[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

Threadjack,

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

[NotCranky]

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.

[NotCranky]

[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.

[NotCranky]

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.

[NotCranky]

I think you might enjoy this commentary, Brian . IT might even be on topic.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/24/hubris-gamblers-ruin-leadership-managing-varghese.html

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]
I totally agree about anger and the psychological underpinnings, The same thing could be said for hubris. It has been said that anger is a form if temporary insanity. Maybe hubris is similar in some ways even if it is more sociable.[/quote]

Oh hohoho… Man that hurts. Could you please be kinder and call it pride?[/quote]
Fuck No![/quote]

I was thinking about this on my way back to SD.

Is humility a natural human trait or is it socially affected? Maybe cavemen were more prone to emotions such as anger and hubris.[/quote]

It doesn’t seem to me that cavemen would be more prone to these things, like anger and hubris , than modern people, or less either. Hubris is awful, but gets treated pretty well in the U.S. We have anger management courses ordered by courts sometimes, but hubris management is not even on the radar. Hubris orgies of various types are even in fashion. Show a little anger and you are a monster, flaunt hubris and you are in like Flynn.

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]
I totally agree about anger and the psychological underpinnings, The same thing could be said for hubris. It has been said that anger is a form if temporary insanity. Maybe hubris is similar in some ways even if it is more sociable.[/quote]

Oh hohoho… Man that hurts. Could you please be kinder and call it pride?[/quote]
Fuck No!

[NotCranky]

[quote=FlyerInHi

I also think anger is more psychological than real (because anger comes from within). Contentment over time seems to be based in the share of the pie rather the size of the slice. Anger seems most concentrated among low-educated White men. They are not living any worse than in the past but their status has eroded as our national attention has turned to other issues. Immigration used to bring new entrants who had to work their way up over a couple genererations. Now, new immigrants can leapfrog over the natives in a few years.

But ever the working class live better than they used to. The pickup trucks they drive are pretty luxurious compared the old ones of the 1970s.

If anger is psychologically self-induced, it can also be self-healed if one takes time to self reflect.[/quote]
I totally agree about anger and the psychological underpinnings, The same thing could be said for hubris. It has been said that anger is a form if temporary insanity. Maybe hubris is similar in some ways even if it is more sociable.

[NotCranky]

[NotCranky]

Friends working in public places taking active shooter drill training. That’s kind of gloomy.

Except for the 50 year old semi skilled that nobody wants who are upping the suicide rates in certain gender/ age groups I guess pigg aged generation aren’t too worried about work.

Friends who hire telling me about the massive number of over qualified people they are getting applications from for a jobs of not too much pay and little perks.

I am pretty out of touch with what people need but I meet a lot of nice young people who might have some kind or job but aren’t launching exactly and would have launched a heck of a lot easier in my times ( last of the Boomers). I don’t think it only has to do with not being willing to play race to the bottom at some not California state. It sucks for them. And all the examples of silver spoon kids from RSF won’t change that a bit.

On the other hand I know people who didn’t pay their mortgage or property taxes for six years before they got the boot. Oh, six years huh? That’s nice. Will this mess ever end? I don’t begrudge them , they still barely squeaked by, getting hit hard on employment during the recession just when starting a family. it’s just on some level that kind of result in a bank/ client relationship gross. And the is apparently plenty to come still!

Still not happy about our war mongering ways.

North Korea may be bad but do you have to dedicate my kids school social studies time to show cold war style propaganda films against that country with all that is going on in the world?

[NotCranky]

I don’t want this money , it’s way too much money to accept for me and it would be worse to win and try to reject a bunch of it. It would be like trying to be one of those free divers who go down to 300 feet or whatever but with zero experience beyond a little body surfing or swimming at the local y pool. It wouldn’t be good. I like where I am at compared to having to deal with that, and if I tried to win something, shooting for a lot less makes more sense.

[NotCranky]

[quote=all]In urban places, 57% agree that “occasional acts of terrorism” are the new norm, according to a 2012 Pew Research survey. In suburban places that number is 69% and in rural places it is 66%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/19/politics-counts-terror-fears-and-polls/%5B/quote%5D

I don’t care where you live you are in denial if you don’t think “occassional acts of terrorism” is the new norm. Maybe it’s the old norm too, but it’s the norm.

[NotCranky]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=Blogstar]I decided my boys are going to major in women’s studies. It’s way too misogynistic to let them possibly hog up places in college and the workforce,that in all fairness, should be left open for girls/ women. Too many boys in stem and not enough getting properly indoctrinated to what should be the appropriate political and social views on gender . Fixing everything that’s wrong with the world, one (white) boy at a time.[/quote]

Like a good social major would do, you should start with other boys first before trying your own :-)[/quote]

Not to worry, my wife put the kibbosh on the plan.

[Author]

Posts