Access denied

[sandywt]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC
We bought a home located on a hilltop over 2 years ago. The party we bought it from gave us permission to cross their land to gain access to our valley portion of the lot.
Today, the neighbor left a voicemail message on my cell phone informing me we are no longer allowed to cross their yard.
I thought I might file an injunction to allow us to continue crossing their land until we can have a new access road constructed.
Does that sound like a good idea? Also, how do I file for the injunction?

 

[154NH773]

It sounds like it is only for convenience that you wish to continue using your neighbor's property. It is unlikely that the court will allow you to continue, since your permission was revoked, unless some permanent understanding enticed you to purchase the property in the first place.

I would begin to cut the new access, and ask the neighbor if you can continue to use the current access until your new one is completed.

You might continue to use the neighbors access against his wishes, but that may be considered trespass. You should have asked him for an easement when you purchased the property. "Permission" can be revoked and there's little you can do.

Despite the legal opinions you may get on this forum, the court can do whatever it wants, and it is basically like rolling the dice. Spend you money on building the new access road.

 

[sandywt]

reply to answer

You're correct--we should have had the easement / permission in writing when we bought the house; however, these were long term neighbors and we misjudged their ethics.
It isn't just convenience that we cross their land---theres no other way to get to the valley. We have already contacted 2 contractors to give us bids on building a road, but that can't be done instantly. We don't mind spending the money, but in the meantime, we can't tend the vegetable garden or grape vines, can't mow the grass, etc, etc.
I had hoped someone could instruct me in filing an injunction, or is that something only an attorney can do (the filing)?

 

[drewguy]

North Carolina does recognize both an easement by necessity and an easement by prior use. The first seems unlikely as 154NH says. The second may not work either, but I put that out there for consideration. Here is a case describing the elements:

Wiggins v. Short, (95-518) 05/07/1996

Where you seem likely to be hung up is that the use may not have been previously established.

One thing to consider is that if you're willing to build your own path the issue is temporary. If you get a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit that might be enough to extract an agreement to allow for temporary use, which to them is better than (a) the risk you could obtain a permanent easement and (b) the cost of litigating that issue.

 

[sandywt]

drewguy

Thank you drewguy. Thats exactly what we are hoping for. We just want to buy enough time (probably 60 days) to have the road constructed. We don't mind paying for the construction and we don't mind paying for an attorney.
I'm hoping the "threat" of legal action can buy us that time.
We never thought something like this could happen--but who really understands the nature of humans?
I'll check out the case you referred to.