Land ISSUES - Lawyers advise

[jay50]

I live outside of town, so protecting your land is important (from STRANGERS). I made the gun comment to emphasize a point of how ridiculous it is that you can own land, and someone else is basically allowed complete control of it. I figured someone would come along and extract just a portion of that comment and criticize it. That said, civilized culture dictates that this isn't a situation where things escalate to that point. You know your neighbor and this is a disagreement - and I empathize with you that it's a horrible situation. If the law told the farmer to stop then he probably would. I think you're going about this in the correct way - legally - and you're keeping your sanity and the sanity of your wife as the most important factors. You can sleep at night knowing you've done the right thing in this situation.

The silly suggestions on this board are really just what people wish they could do in this situation, Clint Eastwood style, and a sign of support. I think everyone really hopes you get this figured out. Good luck, man, and I hope this works out good for you in the end. I may run this by my wife who is a land use attorney and see what she says. Florida law is different, so I'm pretty sure she's going to say that.

So, what's the problem with a little.... over some land dispute? Might liven up an otherwise dull country side.. (j/k)

Man, this thread opened my eyes over property purchases...

 

[blkhonda1991]

Just a strange thought...What or who is buried on that land?

jimmy hoffa!

 

[tdkkart]

Just a strange thought...What or who is buried on that land?

Don't laugh, one of the gusy at work has been going through a mess this year for just this reason.........

In an attempt to build a garage on his mother's property the question of where exactly the lot lines were came up. They ended up having the lot surveyed and found that the church cemetary next door was encroaching on his property by 4ft, COMPLETE with the lower portion of several bodies buried there in the 1800's.
YIKES!!!
Ownership has been determined, but now they're going through the battle of what to do with the future. The church wants a 100year lease on the land for a very low price, the owner wants to sell it to them for a ridiculously high price, and we end up having to hear about all of it.

 

[rancherbill]

In an attempt to build a garage on his mother's property the question of where exactly the lot lines were came up. They ended up having the lot surveyed and found that the church cemetary next door was encroaching on his property by 4ft, COMPLETE with the lower portion of several bodies buried there in the 1800's.
YIKES!!!
Ownership has been determined, but now they're going through the battle of what to do with the future. The church wants a 100year lease on the land for a very low price, the owner wants to sell it to them for a ridiculously high price, and we end up having to hear about all of it.

Well this one seems pretty clear to me. Your friends a creep.

I bet he'll want to put a fence on his property line and put some fence posts through the knees of some skeletons.

He should be GIVING the church the land. If there is an issue with building his garage, I'm sure the church will not object given the circumstances.

This seems an example of get a lawyer and find out "how low can you go"

Rant off

 

[malibu101]

I bet he'll want to put a fence on his property line and put some fence posts through the knees of some skeletons.

Why do they put fences around cemetaries?
People are dying to get in!

Sorry, I just had to.
Back to the discussion........

 

[Super6]

This has been an interesting read. I thought I would add my two cents on land issues. My mothers property has never had a straight property line on her south exposure. The neighbour when he was alive built a fence about 25' into the property and then stopped it at the edge of the house. Our fence starts here and extends to the back but about 30 inches offset to our side.

I had the land surveyed and the fence my old man built was correct. In essence we would loose some of the free land from the jag because it favours us. Problem is the property is now owned by rather obnoxious renters. The had put up a latch fence against ours because ours was low and they wanted privacy. When we offered to run new fence for the entire expanse of the property line we found out their fence is not attached into the ground. They tied hooks around our posts using a taller fence and since ours is chain link the depths are not that great. This means any modification to our post collapses the fence into an interesting twist.

They got angry, as in screaming at the top of their lungs angry. As in we got comments from people over 200ft away. Thankfully the guy keeps his cool. The wife turns it into Monday night RAW.

After that I did not offer to correct their improper fence line and asked them to remove the ties around our fence posts. They now have attached 2X4s via a piano hinge and run them at 45 degrees (makes cutting the lawn an pita on their side) to prop the dumb thing up against our fence.

Adding to the problem is the yard and property are going into disrepair and the tenants don't want to fork up anything. The property is low so our property looks unnaturally high but when compared to the lane we have negative slope and drain problems in the spring. We cannot raise our land because we are now in a dispute to LOWER our land further because the neighbours will not accept an neutral sloping as it would accentuate their drainage problems. Further we have been put on watch to not blow snow in our property towards the back as the spring melt just gravitates to the low.

I also maintain the property on the other side of them (second house down)as it is owned by an old lady and we are on good terms with her. Again they have asked her not to pile snow near the property line but since the renters have a narrow driveway favouring her side they piled all the snow from the driveway against her house forcing her basement window to crack. When she confronted them they told her (fill in the blank) herself and that it was not their problem. They also removed the locking block bricks from the driveway and as a result her house is pelted with salt and sand from the exposed ground. It looks terrible. She has to wash her house on that side way too often. I felt sorry for her so I recommended installing the plastic which is available for chain link fences to block the view. She took me up on the offer.

The short answer to the thread starter is be nice but don't let yourself be walked on. We were walked on, and on more than one occasion.

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

I do own a 357 Magnum that I'm a pretty good shot with, but that's only for targets and hopefully nothing else (however don't think about breaking in when I'm home with the wife and kids, lead will fly)

I know alot of the comments made in this thread are said with alittle snicker (atleast I read them that way).

Believe me I will do all that I can legally to get my land back or a very nice settlement out of this fiasco.

I just hope that we can get this done this year! So I can move on in one way or another, once I build my shop the main argument will be in past, that is the location I wan to build it is on the acreage currently being farmed. Then again if I put it where I can with the lease in place, it gets it alittle farther from the house (and the wife and kids).

 

[dreamingmuscle]

Well this one seems pretty clear to me. Your friends a creep.

I bet he'll want to put a fence on his property line and put some fence posts through the knees of some skeletons.

He should be GIVING the church the land. If there is an issue with building his garage, I'm sure the church will not object given the circumstances.

This seems an example of get a lawyer and find out "how low can you go"

Rant off

I don't understand your thoughts here??? I'm a trustee at my church and don't see any reason why he should just give the land to the church. It would be nice sure but not necessary or expected.

A 100 year lease??? What will they do when it's over? Dig up the bodies or just try to negotiate another lease on the cheap again.

I say make them buy it or dig the bodies up. Preferably dig the bodies up. They ain't making land at record speeds any more.
________
buy vaporizer

 

[wantedabiggergarage]

Growing up in part around the funeral business, I had a chuckle at the thought of eviction notices posted on the tombstones. LOL

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

He should be GIVING the church the land.

Why? It's not their land. I'm not against him giving them the land...but he has no moral compulsion to do it.

If there is an issue with building his garage, I'm sure the church will not object given the circumstances.

You shouldn't EVER make concrete assumptions about what a property owner is going to do with their property. b/c whatever you assume, odds are you're going to be wrong

 

[must8657]

I don't see any reason why the person next to the church is obligated to donate the land to them. if they want to that is fine.

i don't really have any experience with land disputes, but at my old house (i still own), all of the lots are supposed to be 75' wide (i think that is the correct number). when we were replacing the fence i took measurements to see how much fence we needed it. turns out my lot is 77' wide. my parents lived next door and theirs was 75 and my neighbor (good friend) was also 75. so i bet somewhere along the line someone is shorted 2 feet. everyone has fences. this may turn into a big problem somewhere down the road. all though i was told that after ten years of no one complaining, it becomes your land. not sure if that is true. i am in illinois.
jason

 

[Brad54]

Four feet of land, with bodies buried on it.
And then you have to figure that if they ever do build a fence, there has to be some fudge room--a little clearance. So if he wants to fence the yard because he gets a dog or kids, he's being shorted at bare minimum 4 feet the entire length of the area, and 5 or 6 feet is likely.
If I go out into my hard and walk off six feet from my neighbor's lot line to mine, I'd lose a full parking space next to my shop.

Seems like the church isn't being a very good neighbor. They need to either buy the land from him, or dig up the bones.

The people buried there aren't going to mind. And if there are any relatives of the dearly departed, the only reason it would bother them is "just because."

They should call the state college History department and have them come out and do an excavation on it and document the tombstones, the graves, anything the bodies were buried with, etc.

There is an opportunity there for some interesting history lessons.

Not to mention a lesson in being a good neighbor.

-Brad

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Well today I received a letter from the OFIR office stating that they are contacting the Title company requesting a response on my claim. They allow 21 days for a response and then say 4-6 weeks of review and research by their lawyers to determine if they can assist in my claim.

So I guess that pus me 2-3 months out before I take the next step of filing a lawsuit against them.

FYI: The OFIR office will not assist if a lawsuit is already filed.

Just more time to let my issue eat at me more. Yippee

 

[Rory Bellows]

Well at least it's winter and you can't build or really use the land in question. Hopefully, the process of settling begins before the farmer starts planting this year. Good luck! BTW, if it were me and nothing is resolved by planting season I would get some big boulders or put up a fence or anything to make sure this issue gets resolved this year.

 

[chadincolo]

BTW, if it were me and nothing is resolved by planting season I would get some big boulders or put up a fence or anything to make sure this issue gets resolved this year.

Once again, maybe it's just me since I grew up on a farm and understand the laws on this, but what your are suggesting is illegal, and irresponsible. The legal date of notification in most states is either in September or October. Even if the lease gets thrown out now, he is farming it for the next season at this point. Nice or not, being vindictive or not, the farmer has the right to the land. Period. Place a rock out there, he smacks it with his tractor or planter and you would find out how much it costs to repair farm equipment. It's suggestions and actions like these that makes people in rural areas suspicious of people moving in from urban areas.

NWOhioChevyGuy, I really do hope you get this resolved, I too have found that companies (insurance or utlity) tend to suddenly find time to work on stuff when you involve the state regulating agency. I can't blame you for being upset with the neighbor, I agree he is going above and beyond in being an a$$, there's got to be some other part of the story. I hope you get compensated in a way you think is adequate, and from what you've said, you are above some of the suggestions some have made here.

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

I don't need to add any boulders, our property is a sand ridge/hill where a glacier many moons ago deposited plenty naturally. I have 4-5 boulders in my landscaping that are in excess of 5'-7' across in one direction that came out of the field behind the house.

And yes even if the land settlement was done this winter, the farmer has winter wheat planted so atleast another season it will be farmed.

 

[67 455 Bird ragtop]

Could you get a temp injunction to prevent future planting until this is resolved ???

 

[Rory Bellows]

Once again, maybe it's just me since I grew up on a farm and understand the laws on this, but what your are suggesting is illegal, and irresponsible. The legal date of notification in most states is either in September or October. Even if the lease gets thrown out now, he is farming it for the next season at this point. Nice or not, being vindictive or not, the farmer has the right to the land. Period. Place a rock out there, he smacks it with his tractor or planter and you would find out how much it costs to repair farm equipment. It's suggestions and actions like these that makes people in rural areas suspicious of people moving in from urban areas.

Well I am not a lawyer or a farmer but his specific land lease has zero covenants. Therefore, I would break the lease. My suggestions of fencing or boulders was not vindicative or illegal it is just a way to stop the farmers access to the land. This is not illegal but is against tort law since he will be breaking the contract that is in place. It is not a criminal act.


NWOhioChevyGuy

Is there natural gas or oil in the area? Maybe you should just drill a well since you still have mineral rights to the land. That would be one way to interupt the farmers use if planned out properly.

 

[Skyline]

Four feet of land, with bodies buried on it.
And then you have to figure that if they ever do build a fence, there has to be some fudge room--a little clearance. So if he wants to fence the yard because he gets a dog or kids, he's being shorted at bare minimum 4 feet the entire length of the area, and 5 or 6 feet is likely.
If I go out into my hard and walk off six feet from my neighbor's lot line to mine, I'd lose a full parking space next to my shop.

Seems like the church isn't being a very good neighbor. They need to either buy the land from him, or dig up the bones.

The people buried there aren't going to mind. And if there are any relatives of the dearly departed, the only reason it would bother them is "just because."

They should call the state college History department and have them come out and do an excavation on it and document the tombstones, the graves, anything the bodies were buried with, etc.

There is an opportunity there for some interesting history lessons.

Not to mention a lesson in being a good neighbor.

-Brad

Actually, the church probably has every right to continue to use this land. If you consider the laws of adverse possession, if you have fenced in and used land as your own for an extended period (I think 20 or 25 years), you can get a court to legally give you the permanent right to use the land. For this reason, there is no reason the chuch should pay more for the land than it costs to go to court. Nor is there a need for them to buy it...churches do grow, and move from time to time...so this may be a logical solution. But it would certainly be better for the homeowner to sell it and be done with it. They will continue to pay tax on it if they keep it....whereas the church probably is exempt from RE tax.

I used this exact strategy to negotiate a purchase of a piece of land I had been using for 20+ years that my driveway ran across, (and did not belong to me). The owners wanted a large figure, but when I explained to them the rules of adverse possession, they lowered the asking price to a little less than it would cost me to go to court and get a permanent easement.

 

[lh4x4]

I said it before and will say it again. The legal course of action is against the seller and his agent for not making full disclosure before the sale not the farmer.

Dealing with the farmer is losing focus to what the issue is. It is more than likely the owner knew he was going to sale and gave the lease to the farmer for a one time payment. On an annual basis the lease would have went up every few years.

Sue both the seller and the agent for $$$$. You will win.

 

[toadjammer]

lh4x4, If you would read the whole thread you would have noticed that said property was bought in a forclosure sale and figured to be as-is. The realator cannot be held liable if they even used one. The blame lies in the title company whose job it is to insure that the property has a free and clear title. Seeing that it doesn't they are holding the bag and NWOhioChevyGuy has to go after them to resolve it to his satisfaction. Now since they are dragging there feet and not wanting to resolve this issue he filed a claim with the state commisioer of insurance to help get this resolved, hopefully for his benefit.

 

[blkhonda1991]

Well I am not a lawyer or a farmer but his specific land lease has zero covenants. Therefore, I would break the lease. My suggestions of fencing or boulders was not vindicative or illegal it is just a way to stop the farmers access to the land. This is not illegal but is against tort law since he will be breaking the contract that is in place. It is not a criminal act.

im with you on this...the lease is so simple and straight forward id just break it and forget all this mess about title companies etc and just go to court when he takes you to court for breaking the lease...i pretty sure such a simple lease paid upfront years ago and many owners ago may simply be thrown out when a judge takes a look at it

 

[wantedabiggergarage]

Hopefully, the state insurance regulator, will be able to look at the lease options, and save him the lawyer fee's since he pays them with taxes.

This may work out for the best, and I really hope it does.

 

[ebasista]

Wait to hear from the gov't and see what the Title company does.

Contrary to some people's opinions it is not illegal to break the lease. It is done every day. This isn't the case of you taking the high road here, you are having your rights trampled and need to stand for your rights. The farmer has been given every chance to make things right.

There are no provisions in the lease for early termination penalties so the absolute worst a judge could do would be to make the farmer "whole" for his loss (assuming you actually build on it to prevent it from being planted on). This would be the value of the lease, and the insurance company would have no choice at that point to pay it.

However, here is the kicker. You do not know if the lease is even valid at this point. If the farmer attempts to sue you a judge can just as easily declare that the lease is not valid. You have a clean title on the land without any encumberances (sp) due to a prior foreclosure. You have a good chance of walking away cleanly. FYI, if you are sued the Title Company will have to provide a lawyer to defend you.

You really hold all the cards here but have gone above and beyond letting others take advantage of your good nature

 

[toadjammer]

absolute worst a judge could do would be to make the farmer "whole" for his loss (assuming you actually build on it to prevent it from being planted on). This would be the value of the lease, and the insurance company would have no choice at that point to pay it.

And the judge may say the lease is valid and make the owner make the farmer whole by paying for lost crop yield too. I gamble a little but never more than I can afford to loose.

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

Seems to me NWOhioChevyGuy is following the correct course of action. Exhaust all legal avenues, and if none of those yield a viable solution, then start looking at alternatives like breaking the lease. He's stated many times that he would rather resolve this legally and peacefully.

 

[jacob_coulter]

I have a decent amount of experience working in commercial real estate and with lease contracts years ago. When a "real" lease is drawn up, there are specific clauses in the contract dealing with the event of the lease being broken in order to avoid showdowns like this. The fact this contract has no such clauses casts further doubt on how legitimate this lease would appear to most judges.

Since this lease doesn't have such stipulations, it's usually up to the judge's discretion to come up with a fair solution to make the party whole if the lease is broken. The worse I see happening is the farmer is made "whole" by getting the paltry amount he paid for the lease returned to him, subtracting the time he's used the land already.

The farmer would be an idiot to even pursue this in court against you, the lawyer would cost more than any settlement he could possibly get for the remainder of his lease. Most attorneys wouldn't want to waste their time taking on a case like this since the case is so weak to begin with, and the maximum pay out is so small.

I would be surprised if it even made it to court. My guess is the judge would throw it out when he saw the what was going on, and not even recognize it as a legally binding lease for the new owner. He would probably tell the farmer to pursue the previous owner that drew up the lease if he wanted any kind of settlement.

I definitely think something shady is going on here, as others have pointed out. The fact this farmer has been offered outrageous sums of money to break this lease on a tiny sliver of his farm land makes absolutely no sense.

If you want your land back, I'd consult with another attorney about breaking the lease. You can break a lease legally, it's done all the time, and it's not a criminal act.

If you instead would prefer a cash settlement from the title company, then I would go with the other strategy, but your probably going to be at this for years, so prepare yourself.

 

[chadincolo]

I've got some responses to some of the posts, but since it appears not many on here understand ag law, it would probably just frustrate myself and others. Just suffice it to say, the laws and rules governing agriculture are different (with good reason) than commercial real estate and typical lease laws.

NWOhioChevyGuy, keep on going, hope the state regulating agency slaps the title company and you get satisfaction. I also hope that at some point you can figure out what the deal is with the neighbor, I do think there's some other story behind all this...

 

[NWOhioChevyGuy]

Well it seems many of you are keeping up on my plight, before I get a chance to correct a statement someone already has. Thanks toadjammer

Breaking the lease is something that is still actively being thought about; I would however like that to come from a legal action / body so the perception of the neighbor is not hostile towards me but the action. I know I shouldn't care what he thinks but he nor I are going anywhere and I don't want a fued to start over something that can be settled otherwise.

I will wait for the state to respond and go from there.


I can't believe we are on page 39!!!!

 

[rancherbill]

I've got some responses to some of the posts, but since it appears not many on here understand ag law, it would probably just frustrate myself and others. Just suffice it to say, the laws and rules governing agriculture are different (with good reason) than commercial real estate and typical lease laws.

I think that's half the problem. NWOhioChevyGuy's lawyer is not willing to wade into the case law to develop a strong argument. The lawyer is just going along to see what shakes out.

 

[HacksawsGarage]

if thats the case, its malpractice.

 

[Ggg]

Laziness yes but malpractice, I would disagree.

 

[monte433]

I'am not one too condone law breaking but you need to gain control over your property as soon as possible and force an issue with the farmer, title company and the court speaking as someone that has been down this road you will not get any satisfaction from the title company, the farmer is in control of your property and has no incentive settle with you because he has what he wants, your lawyer is just in it for the money and is going to do as little as possible an get you to do all his work and still get paid.

My uncle has 800 plus acres in WV most of it was ******* in lease with a gas company that was signed in the late 1800's he tried for years to do things the right way and didn't get anywhere one day he decided he had enough of fighting the courts and his lawyers that were working with the gas companys lawyers and the courts to stonewall him so he would just give up and go away, so he locked them out all of a sudden everyone that wouldn't talk to him for years wanted to settle things and talk things out.

 

[billspit]

I have an idea (as have most others). Why don't you fence him out, but don't build on the land yet. See what the farmer threatens to do. If its too much to risk, take down the fence.

Someone else had mentioned putting up a fence that would make it inconvenient for him to use, but not keeping him out. The effort for him to farm those two acres with big machinery are more than a reasonable man would expend. This farmer may just be waiting to see what you are made of.

I'm assuming the crops are off the land for this year. Now would be the time to move.

 

[toadjammer]

Billspit, here is what NWOCG said earlier:

And yes even if the land settlement was done this winter, the farmer has winter wheat planted so atleast another season it will be farmed.

 

[Brad54]

Billspit, here is what NWOCG said earlier:

That farmer will have something on that land all year. There will be a very, very tiny window when you can get a fence up without hurting his crop. The farmer knows this, too.

I think a fence with a gate, and give the farmer a key to the lock, would be within the letter of that horribly worded contract.

-Brad

 

[tdkkart]

I think most are missing the point of this thread. There is essentially no question about the farmer's rights to use the land, he has a legal lease for the use of the land for the duration.

What is the issue here is the fact that the seller did not reveal the lease, nor did the title company come up with it in their suppos'd search of the property records.

Had the original poster known of the lease when he purchased the property he might have made a different decision on the purchase, either pass on the property, or negotiated a price that reflected the loss of use of the property.

Unfortunately the buyer did not fully check out the property and know for sure what he was getting, however he shouldn't have had to, he trusted the sellers description of the property, and he trusted the title company to discover any issues with the property.

All the OP is asking for is to be "made whole" on the situation, both in the use of the land that is rightfully his, and some compensation for the error made by the title company. Essentially it is the responsibility of the title insurance folks to make things right, which they seem to be unwilling to do.

 

[toadjammer]

I'd agree with almost everything tdkkart said and fully support that the seller shouldn't have to check out the property, as far as leans or leases or easments. This falls completely on the shoulders of the title company. Even if this hadn't been disclosed by the seller for some unforseen reason it still is the responsibility to insure that the property is as deeded.

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

All the OP is asking for is to be "made whole" on the situation, both in the use of the land that is rightfully his, and some compensation for the error made by the title company. Essentially it is the responsibility of the title insurance folks to make things right, which they seem to be unwilling to do.

Agreed, and if this continues to drag out to no clear resolution to "right the wrong"...if he keeps getting stonewalled by everyone involved...then the general consensus on here seems to be that the OP should figure out the best way to break the lease.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but this appears to be where it's headed.

 

[ebasista]

Actually the validity/legality of the lease is in question as well. The wording of the contract is very unusual, as is the fact the land went thru a residential foreclosure.