Sale of Easement.

[tranquility]

The deed for A: “together with all appurtenances thereto belonging and all stand-pipes, pipes, pipe lines, mains, water main lines ,well or wells, pumps tools, appliances, fixtures and equipment now in used in connection with well located on the land described particularly herein-above; SAVE AND EXCEPT, however the well, reservoir, storage tank, pump, equipment, water pipes and mains situated upon and so far as the same are situated upon, Block 161". (Block 161 is another property with a well that also served the town).

Thank you.

While I'm sure we all appreciate the effort, the entirety of the issue needs to be addressed. It's not like we are avoiding your question, it's just that is a very fact sensitive question that requires ALL the facts. Sorry.

 

[Redah]

While I'm sure we all appreciate the effort, the entirety of the issue needs to be addressed. It's not like we are avoiding your question, it's just that is a very fact sensitive question that requires ALL the facts. Sorry.

I wish there was more than what Ive already provided. There is none.

Thank you.

 

[tranquility]

I wish there was more than what Ive already provided. There is none.

Thank you.

I agree both practically and realistically. You have an actual lawyer problem. Sorry.

 

[justalayman]

I wish there was more than what Ive already provided. There is none.

Thank you.

There is more. The fact you don't realize it is probably why you don't understand what anybody here is telling you. There is at least any deed from all properties involved since the inception of the easement. There is surely the original document creating the easement. Any pertinent court actions since the inception of the easement would also be needed. There is likely more. I was only trying to show it is not as simple as you want it to be.

The fact a municipality is involved makes it much more complex. Anythng involving the creation of the easement in council meetings would be pertinent. Even who a b and c are can make a difference if any of them are the municipality.

How these lots were created may even make a difference. Given you are talking about what appears to be a municipal water system there are myriad facts that can be important.

 

[LdiJ]

Let's say that you were arguing that it can be done, that a utility easement can be 'subdivided' into smaller mini-easements. How would you argue that?

Thank you.

I wouldn't agree to argue it at all, in either direction, without a lot more information than you are providing here. The devil is in the details and you want the details to be irrelevant. It just does not work that way.

 

[Redah]

There is more. The fact you don't realize it is probably why you don't understand what anybody here is telling you. There is at least any deed from all properties involved since the inception of the easement. There is surely the original document creating the easement. Any pertinent court actions since the inception of the easement would also be needed. There is likely more. I was only trying to show it is not as simple as you want it to be.

The fact a municipality is involved makes it much more complex. Anythng involving the creation of the easement in council meetings would be pertinent. Even who a b and c are can make a difference if any of them are the municipality.

How these lots were created may even make a difference. Given you are talking about what appears to be a municipal water system there are myriad facts that can be important.

Although I was asking for an input to my own (and neighbors) benefit, I will post the original deeds for all involved, so others may be helped if they ever faced with a similar problem. I will also update you on the outcome of the trial, appeal, and knowing my opponents will never give up, the Supreme Court's decision.

Thank you all.

 

[justalayman]

Please don't. You just aren't getting it. It is unlikely you could post all the information necessary to make any real call on the matter. You need somebody that can review all germane sources of info and if needed, chase where any of that may lead them. While I normally love to take a stab at things even when some info is lacking, this is just too complex to be able to offer you much of anything.

Follow ups are always appreciate though.

 

[Redah]

Thank you all for you input.

Last week I expressed my contentions to the Judge (he is aware of all that needs to be known in this case for a final judgment to be signed) in the same way I have posted my question here. The Judge (there was only 7 attorneys against me that day) delayed the signing of the judgement till he does his own research on what I offered. I guess we are good so far.

 

[Redah]

We won.

We Won.
I knew that I had to stick it out and wait.

New Question: I have a Plaintiff and a Intervenor, the Judgment draft says that we won against the 2, it says that we won damages against Plaintiff (specifically) . When it comes to Attorney's fees, it awards us a $, but it don't say who pays (Plaintiff or Intervenor).
Is it common to assume that would mean 50/50 between the 2? Would it be OK to ask the Judge for a clarification? Do I need to? (the final judgment draft was sent by Email, and the Judge was asking for any mistakes ($ numbers, etc.).