Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 11, 1:50 pm, wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: If there is an easement permitting access, I suspect that one moonless night, the fence's integrity would be severely compromised. LoL! Moonless night?? If an easement exists, the gate will come down in broad daylight, right in front of God & EVERYbody, no prob. Thanks for all of the replies. I did some more research with the county and discovered more information. The easment has been used since the 1930's. There is a map from 1930 that shows that easment but the map was never "recorded." The resident is now suing the state of nevada and the county. Her argument is based on the fact that the map wasn't recorded, but the map HAS been used over and over again as reference by the state and by the county. Another legal battle with another resident looked into the map issue, and the map was allowed or accepted because it's been used for so long. The resident who is suing has another argument -- that the public land is not intended for recreational use. The land was purchased using bond act money @ 1993. The bond act was intended to purchase land that could not be developed so that it could be maintained and kept pristine. The State of Nevada repaired the dock at the location and installed a foot path when they purchased the land. Legally, public lands must have "reasonable access." It seems to me that someone intended that the land be accessed. My friends have been using the easment since they purchased the property in 1950. I have been using the easment beginning in 1997. I haven't spoken to an attorney. I don't really have the money for that. Just to clear something up: The resident is saying that she put the fence up in order to protect herself, but the fence only blocks the state property which is adjacent to hers. The fence does not block her property. On the fence is a gate with a padlock. She has made multiple copies of the key and will give a key ONLY to the residents that sign a paper stating that they agree that she owns the road and the easment. She is essentially blocking only the easment and therefor blocking access to the public land. The State of Nevada and County have counter sued and there is a court date set for November 17th. I guess I'll have to await the outcome of the trial. Thanks again for all of your replies. |
#12
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:13:28 -0700, sillz penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: The State of Nevada and County have counter sued and there is a court date set for November 17th. I guess I'll have to await the outcome of the trial. Please let us know the outcome..... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
#13
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
sillz wrote:
There is a map from 1930 that shows that easment but the map was never "recorded." The resident is now suing the state of nevada and the county. Her argument is based on the fact that the map wasn't recorded, Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. but the map HAS been used over and over again as reference by the state and by the county. Sooooo... who owns the map? Where is it located? And how would the general public know of its existence? ..... much less get access to it? The land was purchased using bond act money @ 1993. The bond act was intended to purchase land that could not be developed Now I'm confused. Is the strip in question "owned" by the State? I thought it was owned by the resident with an easement across it for access to the lake. The State of Nevada repaired the dock at the location and installed a foot path when they purchased the land. Soooo.... there's not actually an easement ("easement" in this case meaning the right to cross but not fee simple title). Legally, public lands must have "reasonable access." I don't know about Nevada but that's not the case everywhere. Lots of public lands are semi or totally restricted, although that may be irrelevant in this case. The resident is saying that she put the fence up in order to protect herself, but the fence only blocks the state property which is adjacent to hers. Have you looked at the property description on her deed (it's public info at the courthouse)? Might take a surveyor to figure out who owns what. But if her property description covers only the property "adjacent" to the strip in question..... I'd think she has a problem. The State of Nevada and County have counter sued and there is a court date set for November 17th. I guess I'll have to await the outcome of the trial. I second the request to let us know how it comes out. Rick |
#14
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 12, 1:13 pm, wrote:
sillz wrote: There is a map from 1930 that shows that easment but the map was never "recorded." The resident is now suing the state of nevada and the county. Her argument is based on the fact that the map wasn't recorded, Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. but the map HAS been used over and over again as reference by the state and by the county. Sooooo... who owns the map? Where is it located? And how would the general public know of its existence? ..... much less get access to it? The map is the Crystal Bay Corporation's publically accessible subdivision map dated 1931. It is on record with the city of Crystal Bay, but it was never officially recorded with the county. The county has historically used this same map over the years. The county and state assert that there is implied "dedication" of the map through historical use The land was purchased using bond act money @ 1993. The bond act was intended to purchase land that could not be developed Now I'm confused. Is the strip in question "owned" by the State? I thought it was owned by the resident with an easement across it for access to the lake. The parcel of land containing the dock is owned by Nevada Division of Public Lands. The resident's property is adjacent to the State parcel. The state parcel does not have road access. The resident owns the land in front of the State parcel as well. A foot path was established years ago so that Nevada could maintain the land and dock. The State of Nevada repaired the dock at the location and installed a foot path when they purchased the land. Soooo.... there's not actually an easement ("easement" in this case meaning the right to cross but not fee simple title). As I have been told, the easment is recorded in the 1931 subdivision map. This is the state's argument -- that the map clearly shows a legal easement. She's arguing that the map is not legitimate because it was never recorded with the county ... although it's been on record with the city for over 70 years. Legally, public lands must have "reasonable access." I don't know about Nevada but that's not the case everywhere. Lots of public lands are semi or totally restricted, although that may be irrelevant in this case. According to the transcripts I read from Nevada Division of Public Lands staff meeting, land belonging to them must be reasonably accessibly by the public. The resident is saying that she put the fence up in order to protect herself, but the fence only blocks the state property which is adjacent to hers. Have you looked at the property description on her deed (it's public info at the courthouse)? Might take a surveyor to figure out who owns what. But if her property description covers only the property "adjacent" to the strip in question..... I'd think she has a problem. I haven't been able to look up this information yet. The State of Nevada and County have counter sued and there is a court date set for November 17th. I guess I'll have to await the outcome of the trial. I second the request to let us know how it comes out. I'll certainly let you know the outcome! Rick |
#15
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
sillz wrote:
The state parcel does not have road access. The resident owns the land in front of the State parcel aha! That makes a big difference. In theory, every landowner has the legal right to access his land whether that landowner is an individual or a State. In an access dispute, a judge will decide where and how that access will be accomplished. It might not be convenient or sensible or inexpensive and it might be via a totally different route, but rest assured, there will be access for the State some way somehow. My bet is that the State and the Landowner will work out a deal before it goes to trial. The State may agree to pay for the easement annually or something like that. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee that the gate will come down. But this'll be interesting. Don't forget to let us know, Thanks, Rick btw, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a broker and investor who's been through my fair share of boundary and access disputes. |
#16
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 12, 4:12 pm, wrote:
sillz wrote: The state parcel does not have road access. The resident owns the land in front of the State parcel aha! That makes a big difference. In theory, every landowner has the legal right to access his land whether that landowner is an individual or a State. In an access dispute, a judge will decide where and how that access will be accomplished. It might not be convenient or sensible or inexpensive and it might be via a totally different route, but rest assured, there will be access for the State some way somehow. My bet is that the State and the Landowner will work out a deal before it goes to trial. The State may agree to pay for the easement annually or something like that. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee that the gate will come down. But this'll be interesting. Don't forget to let us know, Thanks, Rick btw, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a broker and investor who's been through my fair share of boundary and access disputes. Yeah, they came close to a settlement on 3 different occasions over the past 2 years. In each case, the settlement never materialized. When I spoke to the Nevada Lands Division, they seemed confident it will go to trial this time. We'll see. Thanks for all the information. Sorry you got your experience through disputes. I'll write more after Nov. 17th! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TR: Truckee River near Nevada line | General | |||
I blocked some people. | ASA | |||
Eek!-another cross poster killfilled and blocked. | ASA | |||
How big is your blocked senders list. | ASA | |||
would like to build a low tide dock, or how do you get folks on your boat without a dock ? | Cruising |