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

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.

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!