New Hampshire
I have been involved with a right of way dispute for over seven years. While I am pretty sure of my position, the lawyer for the other party(s) made a statement I'm not sure that I agree with. I no longer have access to caselaw, so maybe someone can advise me on this specific issue. This is the issue;
Despite only having a covenant in their deeds stating, "Together with a right-of-way over [a 50' road] as same leads from [the highway] to the within described premises, said right-of-way to be used in common [with all others] having rights therein," their lawyer has said that because the private road providing their access was created as part of an approved sub-division, they have travel rights over the entire length within the subdivision. Thus, meaning they could travel on the road beyond their premises.
The subdivision creator held the ownership of the roadway property for over ten years, and finally gave it to a road association. There is no requirement for anyone using the road to belong to the association. The road also serves others outside and beyond the subdivision.
I questioned what authority provided additional access to parts of the road clearly not meeting the deed criteria of "from the highway to their premises" as spelled out in their deeds. He said it is a "common-law principle."
Can anyone cite such a principle, or an example from NH caselaw?
I have been involved with a right of way dispute for over seven years. While I am pretty sure of my position, the lawyer for the other party(s) made a statement I'm not sure that I agree with. I no longer have access to caselaw, so maybe someone can advise me on this specific issue. This is the issue;
Despite only having a covenant in their deeds stating, "Together with a right-of-way over [a 50' road] as same leads from [the highway] to the within described premises, said right-of-way to be used in common [with all others] having rights therein," their lawyer has said that because the private road providing their access was created as part of an approved sub-division, they have travel rights over the entire length within the subdivision. Thus, meaning they could travel on the road beyond their premises.
The subdivision creator held the ownership of the roadway property for over ten years, and finally gave it to a road association. There is no requirement for anyone using the road to belong to the association. The road also serves others outside and beyond the subdivision.
I questioned what authority provided additional access to parts of the road clearly not meeting the deed criteria of "from the highway to their premises" as spelled out in their deeds. He said it is a "common-law principle."
Can anyone cite such a principle, or an example from NH caselaw?