[TowerTalk] elements hang over lotline

[Brian Smithson]

This is really interesting.

My Brother is on the board of his neighborhood (CCR heaven) and he and I were
discussing some 'problems' they've been having with a certain homeowner. Each
home backs up to a 'common area' that they all share and everyone's lot stops
short of the common area. There is one guy who has made quite an attractive 
garden behind his lot on the common area and the board is trying to decide if
they're going to let him keep it. At first, I was somewhat appalled because
it really is nice and it seemed so petty to make him get rid of it. My
brother explained this 'estoppel' thing to me. 

Apparently, there is another twist. Estoppel only kicks in if there was
'implied consent'. That is, if the owner of the home where the kids were
cutting thru _gave_ them permission to cut though, that permission could
later be revoked. But since no one asked, and he just let the kids cut thru,
estoppel had set in.

I wonder where the line is really drawn, though. In the case of 'maintaining
parcel 1...' you are obviously caring for the land and even paying the
taxes. In the case of my brother's neighbor, he's not paying taxes but he
is taking care of it. In the case of the kids walking thru, they're doing
none of that.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if you can sell the mineral rights to your
property seperately from the property itself, will we be able to do the 
same with the airspace?

-Brian n8wrl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> [mailto:owner-towertalk@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Stu Greene
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 10:24 PM
> To: Gary and Jane Nieborsky; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] elements hang over lotline
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:53 PM 8/24/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Oh no!!! A lawyer! ;-)
> 
> yup
> 
> 
> >True but seeing it there doesn't necessarily mean the new land owner
> >approves of it.  In my previous life I moved 3 different transmission
> >structures because the conductor would encroach onto land outside of the
> >easement during high wind conditions.  The new land owner did not approve of
> >the line to begin with and his lawyer found a little known statute that said
> >in part that upon transfer of ownership any existing encroachments were open
> >to redress. Washington State has some unique land laws pertaining to
> >encroachments.....I assume they copied them from other states.
> 
> Not necessarily. According to common law, which applies to all states 
> unless modified by statute,  an equitable statute of limitations 
> exists.  For example, you are the record owner of parcel 1 in subdivision 
> 32B blah blah blah.  For twenty years I, as the owner of parcel 2, claim 
> parcel 1, develop it, pay the taxes on it and keep everyone off.  That's 
> governed by the law of adverse possession...I recall that the period under 
> common law was 14 years, and it varies by state.  I bring an action to 
> quiet title and guess what:  I win.
> 
> In the case of the antenna overhang, it's not adverse possession but a 
> license to use, an easement if you will.  Example:  I used to live in 
> Chappaqua, NY (new home of Slick Willie) and for at least a generation kids 
> cut through a path from our street to the next subdivision where the school 
> bus ran.  Guess what.  The owner died and the new owners called the cops on 
> the kids.  It ended up quite rapidly in Supreme Court, Westchester 
> County  and then in the Appellate Division, Second Department which 
> affirmed the trial court's ruling that estoppel had set in and the path had 
> become a public right of way.  The judgment obviously is a matter of record 
> and subsequent owners would discover the right of way in the title report 
> or by looking out the window and watching the kids.
> 
> Ain't law grand?
> 
> 
> >I totally agree that this is better handled outside of litigation.
> me too
> 
> 73   Stu
> 
> 
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> 

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com