They will try to talk you into whatever costs them the least but, IMHO, the land should be put in the state you thought it was in when you purchased it.
It seems like you should also get something for the hassle you’ve been going through, the major hassle of having your yard torn up, and any costs you’ve incurred, but that’s probably a lost cause.
I agree.
What you should remind them of is that you can’t really do that much with your front yard. Usually there are set-back requirements and the like that flat-out prevent you from expanding very far into your front yard, even aside from utility easements that run a little ways in from the street. And by sheer custom, front yards are decorative rather than functional.
The back yard, OTOH, is where you can add on to the house, put in a swimming pool, stuff like that. And if you want to add on to your house, you’ve got to do it in the portion of your yard that’s contiguous to your house. If the pipe’s directly behind your house, that keeps you from using the part that’s most valuable to you in terms of adding on, or building a pool.
Imagine that your yard is a 3x3 tic-tac-toe board, with your house in the center square. The three squares nearest the road are not available for additions, pools, etc. The two squares on the sides may or may not be, depending on how much room there is between your house and the property line, and what the set-back requirements are on the sides of your lot. The two back squares that are catty-cornered to your house aren’t very useful because they’re not next to your house. (And the same issues with the side squares apply.) You can put a pool there if there’s room, but it would be awkward because it’s further from the house, and more in public view. It’s the square directly in back that’s the valuable one in terms of adding on.
Well, the pipe actually runs across the middle of the backyard, about twenty-five feet or so from the back of the house, so it’s unlikely to affect any sort of house extension. The garage that we want to build would be an external one, built at the end of the RV driveway… exactly where the pipe is.
I should scan in the two plats (the original, and the proposed plat that shows the pipe’s location) and post it for you guys to see. The pipe really bisects our back yard.
You move the pipe people would cut off your nose to spite your face wouldn’t you ? If they move the pipe you are going to be, what 25 or 30k or more poorer that if you leave it ? And all you really want is the ability to build a garage right ? That is a use that isn’t incompatible with the pipe being there, it just requires extra care.
So I personally would be looking for something like:
Because I don’t see any reason that you can’t have the pipe and the garage too. Your house is built over your sewer line isn’t it ?
No, Lightnin’ will not be 25k or 30k poorer. The insurance company will be, and that’s how it’s supposed to work. And it’s not just about building a garage, it’s about the value of the property for future resale.
Bullshit. Here’s the thing (this is an assumption based on your earlier posts, but i don’t think it’s out of line): if you’d known about the pipe, you simply would not have bought the house. Given that, you want one of two things - (a) the pipe to be completely removed and the property restored to the condition that it was represented to you during the sale, or (b) enough money to essentially undo the purchase of this house and get you into another one, without your incurring any costs from that process.
Given her ridiculous suggestion, I think it’s worth engaging a real estate lawyer to negotiate with the title company and make sure you come out of the process whole.
Sure it is. It may not be a very effective one, but it’s as “valid” as any other. That said, I think a full appraisal is required.
Yeah, that’s the main issue for me. No matter what, this new easement is going to go on record- either in the official plat, or at least it’s on record that I know about it. When I sell the house, I’ll have to disclose it- or open myself up to a lawsuit for not doing so. It has already affected my property value… we just don’t know to what extent, yet.
Getting rid of the pipe is the only way I can avoid this. Anything else is putting a bandaid on it, one that will very likely mean I’ll lose money on any sale of the house (or, at least, not make as much as I would have).
Agree. Your (**Lightnin’**s) damages are ownership of a house that is not as represented. The property should either be made to match the representation, or Lightnin’ should be compensated sufficiently to purchase a property of like value, plus all expenses associated with relocation to that property.
It may be far less expensive for the golf course to create a new pond drain elsewhere, so that the one under **Lightnin’**s property isn’t needed. I can’t imagine starting at one side of your property where the pipe intersects, trenching around the perimeter of your yard all the way to the opposite intersection, and connecting it with pipe in a series of 90 degree elbows, just to cut you out of the line. Even if physically possible, this would require disruption and additional easements across your neighbors’ properties. So the “removal” will almost certainly involve redirection somewhere up the line.
I’d accept that as part of the settlement. But I’d require that they not just “abandon” the pipe under your dirt, but actually disable it so no future connection could be made to it. Otherwise at some future time, someone may decide to reconnect the old drain, either having forgotten the reason for its closure, or not caring.
It shouldn’t be necessary to dig up your yard to remove it. Merely dig down to it on the upcurrent side, break/cut a hole, and pump in cement. A cheap and permanent plug! If someone ever dumps thousands of gallons of water into the pipe, it just won’t drain. If it ruptures and floods anyone’s property, the golf course should clearly be responsible for their uncontrolled runoff.
Second thoughts – how big is this “pipe”? I keep envisioning 4, 5, or 6 inches. Or is it an 18”, 24” or larger culvert? Eventually it is going to rust/rot and collapse, leaving a void. A void under your garage foundation can be a problem. Smaller pipes, up to probably 6 inches, can be ignored. But if it is larger, I do think you will need it to be removed or completely filled. We had a 24” culvert collapse once where it crossed under our driveway. The ancient iron pipe just rusted through and washed out in pieces during a storm. We were left with a 10 foot wide gap in the driveway until heavy construction crews were available to drop a new culvert and fill in the washout. We built a wood footbridge and for more than a week the only way off the property was to walk across and hitch a ride with some friend or passerby at the road on the other side.
You know, I have no idea how big it is. I believe it’s quite large- it managed to flood the basement up to about five feet before they could stop it (just after the house was built). It’s got to be fairly large.
Item number 1: make them tell you it’s exact dimensions, carrying capacity, etc.
Since it’s a drainage structure from a pond, I’ve been picturing something in the 18"-24" range for the pipe, with a 48" manhole.
If there’s a manhole cover I’d have a hard time believing its a 4" 5" or 6" pipe. It’s got to be at least as big as the manhole cover. Most likely it looks like the subway in Ghostbusters, river of pink slime and all.
Sometimes manholes just provide access to a “special place” on a buried pipe (connection, fork, etc.) even if the pipe isn’t large. I have seen natural gas transmission pipes about 6 or 8 inches in diameter accessed via man-sized manholes. And flooding a basement actually takes less than you might think. Even a 4" pipe could easily do it. I just looked at a chart stating that a 4" pipe at “gravity” feed could carry 14,400 gallons per hour (link).
Better find out for certain! If this is actually a culvert, all the more reason to insist it be removed or filled. You really do not want to build your garage, even with permission from an easement holder, or after an abandonment of the easement, if collapse of the culvert would trigger structural failure of your building (or pool, or whatever).
I agree with this. You shouldn’t be put in a position where the title company is trying to talk you into what they think is reasonable while you have no specific experience here. You may be inclined to agree to things that aren’t customary or in your favor, or you may be inclined to go easy on them because you’re questioning whether you’re being reasonable. A lawyer’s job is to know how much they should be advocating for you and to do it without worrying about seeming unreasonable. For something like this where how much you’re going to get may swing by tens of thousands, a lawyer seems like a really good investment.
A couple observations/opinions from the uninvolved and unexperienced:
I agree that calling the affected area 20% of your land is not reasonable. If it were to cut exactly across the middle 20% of your lot, I’d call the affected area 60%, because you’ve got the front 40% that’s contiguous with your house to work with unobstructed. The last 60% is hindered by encumbrances, whether it’s the actual easement or having to have the rear part of the property cut off from the rest to maintain access to the easement for maintenance.
The only “leave the pipe” scenario I think I would accept is if they A) divert the flow elsewhere and plug the pipe so you know it is truly abandoned, and B) compensate you for the amount it would cost to have it removed. At that point, you can decide on your own whether you want the risk of a dormant pipe buried in your yard or if you want to have it taken out. In that scenario, I’d be inclined to pocket most of that compensation and only mitigate the portion that could directly affect the new garage. Put the rest toward the garage construction. If an abandoned pipe collapses and settles in your open yard, you can deal with that later. If it happens under your garage, that’s a bigger problem.
Just sent an email to set up a consultation with a real estate lawyer, conveniently just around the corner from my office. Hopefully they’ll get back to me soon.
Good news there… and much as I hate to recommend it, it might also be a good idea to stop posting in this thread until everything is resolved. But you have to come back and update us when everything’s worked out. 
Definitely a good idea. Do NOT assume the insurer’s primary concern is doing what is best for you. You know THEY have lawyers working on it from their end.
I’m shocked that they would readily offer to move the pipe. I don’t think you’ve told us how long this pipe is, but it sounds as thou it would affect several homes. AND, they golf course (or whoever) would have to acquire ANOTHER easement. I wouldn’t expect a ton of property owners to be lining up saying “Please put your pipe on my property!”
I’ll add my voice to the folk who say to seriously consider the money offer. For example, I have no intention of moving. If you plan to die in the house, and if you could fit whatever garage/pool/expansion plans around the pipe, you might not be overly concerned with the resale value of my house.
Bear in mind that it is not uncommon for folk to feel that dollar awards do not adequately compensate them for their perceived injuries. The huge awards you read about generally involve punitive damages, or some other multiplier. I would be shocked if a judge/jury found that your damages were more than some percentage of the market value of your home. It sucks, but as a rule, litigants do not get “made whole.”
Keep good documentation of all communications - do not rely on telephone conversations. Send e-mails/certified letters to memorialize phone conversations: “As you recall, in a Sept __, 2015, phone call, your representative ___ expressed the offer to either compensate me or relocate the pipe.”
Good luck, and thanks for keeping us informed.
Yes, get a lawyer. There are lawyers who specialize in representing people over this sort of thing. The title insurance company and the golf course will NOT want to do what it takes to make you whole, and if they know they are negotiating with a naive person (read, non-attorney), they will try to lowball you. In this case, it is worth it to pay an attorney to represent your interests. They know how to get you a fair resolution.