land law bonanza - can you help (easements), please?
919234
Easements are normally binding upon the grantor's successors in title.  The grantee simply enjoys the benefit of them!\n\nMy advice to you is to check the title of your essay to see whether in fact you got the terminology right.  Then go to your law library and systematically work your way through the indices of the All England Law Reports and/or the Weekly Law Reports looking for mention of the word "easement".  If you do strike gold, you will find that the case report itself will give you clues as to other reported cases on the topic. From then on, you are winning!\n\nYou might as well start now, as that discipline is what the life of a practising lawyer entails!
36887
The lien is on the property. Whom the property is deeded to is a separate issue.
371883
Good question, as English common law does not apply.\n\nThe common law rule is you have to take possession of the land for 20 years without the owner complaining, and it's yours.
631717
Rational b. Easements have their origin in conveyance or in adverse use. They constitute, when created, property interests. These property interests may be so created as to be appurtenant to the property interests in certain land already had by the one in whose favor the easement was created. If so, they become assimilated to those rights which go to make up the possession of the land to which the easement becomes appurtenant. Having become so assimilated, they thereafter accompany the possession and until intentionally severed therefrom, they become a part of all subsequently existing possessory rights. *** This is true without regard to whether these rights arise by succession to or adversely to the predecessor in possession of the land. *** Whatever produces a succession in the possession of the land produces a succession to the benefits created by the easement (see § 487, Comments a and e).\n\nTherefore, yes, it does.
774266
This is a lot more complicated than just talking to the neighbor. If you recently purchased the property, you should have had a survey done at the time of the settlement. Either the survey was done incorrectly and did not show the encroachment of the fence, or the title company where you had your settlement done did not review the survey well and missed the encroachment. You have a couple possibilities here: (1) contact your settlement office where you had your closing and ask them to see the survey. They should have actually given you a copy of the document, but maybe they did not. If you can see that there is a visable encroachment noted on the survey, then you need to speak to the attorney that runs the title company and find out how they missed it and see what they can do legally (at their cost) to remedy the problem through the courts. Or (2) If you can see on the survey that there is no visable encroachment then you need to take it up with the surveyor. They have Errors and Omissions insurance which they will appeal to in order to pay the costs and fees that are encompassed in getting this encroachment repaired. Finally, (3) if you purchased owners title insurance at settlement this will cover you as long as there is NO notation of an encroachment on the property. If you bought this policy, it covers you for defects in the title of your property, land encroachments being on of them. If you did not purchase this, you can obviously not use this as a remedy. \n\nGood luck to you. This can often become a battle especially if no one wants to own up to the mistake. I would highly suggest you take these avenues before doing anything confrontational with your neighbor. At the most, maybe just talk to your neighbor and find out if they had a survey done and if their survey shows the boundary lines. Don't cause a problem because land disputes between neighbors almost always escilate to a level that nobody would want to deal with.\n\nGood luck on resolving this one.
424905
I am a realtor in florida and know a two people over there that may be able to help. please email at the link below and Ill try to get you connected with them.
251884
Through right of easment, no.  When it comes to land and real estate it falls back onto the zoning plans.  what does the township have on the books, as to where you land ends and begins.  That of course is obvious but your neighbors argument can be that, you always maintained it, doesn't infer that i chose to give it up as my property.  Unless he wants to restructure the lot size and hand over that strip to you.
1061024
I would be interested but im pretty sure that even though that you have the deed to the property doesnt the government have to make the final determination of whom can buy there.\nI remember something to that nature my ex saying.
751864
The information you're looking for is available just by searching Google, Hawaii real estate law, also they give an explanation in Land Tenure..☺
140703
It depends on the state law.  In most jurisdictions if two or more people jointly have easement rights, it would require permission from all those who have an interest in order to alter the property in a way that would limit access.  The person who actually owns the land which the easement lies can generally alter it like pave it or something like that so long as they are not disturbing the easement owners access to the right of way.  But - that is just a textbook talking - I would suggest doing a quick yahoo search typing in your state and "property law and easements".  You should be able to find a statute or a website that talks about it - but like I said - every state may be different.
730378
Law is on there side if they are using "right-of-way".  It doesn't matter how wide the road was or will be...the county has right-a-way at least 10 feet on either side of the road (more or less depending on the jurisdiction). \n\nTo answer your question about payment, however, if there is not anything in the statutes already to provide for payment, they do not have to pay you.  All they have to argue is that the trees are within the right of way and claim public safety as the justifiable cause to remove the trees...sorry, but I have been down this road myself and you are in a no-win deal if the county has already made up it's mind to start cutting....the best you can do is see if they will allow and assist in moving the trees further back on to the property.  You have a better chance of that then stopping the cutting.  And it is the same soil so the trees should survive better.
185611
You need two things - one, go find an independent property assessor and pay him/her to determine the true market value of the land; and, two, get an attorney and have that lawyer either negotiate the proper price, or to fight the eminent domain action sufficiently so that the court will order the government to pay the fair market value, even if they do take the property.
1026202
You can try this site, looks like it only has opinions since 1995.\n\nI would agree though, the supreme court ruling on homeowner's associations might be stretching it a bit, but you never know until you look.  happy hunting!\nhttp://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/index.html
1170672
Contact your county's land assessor.
617766
Have you checked this planning office site?\n\nNote the declaimer. These are not the "offical" copies and maybe out of date.\n\nhttp://www.co.bonner.id.us/planning/landuse.html
445377
hi. I kind of do this for a living in Texas and don't know where you are, so the rules could be different.  I would suggest that you contact the contact person at the state and real-friendly-like start there by asking if you could get a copy of the "title work" they "ran" (conducted) to arrive at their ownership information.  This would be the easiest way to determine what the actual percentages owned by each person are under the two lots.\n\nIt sometimes happens that when land is deeded or willed out even to a group of people, the percentages of ownership can be unequal. For instance, if your grandparents passed the lots by their wills to their 10 children thusly,"I want my 5 sons and four daughters, Cindy, Amy, Sarah, and Sue to share and share alike in 75% of the lots, but I want my remaining daughter, Jean to have an undivided 25% of the lots b/c she took care of me in my old age."  Thus Jean would be entitled to 25% of the money from the state, and the others only divide up the remaining 75%.\n\nThis could happen if the 5 who deeded to the other 5 said it similarly, "We deed our interest 75% to our siblings Joe, John, Cindy and Sue, undivided, but deed the remaining undivided 25% to Jean, who took care of Dad."  See?\n\nHowever, if all the transfers were made equal and undivided amongst all 10, then the same way amongst the 5, then that one Aunt is out of luck. She may have gotten "ripped off" by having paid more to her siblings than the others did, but tho that would stink, it wouldn't get her more.  The deed wording controls.\n\nSo for you to be able to help: You have to see the documents that put the title into your uncles and aunts the way it stands today. If the state can't or won't help you, then go to a title company in the county where the land is and tell them you will pay for a title check, or a title insurance commitment.  Or go to a reputable real estate lawyer who can go to the county records and check them for you. It is a little expensive, but will shut Auntie up.\n\nGood luck. Remember--she may have a reason for thinking as she does, that goes beyond just greed. Old people often remember things that happened. I find talking to them very useful in my work.
595530
We need more information.  Where are you?  What's the situation?  Who wants to take the property?  Why do they want to take it? etc.