it off during the house construction. When the ponds were drained (I heard in the spring, but I’d think the fall would make more sense), the force of the water broke through the ground cover and flooded my basement. The city supposedly paid for repairs to the basement, and the previous owners were paid off for their trouble. My neighbors got a copy of the contract between the previous owners and the city.

Sure enough, the golf course is private, but the city owns the drainage pipe (which is why the city paid them off). The previous owners were paid about five thousand dollars for repairing the property and moving the pipe. Considering how much this affects the property, this number seems really low to me. We weren’t given this information before we bought the house, this is part of what our neighbors found.

Like I said, our neighbors are in the same boat. The pipe wasn’t disclosed to them until it ruptured. I’m the beneficiary of all the subsequent research they’ve done over the past three years.

It seems pretty straightforward to me- the previous owners clearly knew about the pipe, but didn’t tell us about it. They did disclose the flooding, but all we were told was that the city repaired the damage- there was nothing about the pipe having been moved or even its location in the back yard.

70

Man, that’s fucked up. With the city involved, I bet it is extremely unlikely that you’ll get perfectly compensated. They ain’t going to go thru the expense of moving the entire pipe, and they aren’t going to pay you anything near what you think is the difference in value. But, I’d contend that they are at least somewhat responsible for your damages for failing to record the work they did. In light of that, they might be willing to work with you.

Some municipalities are somewhat reasonable, others not so much. What I’d suggest is that you decide how you want to use the property, and work on getting the city to help you make that happen. If you want a 2d garage, is there space to site it that it would encroach upon the 20’ “easement”, but not be directly above the pipe? Maybe with a gravel or paver block driveway to the garage where it crosses the pipe? If so, you might be able to obtain a variance or exception to the easement (not sure how properly phrased.) Their main interests are to not have to destroy a driveway/patio/foundation if they need to dig up the pipe for repairs, and having access for their machines.

Of course, the end result would be that you would have an encumbered property, which would be apparent in the event you ever want to sell. That sucks. But I’d be amazed if your city were happy to cut checks to all of the affected property owners to make up for their lessened value.

I’d talk to an attorney about the chances of proceeding against the prior owner and their agent/broker. You will need an expert, objective opinion as to your chances of success, the likely amount you might receive, and your chances of collecting on that judgment. I’d bet that most 3d parties would calculate your damages to be far less than you personally think. A court or appraiser might say your encumbered lot is worth $5k less than if it were unencumbered. But, as you say, if you had known about the pipe, you wouldn’t have even considered it.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

71

Most RE companies have an “errors and omissions” insurance policy that would probably cut you a moderate check to make you go away if you had a strong enough case, but they will refuse coverage if they think the misrepresentation was willful and knowing on the part of the agent which will have to be determined vis due diligence and investigation, however the brokerage (legally) is the actual entity who transacted the deal not the agent. You may have to go after the brokerage and the agent personally for fraud which will involve some expenditure.

72

We know the previous owner knew about the pipe and the flooding, but we don’t know whether the realtor did.

One question I have: do we know that the restoration of the pipe after the flooding incident has solved the flooding problem for good? (And how do we know this?)

Because if there’s still a flooding risk, or a substantial uncertainty about whether a flooding risk continues to exist due to this pipe, the resulting loss of value wouldn’t be chump change. Even if the city pays for the damage every time, the fact that the OP or a future owner would have to put up with periodic floods would cause most buyers to look elsewhere.

73

What still seams to be lacking is any actual easment. An easement may prevent you from using a piece of your property as you wish.

I think you could negotiate still being able to build a garage. The engineering could be to put in a conduit for the drainage so they’d never need to get under the garage or the pipe could be rerouted around the outside parimeter of the structure.

I think you are in a tough place with the towns involvement. It sounds like the line now part of the towns drainage system. You can argue for compensation, but removing it entirely doesn’t seem promising.

Still get a lawer.

74

I’ve been following this since the beginning, my first thought is that being up against the city, you’re not going to get anywhere without getting the media involved (while we’re at it, make sure you document everything, every phone call, every email, every person you talk to along the way). And, FTR, I’d probably, conveniently, ignore the plat the golf course has. It’s not official, it’s not sealed, it’s not filed with the city and it’s, more or less, just dumb luck that you found it. If asked, you can say you recieved it long after you bought the house (btw, mark the date you had it in your hands). Besides, how should you know this is the correct one, shouldn’t the “official plat” supercede an unofficial plat a private golf course has on file.
My second thought would be to just build over it and if the city wants to get under it, say 'what pipe? there’s no pipe down there? I have the official plat right here. It doesn’t say anything about a pipe? (remember a manhole could be for a pipe running in any direction and it was covered when you moved in, the pictures of the house from when you bought it, if you’re lucky, might even show that area. I kept the the pictures the the previous homeowner used to sell his house (by owner) because they showed some illegal work the he did). If something ever becomes of it, I’ll have proof that it was there before I moved in. Assuming he doesn’t lie about making the flyer.

Another thought would be for you and the neighbor to get together and have both your insurance company’s deal with the city at the same time. Between the two of you and the two of them, the extra pressure might help them move it. It also might help if you could do some due diligence on your own and maybe suggest some alternative routes for it (hey guys, why don’t you just cut right to the street).

Honestly, I think you’re going to end up having to sue the previous homeowners, they received money from the city for the mistake and they may have signed someone stating that they were to disclose this. On top of that, I can’t see a scenario where the city is going to pay out twice on the same mistake. My WAG is that when you go after the city, this is the first document that’ll be produced. If you’re lucky, you can sue them [the previous homeowners] for more than they got since you wouldn’t have even bought the house if you knew about that sewer line.

Like you said, start with your title insurance and go from there. If you had a lawyer present and the closing, that would be the next logical step. He/she can verify that this was never disclosed and isn’t buried in the paperwork somewhere.

75

No big deal, but I just caught this - is your driveway dirt?

76

Heh. The selling agent was the seller’s mother, who lives about three doors down from me. If she didn’t know, she’s the worst mom ever.

The only reason it flooded before was because the builders had breached the pipe and then just covered it with dirt- like I said, they thought it was a dead pipe, since it wasn’t on the plat anywhere. I imagine it’s now about as safe as it can ever be.

Nope. Well, we’re actually talking about the RV driveway, which runs along the side of my house. It’s concrete. Yeah, if the city ever needs to get to *that *pipe, that driveway’s going to be torn up. Nothing much I can do about that, though.

77

Selling agent or listing agent? Generally the selling agent represents the buyer and the listing agent represents the seller. I’m pretty sure you did not buy a house using the seller’s mom as your agent.

http://gccoldwellbanker.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-listing-agent-and-selling-agent

78

Huh. I did not know that.

Anyway, yeah, the *listing *agent was the seller’s mother.

79

So…did you have your own agent?

(Please say you didn’t just follow the seller’s agent’s instructions/directions!)

80

Also remember that in many states, the agent who shows you the house and handles the paperwork from your end (the “selling agent”) legally represents the seller’s interests too.