Land ISSUES - Lawyers advise

[blkhonda1991]

im still shocked this lease is binding since the land has changed owners multiple times and the fact that the lease was such a simply written lease, ***** that 1/3 of your land is essentially not yours for the next 20 some years

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

Some Highlights
A) Lease is not going to get bought out!
B) The acres that are being farmed under the lease will remain under contract with the farmer as the lease states.
C) I have plenty of room to build just not where I wanted to.
D) I have decided to go after the Title Company for the $ / damages.

Well, yesterday my lawyer and I drafted a letter to the Title Company with what we expect the settlement to include.

Basically it will be the value of the land + the lossed use of the land over the next 21 years.

I have also requested that the whole parcel and the leased parcel be surveyed and staked to ensure the farmer is on the land under contract ONLY.

I think the main thing those of us who have been following this thread want to know is why is a measly two acres so important to this farmer?

Did you ever find out...or get a good idea why?

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Well, the farmer and his lawyer sent us a letter stating that they were not interested in selling the lease back as he has spent the last 9 years conditioning the soil and getting it to a point that he can grow crops in.

That is a paraphrase and if you ask me is a crock of **** as it is on a sand hill but, that is the possition he has taken and I can't read between the lines any further than any of you can.

I have talked to a mutual friend and his take on it was the farmer is very land "proud" if you understand what I mean. Once he has a farm under rent he keeps it and cares for it like it was his own.

 

[MXtras]

Best of luck to you.

I hope you can squeeze the title company for everything you deserve and then some.

Scott

 

[ddawg16]

NW....my hat is off to you for taking the high road. Like the rest I have been following this thread for the 'educational' value.....

Had this been California.....you would have your land back...but laws do vary from state to state....as you correctly noted in one of your last posts...the time and money to break the lease is most likely more than what the land is worth.....so the approach you are taking is the most economical.....not to mention staying on cordial terms with the neighbor.

I think you are very wise in getting a survey done....best to know for sure 'exactly' where the lines are. Because of this thread, I paid the $$ to have my meager lot surveyed last week...good thing...I get to move my garage closer to the property line than I originally thought....and the neighbor agrees that is big tree is in fact a threat to my garage....

Now is the battle with the title company.......at a min, you should get enough money to build that dream garage.....

Considering what you have said about the farmer and how 'proud' he is of the land......I would go for being super nice....try and make him feel guilty....that will most likley work better than making him feel threatened.....now that you have resinded yourself to making do with what you have....you have time to work on him.....

This has been a great thread and good info for all of us....thanks for sharing....

Oh....and congrats on the cabinet score....

 

[Brad54]

As property taxes increase (and they do every couple of years), you are going to be assessed on the entire amount of land under your ownership. In 15 years, a lot of the property around you will be built up, and the state will see you have 6 acres and charge you accordingly.

I would try to work something out with the title company that they need to put money in an escrow account for you to pay the property taxes out of on that 2 acres, for the remainder of the contract.

It's unfortunate the farmer is such a horse's ***. You're right, he could spread manure 200 feet from your bedroom window and make your life miserable, so it's a bad situation. You're probably doing the right thing by not antagonizing him. But I'd still spit every time I saw the man. Some people are just pricks. For two lousy acres, this guy has gone out of his way to be a bad person.
I'd call the local newspaper and let them do a story about it. I would think it'd be a pretty exciting story for the little town paper. WE ALL can't get enough of it!

And I'd go after that title company like a rabid pit bull. THEY shafted you, and you're going to be dealing with that shafting for the next 20 years.

Even if you try to sell the house between now and then, you'll be dealing with this situation.

-Brad

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Well I'm 10 miles out of a one stop light town so it's not going to see any build up anytime soon if ever. Also jobs are not plentiful around here and the closest town of any "size" is 20 miles away.

My attitude has been much better since I've taken the step past getting my land back at any cost.

My wife has taken issue with my attitude lately and that might have something to do with my mind shift. Plus it's not healthy to be pissed all the time.

On to better issues like some free awsome cabinets.

I will keep this post updated as the title company fun is worked through.

 

[RPH]

In Michigan property taxes are protected by the "Headlee Admendment".

"Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. "

"Section 31 requires voter approval of any new or increased local tax, and contains a special limit on property tax increases caused by assessment growth. The section begins:

Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon....

Furthermore, the section requires that increases in local property taxes, caused by higher property values, be limited to that accounted for by inflation plus new construction. Any increases in the assessed valuation of property (which would cause a tax increase at the previous millage rate) above the inflation rate, except that caused by new construction, must be returned to the taxpayers in the form of a lower millage rate. This reduction in the maximum authorized millage rate, which allows only the increase in tax revenue caused by inflation and new construction, is commonly known as a "Headlee rollback."


This will keep the taxes down for him but when he sells the new owner will pay in full. It works!

 

[CalGeo]

As others, I have been following your story. It was obvious to me from the beginning that you were going to take the high road and my hat is off to you! You were in a difficult position and I believe that the reason you now own this land was because the other owners got tired of fighting it.

What are the laws regarding your maintenance of the contract?

Can you modify it by adding restrictions such-as requiring no pesticides to be used or dust control?

Can you require him to get liability insurance to protect you from someone injuring themselves on your property while he is still farming it?

Does this lease transfer to another party if he decides to sell his land or if a family member inherits it?

If you find that the farmer is encroaching on a part of your land that was not covered by the contract, can you void the contract?

If the farmer decides to change the use of the land, or if he lets the land go fallow, does he need to get permission from you if he does?

I am pretty sure I know your answer (Let a sleeping dog sleep), but I am curious of what legal issues you will have in the future.

Good luck and enjoy what you have!

 

[buzzworth]

ChevyGuy.......Kudos to taking this mess in stride.

Sounds like looking back to who and precisely when this lease was negotiated might reveal more than meets the eye. You say that a local lawyer wrote it:
is he kin to the farmer?
was the previous landowner any kin to the farmer? many times farmland is "carved" off of a larger piece of property by a family member.
was the "deal" done just before the sale of the (your) land? thus leaving any future owners hung with the lease.
how many people have owned this land since the lease was "negotiated"? was this issue to any of them?
there might be way for an attorney to take this to small claims court under that issue
as others have said....there is something here that doesn't pass the smell test. sounds like a family plan to farm the area but not have to own the land.

 

[warrent]

RPH. just to clear up the "Headlee Admendment" is to do with the millage rate set up by the local goverment. Propostion "A" has to do with how much the taxes can increase per inflation or the increase in land value. Max 5% a year. Two completely different things.

NW, did you ever report the title company to Attorney General Frank Coxs office? Too bad about not getting the land back. Sure do think something stinks and not the manure. Guy who wrote the original lease must of really been hurting for some money at the time.

 

[ovilla]

I still want to know what exactly is the harm in exercising a breaking of the lease? What's the worse that can happen with this scenario? I think that it would at least bring it to the attention of a judge and show the hardship that the latest homeowner is facing here. It would also force all other parties involved to have to face the music. I'm not getting the sense that the title company is even sweating it out at this time. Seriously, this thing could easily drag on for years.

 

[gunguy]

ChevyGuy,

I think CalGeo (post 289) may point the way in the issue now that you appear to have come to a resolution concerning the lease and the farmer.

No matter how simple the lease appears to be, there are probably state laws that govern and impact on contracts and leases and how they are exercised.

Research the state laws that pertain to contracts, and leases especially those that impact on farms or other agricultral property. Knowledge is power. If the farmer strays outside the terms of the lease or the state law(s) that governs the administration of the lease, that may give you the leverage you need to break the lease.

It may be a few years or maybe never, but if the farmer is so adament about holding you to the terms of the lease why should he expect anything less from you? After all, this is a business contract not a social one.

I wish you well in all your future endevors.

Jim

 

[gunguy]

I still want to know what exactly is the harm in exercising a breaking of the lease? What's the worse that can happen with this scenario? I think that it would at least bring it to the attention of a judge and show the hardship that the latest homeowner is facing here. It would also force all other parties involved to have to face the music. I'm not getting the sense that the title company is even sweating it out at this time. Seriously, this thing could easily drag on for years.

There may be no harm but how much time, effort and especially money is one willing to expend to come to the desired outcome?

Sometimes it is better to just move on.

Jim

 

[Brad54]

There may be no harm but how much time, effort and especially money is one willing to expend to come to the desired outcome?

This is just my opinion, but I'd spend as much of the Title Company's money fighting this as I could.

I do understand your concern about the farmer spreading (more) ******** on the land surrounding your property. I suppose it boils down to who can be more vindictive, and outlast the other. In that regard, you're probably taking the right path.

But he's still a complete *****, doing this over 2 acres when he has thousands. I usually love farmers, but it's guys like this that caused the range wars in the 1800s.

I certainly wouldn't be cordial with him. He hasn't been with you.

And again, I would call the local newspaper and shine a little light on that horse's ***. Be the mouse, resigned to his fate at the end of the eagle's claws. But go down flipping him off.

-Brad

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

This is just my opinion, but I'd spend as much of the Title Company's money fighting this as I could.

I do understand your concern about the farmer spreading (more) ******** on the land surrounding your property. I suppose it boils down to who can be more vindictive, and outlast the other. In that regard, you're probably taking the right path.

But he's still a complete *****, doing this over 2 acres when he has thousands.

I agree here. Hold the Title Company's feet to the fire as much as you can, they should not get off lightly. Since you're not being made whole, i.e. getting your land back YESTERDAY, they need to pay, big time!

And this farmer needs to be held to the letter of the lease, he does not deserve ANY margin of error.

 

[chaingang]

ChevyGuy,
I just started reading this post yesterday and finally finished it. I have a question that someone already posed. Why not fence it in and then put up a large enough gate that the farmer can still get his equipment through? Put a lock on it and give the farmer a key. You are not breaking the lease if that is what you are concerned about. You are not stopping him from using the land, only making it difficult. There were no stipulations in the original lease as to conditions. This is still within the letter of the law. This might give him some incentive to settle up, like the good neighbor you are trying to be. I agree with others here, he is a real piece of work. No he is not at fault but he had/has a hidden agenda, otherwise he would have disclosed the lease upon first meeting you. I think any reasonable person would have. Would you inform a new neighbor of a pre-existing condition? I would.
By the way, I have about three acres in GA that has a gas pipeline and electric transmission line across the very back of the property. The deed listed these easements. I inquired as to fencing the entire property for horses and both utility companies had no issues with this at all as long as the gate had one of their locks on it also. This still gives them access to right of ways for any service work they might need to do. I know my situation is not the same but it may be a workable solution.
I would definitely not let the title company off the hook easy either. What about the dimished value if you had to sell before the lease is up. It looks like six, is surveyed as six and is appraised as six on paper. But it is really only four becase YOU WILL have to disclose the lease to a future buyer. How many here would buy this property knowing about the lease going into a closing? I bet most everybody would walk away. Even if someone would still buy it because they didn't intend on using the other two acres, do you think they will want to pay full price for six? Sounds like leverage in the bargining stages to me. God forbid anything bad would happen to force you to sell before the lease runs out but you need to consider all scenarios. They would be buying all six acres from me. I would make sure that they understand that I would not have closed on this land had I known about the lease. If it is such a rural setting there has to be other parcels availible that are as desirable as yours was. Better if they don't have hidden leases. Make them pay for all of it and purchase another piece of property.
Lots of luck and I wish you the best.
chaingang

 

[jay50]

Instead of a fence all around, I would get a 'dozer and trench a moat around the entire perimeter except for a small area for a gate.
After he got his tractors hung up a few times, he might be more agreeable to discussing the ending of the lease...

 

[buddyboy]

I think he has to leave the land pretty much in it's original condition. Anything done to interfere with that farmers business might be a violation of criminal law.

I don't think illegal eviction (putting up a fence) is a means for breaking a lease.

Title company screwed up big time, although it sounds like they covered their butts with lots of documents limiting what the damages will be.

Considering all this, that farmer is a grade A #1 a-hole, he pulled off the deal of the century and is no way ever gonna give that land back to anyone.

 

[billspit]

I think chaingang is onto something. You aren't keeping him off the land and IIRC the lease didn't say anything about not restricting access, did it? Any farmer with 3,000 acres is going to have huge tractors and equipment and won't want deal with trying to plant two acres cut off from a large field. He may then be willing to dicker.

 

[checkthisout]

amt: That is why we are asking for the rental amount for the remaining lease in the settlement. This would take into account the taxes and fees on the land as if I had rented it to the farmer for that period of time.

bluesman2a: Well here in MI the lease is binding and the only way to break it is to go to court and fight it out with the next door neighbor. A) it would cost me more in court and legal fees than the land is worth and B) it would not make for a good relationship with the neighbor who can make my life more miserable than this situation is. (Example: the field is 200 feet out my bedroom window and he could spread cow manure there ever other week if he so desired)

Plus I still have 4.5 acres in addition to these 2.2 so space is not an issue is just the management of the space that changes. A) Building will not be behind the house it will be south of the house with a seperate drive & B) Windbreak on the west edge of the property is not going to be 120 feet behind the garage more like 40 if it even gets put in, it will determine where the exact seperation between the lease and other parcel is. In addition to that I'm not sure if I want 20 year old trees 80' from the edge of my property when I do get it back in 2029.

Now it's just the battle of getting the Title Company to settle and hand me over some $ for all the BS. If it works out it should be enough to buy the material for a 28' x 34' attached garage with bonus room above.

Now you are thinking!

You still have 4.0 acres which is a lot of land at a great price and now you will have a pocket full of cash with which to build your shop with.

As long as you kept your relationship good with the Farmer, then I bet you can extend that wad of cash further by having do all the excavation for you. Maybe he has a friend that does concrete work?

The Farmer has every right to keep the land and feels that he paid fair and square for the use of the property. You might feel he is being a ***** but really, you are the winner in this situation.

There is only 1 party here that is in the wrong and that is the flakes at the Title Insurance Company that didn't do their jobs. This situation is the exact reason you have title insurance to begin with.

 

[jgira12]

What if his "crop" never came in...can you spell 'ROUNDUP'

 

[jacob_coulter]

I read through this posting, and it sounds like the OP is a stand up guy and just wants to move on with his life, but I definitely would have handled it more aggressively. I have background in commercial real estate in a different state.

I would have broken the lease like many here had said and forced it to court. I think any reasonable judge would see this is ridiculous, would have made the new owner paid the farmer back his lease money and terminated the lease, and the issue would have been settled. IS the judge really going to side with a farmer that has 3000 acres for his crops and force the new homeowner to honor a shady lease on 2 (which is a significant part of the new owner's land) for the next 20 years. I would then have my lawyer give the cost of the settlement, along with my legal fees, over to the title company to pay. This would be an airtight case and they would cough up the money.

There might be hard feelings from your farmer, but I wouldn't give a damn about what the farmer thought about me, he's been a ***** through this whole matter. Trust me, this farmer is laughing at you behind your back. He's had every opportunity to step up and do the right thing, and in addition make some extra money with a reasonable settlement. I know we have this image in this country of farmer's being the salt of the earth and always noble, but they can be greedy bastards just like any other human being. I have a lot of farmers in my family, and believe me, their not perfect. The amount of government subsidies they think they deserve is absurd, in a lot of ways it's no different than welfare.

I hate that matters can't be settled honorably, but sometimes people need to be a ******* to get justice in this world.

 

[HacksawsGarage]

to the guiy who said he has property with an easment going across it , granted to someone back in the 1790's with no known surviving relatives.
- what about adverse possession? can you claim the easment thru that on your state?

 

[Junkman]

to the guiy who said he has property with an easment going across it , granted to someone back in the 1790's with no known surviving relatives.
- what about adverse possession? can you claim the easment thru that on your state?

I had a similar situation on some land that I owned in Massachusetts. Once an easement has been granted, you cannot extinguish that easement, unless you are the state government taking the land by eminent domain. This was the case with my land. It was one lot from the adjoining interstate highway, but the easement was clearly noted on the survey. It was right in the middle of where I wanted to build a house. The adjoining land owner had already built on the easement and didn't care. When I asked the question of the title company, they specifically said that they would not defend the title if the house were placed on the easement. The bank said that without the title insurance OK, then they wouldn't give the mortgage. I sold the land, and after it being sold about 3 or 4 more times, someone else built on the easement. For me, it wasn't worth the gamble, but for this other person, I guess it was. The other thing that also might have happened, is that the easement was so old, and so much time had passed, the last title company to do the deed search might have just missed it, or might have not noted it assuming that it wasn't relevant. The old timer that did the survey for me was the first to find it. Prior to his discovery of it, no other title company had shown it in the records. He included it in the map of the land that he prepared. Had I filed that map, then it would have been found by all that researched the land at a later date. Had I done that, I might not have been able to sell the land either...

 

[kbs2244]

Ouch.
I don't think I would admit to that.

 

[Junkman]

Ouch.
I don't think I would admit to that.

You are not obligated to disclose a easement if it is recorded, and is public information. If I knew of a defect that wasn't recorded, and I didn't disclose it, then I could have been held responsible later on. This is the very reason for recording a document, to put the general public on notice of its existence. The plot plan/survey map were for my personal use, and just verified the location of the easement for my use. I was under no legal obligation to disclose its existence, since the written documents were on file. When the land sold, the purchaser had another surveyor, survey the land, so it was up to that surveyor to do his own research and properly mark out the boundaries, etc.. I have had a survey done, where the second surveyor found survey pipes that were improperly set. He determined that because the error was constant, that the other surveyor had started in an incorrect location. He was obligated to note the "incorrect" pins on the map, along with the new ones that he set. A local surveyor surveyed a plot of land a few years ago, and marked out the wrong plot for the customer. The customer built a home on someone else's land, and the mistake wasn't found for a number of years. When the owner of the parcel went to sell the land, and it was under contract, another surveyor found the mistake. Lucky for the homeowner, he was able to buy the land that he mistakenly built on. I don't know if the surveyors insurance paid for the mistake.
Just because you have a survey doesn't mean that it is always correct. Mistakes happen more often than people want to realize... You might not actually own what you think you own... The more rural the area, the greater the chance for these types of errors..

 

[Bevis]

there was a case like that here in my town. lot surveyed and a house built...problem was his lot was the next one over. the original owner of the lot with a house on it, decided he was gonna build a house on his lot, and got a shock whenhe found a house there already. Come to find out the survey started in the wrong place and it put him off all together. both land owners just exchanged land and called it good.

 

[HoosierBuddy]

Similar situation I know of. An incorrect survey led to a house just overhanging a lot line. The neighbor who owned the land did not immediately inform the builder, but instead waited for the house to be finished, and then attempted to negotiate a large settlement. It went to court and the judge ordered a small strip of land sold to the builder for peanuts. Basically, the judge was convinced the "agrieved party" had a duty to inform the builder there was a mistake while it was still correctable, rather than wait until the house was built and say "pay me big or I'm going to sue."

Phil

 

[Junkman]

My folks home was 3" over onto the next persons property, when the builder made a mistake and had built homes on lots, that were mis-measured. Every one of the homes was on one edge of the property, and some were + - a few inches over. Nothing was ever done about it, and I know that the defect wasn't corrected when it was sold in 1967. They were all built in 1948. Mistakes happen, and back then people were more understanding. You can't take the land with you when you die, but people will fight tooth and nail over a couple of inches of land, even though the "defect" will not cause any earth shattering events in their lives if it were to remain unresolved. I can see fighting over acres, or many feet, but not inches.

 

[bigburb]

Same thing happened to my parents, they bought a house and their neighbor "claimed" 6 inches of it as theirs. Turns out the builder built the street 6" shorter than the original survey showed, and kind of ripped him off for 6". My parents got to keep all of their land, their neighbor lost 6".

 

[Mike of the North]

My brother had a problem with his house on a lake, my brother was talking to his neighbor and telling his of his plans to build a new foundation for his house and move the house on to it(the house was on stilts over a boat well), the neighbor tells him that's good because he can get back the 8' of his land the house is sitting on, my bother tells him the house is not on his property, the 8' is important because losing it would make my brothers lot to small to build on if the house needed to be rebuilt, the neighbors lot was to small to rebuild on with out the 8'. After much research it was found that the previous owner of the neighbors property some how cooked the books to make it look like he owned 8' of my bothers lot to make his property more valuable, my bother title insurance covered all the legal expense, I don't know if the neighbor got any thing from the previous owner.

 

[jay50]

My folks home was 3" over onto the next persons property, when the builder made a mistake and had built homes on lots, that were mis-measured. Every one of the homes was on one edge of the property, and some were + - a few inches over. Nothing was ever done about it, and I know that the defect wasn't corrected when it was sold in 1967. They were all built in 1948. Mistakes happen, and back then people were more understanding.

You can't take the land with you when you die, but people will fight tooth and nail over a couple of inches of land

, even though the "defect" will not cause any earth shattering events in their lives if it were to remain unresolved. I can see fighting over acres, or many feet, but not inches.

Yeah, only the women folk are concerned when it comes to inches....

 

[Junkman]

Wondering if there has been any movement on this in the past few weeks???

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Talked to my lawyer last week and no response from the Title Company yet.

I will post updates when I get something to update.

 

[HacksawsGarage]

please do.

 

[ironman70]

NWOhioChevyGuy,

No lie, the only reason I opened this thread was because I am from NW Ohio and your name caught my eye. Coming from a family of farmers (my late-grandfather and uncle farm today) I cannot believe that your neighbor wouldn't do the right thing. 2 acres out of a couple thousand is not while 2 acres out of 6 is. It is however, very encouraging to read how you handled it. It is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stifling world. I have no doubt in my mind that they way you handled this situation will benefit you somehow in the future. While you didn't the resolution you wanted, perhaps better things will happen in the future. Who knows. Best of luck to you and yours

Adam

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Re: Land ISSUES - Update

Well as of today still no response from the title company.

My next step is to file a lawsuit against the Title company, to get them to atleast discuss my claim. Still hoping not to take this to court.

I guess part of my bonus this year will go towards legal fee's, don't that just ****!

 

[Blue]

Good luck NWOhioChevyGuy.

FWIW, I seem to remember reading awhile back that Title Companies are coming under fire a lot lately--sounds like some "Title Companies" didn't do much more than make a cursory look at documentation before stamping it good to go.

 

[GTPaul]

NWOhioChevyGuy

Hang in there hopefully a resolution is in site!