Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,843

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting necromancer
    View Post
    The easement roads were quitclaimed and recorded in 1914, there were no lots back then it was a 30 acre citrus farm. My deed says I have easement rights, my title company says the same thing. My deed and house were from the original owner who painstakingly made sure with 4 pages that who ever owned this lot could access the very long back yard. So they said they are setting aside 2 pieces of land and for one dollar quitclaim deeding the two pieces to the sierra electric company to have and to hold for purposes of access ingress / egress to install electric lines poles telegraph etc it's goes on and on but its very explicit about it passing on to their successors and assigns never to be abandoned. forever to remain access roads.
    After they recorded all that I wouldnt think they could be included in a sibdivision 30 years later for sale, and I dont thin k they were. I found some assessors dovuments from the 40's saying my neighbors lot was 115 x 112 but one in 1962 saying its 115 x 115 and since everything pre 1958 was archived and on microfish. I think they rewrote the dimensions inaccurately. I mean how can you sell land that was quitclaim deeded to someone else?
    What is clear is that the quit claim deed did not transfer land but the right to use the land (an easement).


    So they said they are setting aside 2 pieces of land and for one dollar quitclaim deeding the two pieces to the sierra electric company to have and to hold for purposes of access ingress / egress to install electric lines poles telegraph etc it's goes on and on but its very explicit about it passing on to their successors and assigns never to be abandoned. forever to remain access roads.
    That is an easement and not a transfer of land ownership. The easement is appurtenant (goes with the land) to the property. But the land can be sold and the easement goes with the land. The easement is not what is being sold.

    Where in your deeds does it say you also are a dominant estate? It's clear the utility can use the roads in perpetuity (and so can their successors) but where in the chain of titles does it say you also can use the easements?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting adjusterjack
    View Post
    The how is explained by the did.

    But that's not the point of your story. If you have recorded evidence that you have an easement to the back of your property and your neighbor has blocked it the solution is to sue him and get the court to order him to restore the easement.

    Why didn't your lawyer do that for the $5000 that you paid him?
    That's a good question, and also why he got fired. I've reported him to the bar and will take him to small claims, for legal malpractice, his legal council got me a lien on my house. and hopefully recoup some losses there.

    I'm trying to get things accomplished now with no funds left. I'm not looking for legal advice from the county assessor, I have a recorded map and a few other documents from the archives showing a discrepancy in their data and want it rectified. I was just wondering if I made them aware their archives show different data if they were obligated to fix the problem.

    My plan now since this whole ordeal has cost me 10's of thousands and I no longer can obtain legal council is to avail myself of free legal aid (county) and advice (here) report my neighbor to the county for 4 or 5 code violations the wall he built created, they have to make him tear it down. he has blocked off the electric company from the pole in my back yard as well. Then take both my neighbor and the lawyer to small claims court.
    I am a dogged researcher, I have accumulated tons of evidence and documents validating my position and claim, I'm just trying to familiarize myself as much as I can about real estate law,so I dont get caught with my pants down.

    Hopefully another trip to the archives will give me what I need to prove the owners back in 1924 quitclaim deeded the land to the utility company in perpetuity. I believe since it doesnt show as acreage taxed after that it was a public dedication, which I believe means no one could then sell it, not even the utility company. No warranty deed is found and if I'm right the microfiche from the 1920's recorded subdivision will show his lot cant and didnt include the road.
    I was just throwing it out there to see if my thinking was legit, from what I've read if the land was publicly dedicated to the utility company with only a quitclaim deed, no one can legitimately then sell it

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    What is clear is that the quit claim deed did not transfer land but the right to use the land (an easement).




    That is an easement and not a transfer of land ownership. The easement is appurtenant (goes with the land) to the property. But the land can be sold and the easement goes with the land. The easement is not what is being sold.

    Where in your deeds does it say you also are a dominant estate? It's clear the utility can use the roads in perpetuity (and so can their successors) but where in the chain of titles does it say you also can use the easements?
    The language is very explicit stating "The Sierra Electric Company a corporation duly authorized to have and to hold and possess property in the state of California. do by these presents grant.convey and confirm unto the party of the second part it's successors and assigns too have and to hold said property and convey right of way forever. Subject nevertheless to the following express conditions."
    (that's verbatim)
    Then it lists restrictions like only to be used for normal business operations etc... including said right of way shall always be open to the party of the first part (the owners) its heirs and assigns for agricultural purposes ingress and egress and for such other uses and purposes as long as it doesnt interfere with the party of the second parts proper uses.

    My house and land are the successor, the land in question was removed from their taxable property afterwards this was recorded to the county assessor 1914

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,843

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting necromancer
    View Post

    The language is very explicit stating "The Sierra Electric Company a corporation duly authorized to have and to hold and possess property in the state of California. do by these presents grant.convey and confirm unto the party of the second part it's successors and assigns too have and to hold said property and convey right of way forever. Subject nevertheless to the following express conditions."
    (that's verbatim)

    Then it lists restrictions like only to be used for normal business operations etc... including said right of way shall always be open to the party of the first part (the owners) its heirs and assigns for agricultural purposes ingress and egress and for such other uses and purposes as long as it doesnt interfere with the party of the second parts proper uses.

    My house and land are the successor, the land in question was removed from their taxable property afterwards this was recorded to the county assessor 1914
    You may go on thinking that the Sierra Electric Company acquired land but in my opinion (from what you have quoted from the deed), they acquired an easement across land for the purposes to have and to hold for purposes of access ingress / egress to install electric lines poles telegraph etc. That is an easement not a land transfer. It says that they are conveying a right of way appurtenant (forever). Meaning that the easement will always exist where it was on the property when it was granted no matter who owns the property it is on.

    When there is an express grant of an easement, there is the dominant estate (the utility) and the serveant estate (the property owner over whose land the easement crosses ). None of that changes if the property is later subdivided. The easement will still remain with the same dominant and serveant estates. The easement runs with the land and not the person that owns the property. So no matter how many times the property is subdivide or how many owners there are in the chain of title, the easement remains on the property with the same dominant and servient estates.

    Then it lists restrictions like only to be used for normal business operations etc... including said right of way shall always be open to the party of the first part (the owners) its heirs and assigns for agricultural purposes ingress and egress and for such other uses and purposes as long as it doesn't interfere with the party of the second parts proper uses.
    The party of the first part is the serviant estate(on whose land the easement is on). It says that the grantor can use the property for anything it wants to use it for as long as it doesn't impede the use by the dominant estate(the grantee or in this case the utility).

    I'm not clear on what you mean when you say your property is the successor. But if by that you mean that a portion of the easement is on your property, then you can certainly use that portion for anything you want as long a it doesn't impede the use by the utility. But if that portion of the easement that you need to access your shop is not on your property, then IMO you have no right to use the easement that crosses your neighbor's property because you are not the dominant estate.

    However, with all being said, the history of when the subdivision was done and when you built your shop may have some importance as to what right you have to use the entire easement.

    Frankly, this is not a DIY project but since you hired a deadbeat lawyer that didn't know squat about easement law and you are out of money, I suggest you go to Google Scholar and start reading case law for your state to understand what the common law is.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    2,577

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting pg1067
    View Post
    You've been to all 58 of them? In any event, it would be illegal for any non-lawyer to give legal advice, so it's a rather moot point.




    That's way too broad to be true. There are innumerable possible discrepancies that are far outside the competency of a surveyor.




    Sure they do, as long as the only remedy sought is money damages. CCP 116.220. Hence my comment that the OP might not be able to obtain a remedy from small claims court that he/she considers to be adequate.




    In the abstract, I disagree, but this is way too hypothetical to fully consider.
    Wow, what a snarky useless post.

    First we have the useless and insulting question of have I been to all of the assesors offices? Pure snark. All of the offices disclaim on their websites any ability to give legal opinions.

    Next we have the disingenuous claim that surveyors are incapable of sorting out "innumerable discrepancies" "far outside" their competency.

    Give us some examples of the above discrepancies from your own experience.

    As for small claims court, the poster could get some good advice here on expertlaw, where it is explained that small claims courts do not sort out easement issues, deed issues, or other rights in real property, or divorces, or bankruptcy, etc.

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Frankly, this is not a DIY project but since you hired a deadbeat lawyer that didn't know squat about easement law and you are out of money, I suggest you go to Google Scholar and start reading case law for your state to understand what the common law is.
    Some of the best advice so far in the thread. I will stand by my earlier comment about contacting the county bar association about the lawyer.
    Resistance is not futile; it is voltage divided by current.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,248

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting LandSurveyor
    View Post
    Wow, what a snarky useless post.
    Et tu, sir/ma'am.

    Not wasting any more time on a troll like you.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    You may go on thinking that the Sierra Electric Company acquired land but in my opinion (from what you have quoted from the deed), they acquired an easement across land for the purposes to have and to hold for purposes of access ingress / egress to install electric lines poles telegraph etc. That is an easement not a land transfer. It says that they are conveying a right of way appurtenant (forever). Meaning that the easement will always exist where it was on the property when it was granted no matter who owns the property it is on.



    When there is an express grant of an easement, there is the dominant estate (the utility) and the serveant estate (the property owner over whose land the easement crosses ). None of that changes if the property is later subdivided. The easement will still remain with the same dominant and serveant estates. The easement runs with the land and not the person that owns the property. So no matter how many times the property is subdivide or how many owners there are in the chain of title, the easement remains on the property with the same dominant and servient estates.



    The party of the first part is the serviant estate(on whose land the easement is on). It says that the grantor can use the property for anything it wants to use it for as long as it doesn't impede the use by the dominant estate(the grantee or in this case the utility).

    I'm not clear on what you mean when you say your property is the successor. But if by that you mean that a portion of the easement is on your property, then you can certainly use that portion for anything you want as long a it doesn't impede the use by the utility. But if that portion of the easement that you need to access your shop is not on your property, then IMO you have no right to use the easement that crosses your neighbor's property because you are not the dominant estate.

    However, with all being said, the history of when the subdivision was done and when you built your shop may have some importance as to what right you have to use the entire easement.

    Frankly, this is not a DIY project but since you hired a deadbeat lawyer that didn't know squat about easement law and you are out of money, I suggest you go to Google Scholar and start reading case law for your state to understand what the common law is.
    right of way
    is greatly different than just an easement, the 2nd definition under right of way includes
    2) the right to cross property to go to and from another parcel. The right of way may be a specific grant of land or an "easement," which is a right to pass across another's land

    Since the verbiage is so specific and this was all recorded in 1914 with the county by the land company before any lots were created and no individual ownership existed the redlands yucaipa land company noting said electric company duly authorized to possess land in California presents, grants, conveys: then specifies the road sized parcels, To have and to hold said property. yada yada also adding ingress egress right of way to themselves (party of the first part) its heirs and assigns shall never be denied and forever to remain an access right of way.

    Now since by definition a right of way can be a specific grant of land I think this makes it pretty clear especially since there was no serviant or dominant party yet.
    I also found a county code saying it might require such a dedication before a subdivision would be granted.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,843

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting necromancer
    View Post

    Now since by definition a right of way can be a specific grant of land I think this makes it pretty clear especially since there was no serviant or dominant party yet.
    I also found a county code saying it might require such a dedication before a subdivision would be granted.
    I'm not going to argue the point with you. A right of way is an easement not a grant of land. You are incorrect.

    Good luck because you will need it going forward since you don't even understand the basic doctrines of what an easement is.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I'm not going to argue the point with you. A right of way is an easement not a grant of land. You are incorrect.

    Good luck because you will need it going forward since you don't even understand the basic doctrines of what an easement is.
    Your right I dont understand real estate law, and that wasnt my definition, I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, I'm simply trying to understand all the particulars involved with my dilemma. And they say it can be an easement or a specific grant of land
    If you have a problem with said definition, you might want to take it up with the several legal sites I found that definition on. Every single one of these legal sites says what I posted. I fail to understand why your being terse with me I had to look all this stuff up because I dont know the definitions.



    https://en.mimi.hu/law/right_of_way.html

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/right-of-way/

    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1859

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,843

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting necromancer
    View Post
    Your right I dont understand real estate law, and that wasnt my definition, I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, I'm simply trying to understand all the particulars involved with my dilemma. And they say it can be an easement or a specific grant of land
    If you have a problem with said definition, you might want to take it up with the several legal sites I found that definition on. Every single one of these legal sites says what I posted. I fail to understand why your being terse with me I had to look all this stuff up because I dont know the definitions.



    https://en.mimi.hu/law/right_of_way.html

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/right-of-way/

    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1859
    In your first link, all the definitions of a ROW say the same thing. A ROW is a non-possessory (don't own the land) right to cross the property of another for a particular use such as ingress/egress. That is defined as an easement. In your case, the utility was granted (by an express grant) the right to enter upon the land of another (the grantor) for the purpose of erecting electrical poles and to maintain the electric service. It did not transfer the land to the utility. The easement was appurtenant (forever) and it attaches to the land and not any individual. So as the land was later subdivided, wherever that easement was remains on the parcels after the subdivision.

    I will explain it this way: You take a plat of the land before any subdivision. Then draw in the easement where the electric company will run their service. Then divide that map up into say 2 acre parcels. If the easement is on any of the parcels, then that parcel becomes a servient estate. If the easement is not on the parcel, then that parcel is not encumbered by the easement. In all cases though, the dominant estate (the utility and its successors) are the one that has a right to use the easement. Although, the servient estate can also use the easement (on their property) as long as it does not impede the use by the dominant estate. In other words, you can't build a barn on the easement.

    Your second link is a very broad definition of ROW including that which a driver has on the street.

    In the context of property law, it is the right to travel over someone's land and to have the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property as long as it is not inconsistent with the owner's use and enjoyment of the land. The right of way may be a specific grant of land or an "easement," which is a right to pass across another's land. Some rights of way are for a specific use such as repair of telephone lines.
    If there were a transfer of land, then that would have been described as a land transfer deed with metes and bounds and the utility would own the land. It would not be described as an ROW.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Can Land Quit Claimed to a Utility Company Later Be Sold As Part of a New Lot

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    In your first link, all the definitions of a ROW say the same thing. A ROW is a non-possessory (don't own the land) right to cross the property of another for a particular use such as ingress/egress. That is defined as an easement. In your case, the utility was granted (by an express grant) the right to enter upon the land of another (the grantor) for the purpose of erecting electrical poles and to maintain the electric service. It did not transfer the land to the utility. The easement was appurtenant (forever) and it attaches to the land and not any individual. So as the land was later subdivided, wherever that easement was remains on the parcels after the subdivision.

    I will explain it this way: You take a plat of the land before any subdivision. Then draw in the easement where the electric company will run their service. Then divide that map up into say 2 acre parcels. If the easement is on any of the parcels, then that parcel becomes a servient estate. If the easement is not on the parcel, then that parcel is not encumbered by the easement. In all cases though, the dominant estate (the utility and its successors) are the one that has a right to use the easement. Although, the servient estate can also use the easement (on their property) as long as it does not impede the use by the dominant estate. In other words, you can't build a barn on the easement.

    Your second link is a very broad definition of ROW including that which a driver has on the street.



    If there were a transfer of land, then that would have been described as a land transfer deed with metes and bounds and the utility would own the land. It would not be described as an ROW.



    I have exhausted myself trying to understand this, and I'm sure what I am saying is correct. I'm just not saying it all correctly.
    I think I found why this is so perplexing, . Before World War I, developers could only grant easement for streets. State law had not yet adopted the principal of dedicating public right-of-way. the granting document (typically, a subdivision map), (which I actually have and was recorded) I'n pretty sure this was the equivalent to an irrevocable dedication only they were smart about it and dedicated it to the electric company not the county so it cant be vacated.


    So as I said before my deed actually says the 2 parcels of land, are being set aside.

    "Witnesseth: that the party of the first party for and in consideration of the sum of
    one dollar ($1.00), lawful money of the United States of America and other
    valuable considerations to them, in hand paid by the said party of the second part,
    receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do by these presents, grant, convey and
    confirm, unto the said party of the second part, and to it’s successors and assigns
    forever a right of way for it’s electrical lines, poles, towers (eq. appurtenances)
    for the transmission of electric current and telephone and telegraphic communication
    over, across and upon the following described property and premisis situated in the county
    of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the survey thereof, to-wit:"

    To have and to hold the said property, and promises for right of way purposes to said The Southern Sierra Power Company it’s successors and assigns forever subject nevertheless to the following expressed conditions and are hereby made a part of the consideration of the conveyances towit:
    A. Said right of way shall only be used for the express actions and purposes of the party of the second part in constructing it's said electrical lines, and in thereafter maintaining the same and carrying on its businesses.

    In the event said right of way is ever abandoned by said party of the second part it's successors or assigns then the right of way herein said property granted shall revert to the party of the first part, and to its heirs and assigns.
    Said right of way shall be always open to the party of the first part it’s heirs and assigns for agricultural purposes, and for such other uses and purposes as shall not interfere with the proper uses of same by said party of the second part as aforesaid or be inconsistent theretowit: It being understood that the right of ingress and egress in over across and upon said right of way for all proper and necessary purposes shall never be denied to the party of the first part its heirs and assigns, provided that such ingress and egress or other use shall not damage or injure any of the property of the party of the second part its successors or assigns or interfere in any manner with its businesss operations.
    It is expressly agreed that the party of the second part, it’s successors and assigns shall at all times repair the fences that may have been removed either for the construction or for the repair of said electrical lines, and that said party of the first part waives no right for damages or injury to and of the property of the party of the first part by the party of the second part, it’s agents or representatives except as herein may otherwise be provided.
    In witness thereof the said parties of the first part have set their hand and seals the day and year first above written.

    Anyway from what Ive been able to ascertain this is called a grant by fee simple ownership, since it was sold for 1 dollar. This is what I meant by not an easement its a secondary kind of right of way.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Easement Use and Enforcement: Utility Company Wants to Fence Land That is Subject to an Easement
    By hollywoodmini in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 05:55 PM
  2. Trespass: Neighbor Claimed Part of My Property
    By Little Les in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 06:02 AM
  3. Purchase Contracts: Part of Land Sold to a Third Party Between Sales Contract and Closing
    By Jeepxtreme in forum Buying, Selling and Conveying Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 09:31 AM
  4. Liens and Encumbrances: Mortgage Company Sold House and Land Without Ownership of Part of Property
    By Wolfman in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-15-2011, 08:24 AM
  5. Quit Claimed Out Of an Inheritance
    By Jaguar lover in forum Estate Planning, Administration and Probate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 09:25 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources