Common Driveway & Deed Issue - PLZ HELP!

[westsideerkg]

Located in Pittsburgh, PA


All:

We have a common driveway issue and need a legal interpretation.

Long story short, our neighbors continue to block the common driveway Right of Way [ROW] and their nearly grown children (i.e. 15-19) and unknown to us peers continue to play on our side of the property without our consent.

First, we have made it very clear by now, both in writing and verbally, that we do not condone parking in the ROW or children encroaching upon the property boundary, initially due to our insurance brokers advice. Since bringing this to the neighbors attention, in as respectful a manner as possible, the situation has only become more pervasive.

I spoke with my general practice attorney yesterday and he advised that I visit the Allegheny County real estate office to obtain both property deeds. After reviewing both deeds, I found some interesting information.

First, the original owners in 1929 granted the neighbors the right to use the driveway for its intended purpose for a small fee of $75.00, [$1k in 2012 equivalent]. Interestingly enough, the neighbors property deed doesnt have a original or seperate deed and only mentions a reference to the ROW under a specialty deed paragraph? The neighbors specialty deed proceeds to reference the master deed, which the original owners drafted when they owned our property.

Regarding the original deed language, the following is the excerpt I find interesting regarding the ROW...THE above described parcel of ground (i.e. 8 foot driveway), together with the adjoining 4 feet owned by the grantors, is to be used in common by the parties hereto, their heirs and assigns, as a driveway, and the right to use the said adjacent 4 feet as part of said driveway is hereby granted unto the grantees, their heirs, and assigns, and the right to use said parcel of ground hereby granted and conveyed as part of said driveway is reserved by the grantors to themselves, their heirs and assigns...Our interpretation of this highlighted section is as follows, because we are the grantors, we solely reserve the right to superseded this grant by not allowing the neighbors to use the driveway at our discretion. Is this a accurate assessment based upon this language? What alternatives do we have since they will not sell us back our property?

Also, for what its worth, our Professional Engineer stamped survey, the historic one that we obtained when purchasing the home last year, depicts the driveway as common ROW.

Advice greatly appreciated!!!

 

[154NH773]

Although your references to "original", 'separate", "specialty", "master", deeds, and "specialty paragraphs" is very confusing; I don't see anywhere that you can "solely reserve the right to superseded this grant by not allowing the neighbors to use the driveway at [y]our discretion".

The original grant was for both parties to be able to use the driveway in perpetuity. The portion you highlighted only reserves the right by the grantor to use the 4' of property which was granted, along with the grantee.

Perhaps I might come to a different conclusion if I could read both deeds, rather than your confusing references.

 

[westsideerkg]

Sorry, not trying to confuse anyone.

Again, there is no deed for the neighbors property that truly addresses this, they are leaching off the deed created by the original owners of our home, and grantees that lived in their residence at the time. I already verified the deed with the county. There is only a specially deed, whatever that is??? Its clear as day and says this across the top of the 1 page document.

That being said, what’s the extra line for then in this quote referencing the [reserved] language for the grantor? There is no [reserved] language in the deed for the grantee?

 

[154NH773]

The easement language does not have to be in "their deed". As long as a document was filed by the former owner of your property, granting them an easement, then the easement is in place.

The language that grants the easement to "the grantees, their heirs, and assigns", means that it passes from owner to owner when their property is sold. You have no right to cancel that easement grant without their agreement.

That being said, what’s the extra line for then in this quote referencing the [reserved] language for the grantor? There is no [reserved] language in the deed for the grantee?

That is standard language when someone grants an easement right across their property. It makes sure that they also retain (reserve) a right to use the granted right-of-way, so that it is not exclusive to the grantee. It in no way allows the grantor to revoke the easement at their discretion.

 

[westsideerkg]

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

What do you recommend from here?

Do we have any flexibility it taking this back?

Can we give them the $75.00 (original grant price) in 2012 dollars to take back the easement?

There has to be some way to get back the original property!

 

[154NH773]

There is little you can do if they are unwilling to give up their rights. You still own the property, but they have an absolute right to utilize it as spelled out in the easement document.
Perhaps some amount of money might cause them to give it up, but they can set the price at any amount they like.

 

[drewguy]

I think you have described two actions that you may be able to sue for:

1) trespassing
2) interference with your easement.

On #1, if they are coming onto your property for reasons other than using the easement, that is trespassing and can be a basis for a civil suit or potentially criminal action if you can get the police interested. Now, it's not clear to me what "using as a driveway" means, but you could certainly argue in court that it means (as is typical for easements of this type) for ingress and egress. That does not include general play.

On #2, if they park cars in a way that blocks the driveway then they are interfering with your use of the easement. You could sue and obtain an injunction (court order) so that they stop. Subsequent violations may lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Both are expensive options of course.

 

[154NH773]

Although Drewguy is correct (although I doubt a criminal charge could be made); the problem is that this is a SHARED driveway and the neighbor could also raise issues every time the OP's use didn't specifically adhear to the "allowed" use.
The OP's original question was on language he thought would allow him to unilaterally extinguish the easement. He can't.