Menu

Home › Forums › Other › Quiet title

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 136 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM #21848
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Some of you might remember that I have and trouble with a neighbor over an easement. I have still been using an alternate road. Well things came to turning point and I am interviewing attorneys.
    The big easement problem is that the neighbor destroyed my road and obstructs the way with tractors and now fences.

    So anyway , my question is why does taking the obstruction to court require a quiet title action when the title is perfect? Does anyone know that? So far two lawyers presented large scopes with this quiet title action as one part of it. Why a huge scope to get some court orders on clearly rogue behavior from the owner of a servient tenement?

    Any ideas how to tell the lawyers to proceed?

    January 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM #793393
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=blogstar] …. Why a huge scope to get some court orders on clearly rogue behavior from the owner of a servient tenement?[/quote]

    Russ, I can’t give you legal advice and will assume you already have an attorney to whom you can ask your questions.

    My three questions for you are:

    How long have you been “looking the other way” while the user of your “servient tenement” displayed their “rogue behavior?” (Talking to them about it and not serving them with any papers is technically “looking the other way.”)

    Did you notice if the user of your “servient tenement” was displaying this “rogue behavior” when you first viewed the property prior to placing an offer on it? (If so, that could have been the main reason the property was listed at that time.)

    Was it disclosed to you in your transfer disclosure statement or preliminary title report while you were in escrow to buy the property that a [named] user of a servient tenement had certain rights to that particular easement? If so, what were they and do you actually have a copy of the contract?

    Sorry if you’ve posted these details before and I missed them.

    January 21, 2016 at 1:25 PM #793394
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Yes, I did post about those things in another thread about 2 years ago.
    i lived here first and bought the easement from the previous owner of the lot the trouble maker is on. Lawyers say no risk of successful adverse possession. I think the title company is on the hook for post insurance adverse possession. We don’t have that problem though. I have tons of documentation, police reports, photos , a few witnesses etc.

    The rights of the dominant and servient tenement are legally pretty clear. I have consulted with attorneys on that too, a really good one but not a litigator. That was a while back. I have plenty of rights. This is just your basic belligerent obstructionist behavior…lawyer defined him as so rogue that the judge might make a ruling on the complaint alone. Others say his lawyer will bring it to a settlement quickly, but a an unreasonable person can be lead to keep fighting by a greedy lawyer too. But my question for now is, why a quiet title action? That’s an expensive add on. I am worried about lawyers blowing up the scope. I would like to hear about it from knowledgeable people who are not asking me for a large deposit. Maybe I should jut pay an hour to have someone explain it to me.

    I understand that nobody on Piggington’s intends legal advice and I won’t construe any thing here as that.

    January 21, 2016 at 1:41 PM #793395
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=blogstar]…i lived here first and bought the easement from the previous owner of the lot the trouble maker is on….[/quote]

    Russ, when you “bought” the easement from the previous owner, did you share with him/her the cost of a survey and replatting (requires engineer stamp) so that the easement would show up on the county records (plats) as part of YOUR lot instead of theirs?

    January 21, 2016 at 1:42 PM #793396
    NotCranky
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl][quote=blogstar]…i lived here first and bought the easement from the previous owner of the lot the trouble maker is on….[/quote]

    Russ, when you “bought” the easement from the previous owner, did you share with him/her the cost of a survey and replatting (requires engineer stamp) so that the easement would show up on the county records (plats) as part of YOUR lot instead of his/hers?[/quote]

    I am sorry BG, but that is not my question. I don’t think I have problems in the direction of thinking you are taking unless it relates to why a lawyer would want to do a quiet title action. I want to know about the lawyers best scope that is in my best interest.

    Thank you though.

    January 21, 2016 at 2:03 PM #793397
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    If you recorded the easement transfer when you bought it with the proper legal description on the recorded deed and that legal description was correct, then I believe there may still be a need for a “quiet title” action if it was never properly transferred to your plat.

    All I’m saying is there may be some confusion with your lawyer as to who is the legal owner of record of your lot, even if you recorded the easement transfer.

    Is the “rogue user” the new owner of the property adjoining yours or a tenant of the new owner of that property?

    January 21, 2016 at 2:07 PM #793398
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    If I were you, I would want everything in my name (incl my [replatted] lot) and the rights of the user of the subservient tenement explicitly spelled out if you find you legally have to honor a written agreement the previous owner had with him.

    But that’s just me.

    January 21, 2016 at 2:33 PM #793399
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl]If you recorded the easement transfer when you bought it with the proper legal description on the recorded deed and that legal description was correct, then I believe there may still be a need for a “quiet title” action if it was never properly transferred to your plat.

    All I’m saying is there may be some confusion with your lawyer as to who is the legal owner of record of your easement, even if you recorded its transfer.

    Is the “rogue user” the new owner of the property adjoining yours or a tenant of the new owner of that property?[/quote]

    Changes made in bold. Sorry for any confusion.

    January 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM #793400
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    More questions, Russ. You have not provided enough info to help you in the way that you are asking.

    Did you receive a quitclaim deed or a grant deed from the previous owner of your adjoining lot when you purchased the easement from them?

    Was that deed timely recorded?

    Or did you purchase the superior rights to the easement without receiving a deed?

    January 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM #793401
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Everything about the easement is right yes yes yes. The plat I haven’t verified and I don’ think it matters. WHen I go to change my address the county will ask me to submit the changes and charge me some money. That’s what other neighbors have done with the same easement and that’s it. My title company did Easement creation and insured it. As far as I know they don’t insure against people building fences in easements who have not made a legal claim in court against the dominant tenements rights. Also, it’s possible that the title company only helps you if you lose and not while it’s in the air or if you win! I am trying to find out more about how my coverage applies. There is still some chance we will solve this without going to court too. Not that most lawyers are keen on those possibilities.

    My GUESS , quite possibly WRONG is that quiet title as suggested to me is to satisfy the judge, in case one is called on, to make any rulings on this private property. See if the defendant is going to try to make a claim ? But why not wait and see if the defendant makes that claim. So far , potential defendant admits even in writing several times, that my easement is bullet proof and he just doesn’t want me to use it. That’s why the definition of rogue fits him so well. He has no legal basis whatsoever and admits it.

    I don’t think we are going to work this out BG. We can let it go. I don’t want to talk about too much just wanted to know why a quiet title was in the scope.

    January 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM #793402
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Threadjack,

    I had no idea so many private litigation lawyers were licensed real estate brokers.

    January 21, 2016 at 4:33 PM #793403
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=Blogstar]Threadjack,

    I had know idea so many private litigation lawyers were licensed real estate brokers.[/quote]They are. I was actually thinking of PMing you to refer you to one.

    A member of the CA state bar or licensee with the CA Board of Accountancy isn’t required to have four consecutive years of RE salesperson experience to qualify to sit for the RE broker exam, as everyone else is. They are allowed to sit for it by virtue of their education and licensure alone.

    I would take a wild stab in the dark here and make the assumption that your title may not exactly be “perfect” as it relates to your easement, especially if that road-easement is the only egress/ingress of the servient tenement user’s property.

    January 21, 2016 at 5:11 PM #793404
    NotCranky
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl][quote=Blogstar]Threadjack,

    I had know idea so many private litigation lawyers were licensed real estate brokers.[/quote]They are. I was actually thinking of PMing you to refer you to one.

    A member of the CA state bar or licensee with the CA Board of Accountancy isn’t required to have four consecutive years of RE salesperson experience to qualify to sit for the RE broker exam, as everyone else is. They are allowed to sit for it by virtue of their education and licensure alone.

    I would take a wild stab in the dark here and make the assumption that your title may not exactly be “perfect” as it relates to your easement, especially if that road-easement is the only egress/ingress of the servient tenement user’s property.[/quote]

    I remember that about the broker’s lic. now that you say it.

    Thanks, I’ll let you know if I need a referral. I have interviewed 3 now. They all say quiet title even not knowing one thing about the level of perfection of my easement.

    January 21, 2016 at 5:28 PM #793405
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=Blogstar] . . . I have interviewed 3 now. They all say quiet title even not knowing one thing about the level of perfection of my easement. . . .[/quote]

    You shouldn’t have had to “perfect it” if you actually, legitimately “bought it.” The act of being given (legal) title to it in exchange for compensation implies that you are already the owner . . . or in this particular case, the “dominant servient.”

    January 21, 2016 at 5:39 PM #793406
    NotCranky
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl][quote=Blogstar] . . . I have interviewed 3 now. They all say quiet title even not knowing one thing about the level of perfection of my easement. . . .[/quote]

    You shouldn’t have had to “perfect it” if you actually, legitimately “bought it.” The act of being given (legal) title to it in exchange for compensation implies that you are already the owner . . . or in this particular case, the “dominant servient.”[/quote]
    That’s what I have been saying. It’s very straight forward on this easement. That’s why I wonder if the quiet title action isn’t easy “churn” for the lawyers , or the best way to start a fight that add$ up? Or as I said earlier maybe courts are requiring it it for CYA even when title is good. Just suspicions. Maybe the neighbor’s belligerent behavior and obstruction constitutes a type of “claim”. That is very unfair and should result in punitive damages , which , so far from how nice I see the system treat the bad guys, isn’t going to happen.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 136 total)
1 2 3 … 8 9 10
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.