Unauthorized Building on Property

[rmbanas]

My question involves an easement in the state of:Michigan
Having had property surveyed in preparation of selling, the Certificate of Survey shows a 24x36 pole barn built at the north end of the property, approx a 1/2 mile from the road, the barn is not visible from the road. It appears that the gas drilling company that owns the property to the west had built the barn with out our family's knowledge or permission. The gas company does have an easement that runs 165' from east to west about 1/4 mile back from the road. We have not been to the property in several years and no one in the family has ever noticed it before.
I had contacted the County Office and was passed around through several departments. The building department stated that a permit was never issued for the building. Every county department I talked with stated that the pole barn belongs to us and should evict who ever is there. This building is out in the middle of the woods and I'm a bit concerned with just hiking out there to post No Trespassing signs.
Any ideas?

[jk]

well, how about sending a letter to them?

[rmbanas]

Oh, kinda like please get off of my property and take your building with you, and while your at it put back all of the full grown trees you cut down to build it???
I guess I'm looking for more of a legal recourse. More of just wondering if anyone has been in this situation before and what were the results. The property is about 6 hrs from where I live so it sounds like time for a road trip to find an attorney up there.

[jk]

why do you believe you need a legal recourse? Ever think they might realize their mistake and either remove the building or tell you you can have it as they will abandon it?

Ya kind of need to find out their position before you get all Judge Judy on them.


and your question:

This building is out in the middle of the woods and I'm a bit concerned with just hiking out there to post No Trespassing signs.
Any ideas?

doesn't really sound like you are looking for legal recourse.

If that is what you want, hire a lawyer, threaten to sue them into non-existence if they do not remove the building and compensate you for the trees. If they do not comply, throw a lawsuit at them.

[rmbanas]

I guess part of the problem is what you are saying is a "Mistake". The clerk from the county building department searched back to 2003, as far back as their satellite photos went, and it shows the building on the property in 2003. This company didn't even own land in the area until late 2009 so it seems to me that building the pole barn on someone elses land was pretty much intentional.

I am not looking to get into a lawsuit, but plan on contacting them when I go to the area next month. The company in the local area is just a branch of the main company in Texas so I'll have to work my way up the chain. My thoughts are they either abandon the building or purchase the property. I've just never heard of a large company walking away or backing down easily.

[jk]

I've just never heard of a large company walking away or backing down easily.

It would all depend on the situation.

I guess part of the problem is what you are saying is a "Mistake". The clerk from the county building department searched back to 2003, as far back as their satellite photos went, and it shows the building on the property in 2003. This company didn't even own land in the area until late 2009 so it seems to me that building the pole barn on someone elses land was pretty much intentional.

so, if the company did not have a presence until 2009, maybe they didn't put the building up.

Michigan's requisite period for an adverse possession claim is 15 years. If the building has been there, or actually, if the owner of the building has used your land for that period of time, they have a valid claim for title under adverse possession. There is actual proof of 9 years with the pictures. I would hope they can't prove an additional 6 years.

[rmbanas]

They had a presence, they have had a gas well on the property to the west, but it wasn't until 2009 that they actually purchased that property.
As far as a adverse possession claim, my family attorney stated that the building would have to be visible from the road for them to make that claim. This time of year, with no leaves on the trees, you would have to walk back about 3/8ths of a mile before you could even see it.
Yes, I have talked with an attorney, he practices family law, and has made several recommendations which I will follow. I'm just wondering if anyone has had to deal with this type of situation and what were the results.

[jk]

rmbanas;606416]They had a presence, they have had a gas well on the property to the west, but it wasn't until 2009 that they actually purchased that property.

so they had an easement to access the well?

As far as a adverse possession claim, my family attorney stated that the building would have to be visible from the road for them to make that claim.

I believe your attorney is incorrect. From http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appe...1005/29393.pdf

To support a claim for adverse possession, plaintiffs were required to show that during
the fifteen-year statutory period they had actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, and
uninterrupted possession of the property that was hostile to the owner and under cover of a claim
of right. Rozmarek v Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 295; 351 NW2d 558 (1984) (citation omitted).
The true owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse possession, or alternatively, the
possession must be so notorious as to raise the presumption to the world that the possessor
claims ownership. Ennis v Stanley, 346 Mich 296, 301; 78 NW2d 114 (1956). Generally, the
extent of the actions necessary to constitute adverse possession depends on the character of the
land involved. See Davids v Davis, 179 Mich App 72, 83; 445 NW2d 460 (1989). The
possession must be continuous. Beecher v Ferris, 117 Mich 108, 110; 75 NW 294 (1898); Duck
v McQueen, 263 Mich 325, 327-328; 248 NW 637 (1933).

It is not a requirement it be visible from the road. It requires it is visible. Since the photos show the building, the period provable by the pictures obviously fulfills the requirement. Unless they disguised the building, it was visible from the time it was built.



.

I'm just wondering if anyone has had to deal with this type of situation and what were the results.

there are a lot of situations such as yours and while it depends on the exact facts, cases have gone both ways. Are you willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to argue this? This type of suit is notoriously expensive.