blanket easement advice

[Doofrat]

Is it the easement for the San Diego Aqueduct? When I lived in ‘Dido, it ran under the property and there was a similar easement. Here’s a map, the aqueduct is on the far right part of the map running directly North to South.

http://www.ci.escondido.ca.us/depts/cd/planning/genplan/maps/fig8-7.pdf

[scott]

The home is in a new 12 lot tract. Apparently the other homes in the tract have the same easement and none of the other buyers have had a problem with it. The majority of the easement was quitclaimed in 1956 with exceptions for 4 large parcels along the city boundaries of 1956 Escondido, one of which this property is on. The seller has agreed to pay for vacating the easement, but doesn’t want to wait for the city bureaucracy before closing. I think I accomplished driving my agent nuts a long time ago. The easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The original 1895 grant includes the following clause: “…whenever the Grantee ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”. Does it require a quitclaim to vacate an easement or would it suffice to take a letter from the City of Escondido stating that they are not currently using any portion of the easement to the county recorders office?

[scott]

The home is in a new 12 lot tract. Apparently the other homes in the tract have the same easement and none of the other buyers have had a problem with it. The majority of the easement was quitclaimed in 1956 with exceptions for 4 large parcels along the city boundaries of 1956 Escondido, one of which this property is on. The seller has agreed to pay for vacating the easement, but doesn’t want to wait for the city bureaucracy before closing. I think I accomplished driving my agent nuts a long time ago. The easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The original 1895 grant includes the following clause: “…whenever the Grantee ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”. Does it require a quitclaim to vacate an easement or would it suffice to take a letter from the City of Escondido stating that they are not currently using any portion of the easement to the county recorders office?

[scott]

The home is in a new 12 lot tract. Apparently the other homes in the tract have the same easement and none of the other buyers have had a problem with it. The majority of the easement was quitclaimed in 1956 with exceptions for 4 large parcels along the city boundaries of 1956 Escondido, one of which this property is on. The seller has agreed to pay for vacating the easement, but doesn’t want to wait for the city bureaucracy before closing. I think I accomplished driving my agent nuts a long time ago. The easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The original 1895 grant includes the following clause: “…whenever the Grantee ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”. Does it require a quitclaim to vacate an easement or would it suffice to take a letter from the City of Escondido stating that they are not currently using any portion of the easement to the county recorders office?

[scott]

The home is in a new 12 lot tract. Apparently the other homes in the tract have the same easement and none of the other buyers have had a problem with it. The majority of the easement was quitclaimed in 1956 with exceptions for 4 large parcels along the city boundaries of 1956 Escondido, one of which this property is on. The seller has agreed to pay for vacating the easement, but doesn’t want to wait for the city bureaucracy before closing. I think I accomplished driving my agent nuts a long time ago. The easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The original 1895 grant includes the following clause: “…whenever the Grantee ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”. Does it require a quitclaim to vacate an easement or would it suffice to take a letter from the City of Escondido stating that they are not currently using any portion of the easement to the county recorders office?

[scott]

The home is in a new 12 lot tract. Apparently the other homes in the tract have the same easement and none of the other buyers have had a problem with it. The majority of the easement was quitclaimed in 1956 with exceptions for 4 large parcels along the city boundaries of 1956 Escondido, one of which this property is on. The seller has agreed to pay for vacating the easement, but doesn’t want to wait for the city bureaucracy before closing. I think I accomplished driving my agent nuts a long time ago. The easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The original 1895 grant includes the following clause: “…whenever the Grantee ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”. Does it require a quitclaim to vacate an easement or would it suffice to take a letter from the City of Escondido stating that they are not currently using any portion of the easement to the county recorders office?

[NotCranky]

Still a bit of a puzzle Scott. Has your lender approved the preliminary title, if a lender is involved? In any case all or most of your neighbors got loans.That might give you an opinion as to risk. In any case, if you can’t decide on the “practicality” basis I would guess you need to talk with a lawyer. How do you handle it if you close escrow and the easement isn’t wiped out and can’t be? Isn’t that the same thing as buying it “as is” with regard to the easement? Do you have a special agreement to deal with the case that the easement can’t be eliminated? On the other hand the language “…whenever the Grantee(escondido) ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”, seems to indicate if there is no city owned infrastructure on your property now, the right of way is done with. That is probably the case or the developer would have had trouble getting the project off the ground too. I don’t want to stick my neck out so far as to say that is conclusive.
If you remain worried about it, a lawyer should answer those questions on eliminating the easement. My experience is that title companies are very careful about giving advice and opinions . They just report their exclusions and that’s it. This is frustrating but understandable from a liability perspective.
Also you could bail and there are many here who will help you with that decision!I have helped a few myself.
Good luck

[NotCranky]

Still a bit of a puzzle Scott. Has your lender approved the preliminary title, if a lender is involved? In any case all or most of your neighbors got loans.That might give you an opinion as to risk. In any case, if you can’t decide on the “practicality” basis I would guess you need to talk with a lawyer. How do you handle it if you close escrow and the easement isn’t wiped out and can’t be? Isn’t that the same thing as buying it “as is” with regard to the easement? Do you have a special agreement to deal with the case that the easement can’t be eliminated? On the other hand the language “…whenever the Grantee(escondido) ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”, seems to indicate if there is no city owned infrastructure on your property now, the right of way is done with. That is probably the case or the developer would have had trouble getting the project off the ground too. I don’t want to stick my neck out so far as to say that is conclusive.
If you remain worried about it, a lawyer should answer those questions on eliminating the easement. My experience is that title companies are very careful about giving advice and opinions . They just report their exclusions and that’s it. This is frustrating but understandable from a liability perspective.
Also you could bail and there are many here who will help you with that decision!I have helped a few myself.
Good luck

[NotCranky]

Still a bit of a puzzle Scott. Has your lender approved the preliminary title, if a lender is involved? In any case all or most of your neighbors got loans.That might give you an opinion as to risk. In any case, if you can’t decide on the “practicality” basis I would guess you need to talk with a lawyer. How do you handle it if you close escrow and the easement isn’t wiped out and can’t be? Isn’t that the same thing as buying it “as is” with regard to the easement? Do you have a special agreement to deal with the case that the easement can’t be eliminated? On the other hand the language “…whenever the Grantee(escondido) ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”, seems to indicate if there is no city owned infrastructure on your property now, the right of way is done with. That is probably the case or the developer would have had trouble getting the project off the ground too. I don’t want to stick my neck out so far as to say that is conclusive.
If you remain worried about it, a lawyer should answer those questions on eliminating the easement. My experience is that title companies are very careful about giving advice and opinions . They just report their exclusions and that’s it. This is frustrating but understandable from a liability perspective.
Also you could bail and there are many here who will help you with that decision!I have helped a few myself.
Good luck

[NotCranky]

Still a bit of a puzzle Scott. Has your lender approved the preliminary title, if a lender is involved? In any case all or most of your neighbors got loans.That might give you an opinion as to risk. In any case, if you can’t decide on the “practicality” basis I would guess you need to talk with a lawyer. How do you handle it if you close escrow and the easement isn’t wiped out and can’t be? Isn’t that the same thing as buying it “as is” with regard to the easement? Do you have a special agreement to deal with the case that the easement can’t be eliminated? On the other hand the language “…whenever the Grantee(escondido) ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”, seems to indicate if there is no city owned infrastructure on your property now, the right of way is done with. That is probably the case or the developer would have had trouble getting the project off the ground too. I don’t want to stick my neck out so far as to say that is conclusive.
If you remain worried about it, a lawyer should answer those questions on eliminating the easement. My experience is that title companies are very careful about giving advice and opinions . They just report their exclusions and that’s it. This is frustrating but understandable from a liability perspective.
Also you could bail and there are many here who will help you with that decision!I have helped a few myself.
Good luck

[NotCranky]

Still a bit of a puzzle Scott. Has your lender approved the preliminary title, if a lender is involved? In any case all or most of your neighbors got loans.That might give you an opinion as to risk. In any case, if you can’t decide on the “practicality” basis I would guess you need to talk with a lawyer. How do you handle it if you close escrow and the easement isn’t wiped out and can’t be? Isn’t that the same thing as buying it “as is” with regard to the easement? Do you have a special agreement to deal with the case that the easement can’t be eliminated? On the other hand the language “…whenever the Grantee(escondido) ceases to use any portion of said right of way, that portion thereof shall revert to the Grantor or its successors…”, seems to indicate if there is no city owned infrastructure on your property now, the right of way is done with. That is probably the case or the developer would have had trouble getting the project off the ground too. I don’t want to stick my neck out so far as to say that is conclusive.
If you remain worried about it, a lawyer should answer those questions on eliminating the easement. My experience is that title companies are very careful about giving advice and opinions . They just report their exclusions and that’s it. This is frustrating but understandable from a liability perspective.
Also you could bail and there are many here who will help you with that decision!I have helped a few myself.
Good luck

[surveyor]

more easements

In all easements, the primary beneficiary (the City of Escondido) would have to issue a quitclaim deed in order to vacate the easement. The application process may take a month to three months.

I’m pretty sure the easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The easement in question is only 10 to 20 feet wide. The Aqueduct’s right of way is more than 50 feet wide.

[surveyor]

more easements

In all easements, the primary beneficiary (the City of Escondido) would have to issue a quitclaim deed in order to vacate the easement. The application process may take a month to three months.

I’m pretty sure the easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The easement in question is only 10 to 20 feet wide. The Aqueduct’s right of way is more than 50 feet wide.

[surveyor]

more easements

In all easements, the primary beneficiary (the City of Escondido) would have to issue a quitclaim deed in order to vacate the easement. The application process may take a month to three months.

I’m pretty sure the easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The easement in question is only 10 to 20 feet wide. The Aqueduct’s right of way is more than 50 feet wide.

[surveyor]

more easements

In all easements, the primary beneficiary (the City of Escondido) would have to issue a quitclaim deed in order to vacate the easement. The application process may take a month to three months.

I’m pretty sure the easement is not part of the San Diego Aqueduct. The easement in question is only 10 to 20 feet wide. The Aqueduct’s right of way is more than 50 feet wide.

[Author]

Posts