Large Lot easment wording

[formerroofer]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WA.

A question of interpretation for wording on a recorded large lot plat.


Description
Parcel “A”
legal description
Parcel “B”
legal description
also known as lots 1-20 of large lot subdivision recorded on xx date under recording number xxx

Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Covenants
Whereas, the owners, xxx Realty, A Washington Corporation, owners of the above described property, wish to create the following restrictions and protective covenants, to wit:
...
3).xxx Realty, (seller), reserves the exclusive right to extend the road easements easements to adjacent property, or properties or divisions thereof, which abutt the property herein described, or properties to which this easement is assigned, provided, however, that the recipients, their heirs or assigns, of any such extension, would agree to pay their own prorata cost of the above stated maintenance agreement, not only for property being served by said extension, but the property herein described. .....

Does this mean that the recipient/grantee of the road easement extension must pay the road maintenance fee for all of the properties part of this large lot per this section???

“would agree to pay their own prorata cost of the above stated maintenance agreement, not only for property being served by said extension, but the property herein described.”

The property herein described being the 20 lots comprised in parcel “A” and Parcel “B”

or only that they have to pay their prorated portion of the fee for the entire road (as opposed to the fee for the maintenance of only the extension)


The road serves 20 lots that are associated with this large lot plus additional properties part of an adjacent (earlier) large lot consisting of 16 lots over which the road travels and there are easements over 4 of those lots. The other 12 of those lots are served by a connected road. Both large lots are part of the same road maintenance agreement.

If yes, would the grantee pay for all fees associated with the road maintenance of that portion of the road
or only those fees apportioned to the 20 lots of that large lot.??

I have a further question depending on the answer to this one.

Thanks

[FarmerJ]

See if you can get them to give you a example of the maint cost break down, Some thing like this , Say a private road comes in along the far side of your lot. There are 4 lots inc yours who contribute to its maint. Your driveway taps into this private road 190 ft from the curb cut to a public road. , your driveway is 10 ft wide so maint cost for the first 200 ft are divided by 4. THen there is another 200 ft section of private road before number 2 lots driveway ends , SO The second 200 ft maint cost are split into 3. Lot 3 and 4 have another 200 ft of maint cost to be split in two and then say lot 4 has the last 100 ft of the easment to use before it hits there lot line. So to get a total of lot 4s maint cost would be 25 % of the first 200, 33 and 1/3 of the next 200 ft , 50% of the next 200 and 100 % of the last 100. This kind of breakdown is what would make it more clear for you. WITH as many lots as you posted about what you want to learn is if there will be a formal HOA and if it is limited only to road maint issues. finding out things like if a HOA board will handle putting out for bids , snow plowing, grading , ETC. Sounds like they addressed obligation to pay for road maint already. SO if you have not bought the property yet you definitely need to have a atty review ALL the documents pertaining to the property and the road easement so that way you are able to make sure nothing is missed. Including how the road maint will be managed and billed.

[formerroofer]

Thanks for your reply.
Sorry I was not clearer. I am currently an owner (for 14 years) of one of the lots of the 16 parcel large lot. My lot is one of the four lots that the road that serves the 20 parcel large lot travels over. A road also travels over my lot that serves the 16 parcel large lot (I am at the head of a "T".) All of the owners of the parcels are part of our Road Maintenance Association (which has been managed by the original developer up until 1.5 years ago when we have been in the process of taking over) and pay road maint equally according to the Road Maint agreement (as part of the large lot recording) which was established by and prior to any of us purchasing from the original developer (whom no longer owns any of the properties). We are talking about a development of five acre lots in a rural area on a gravel road.

The question is specifically about the wording on that large lot recording

“would agree to pay their own prorata cost of the above stated maintenance agreement, not only for property being served by said extension, but the property herein described.”

and its exact meaning regarding payments to be made by an adjacent property owner whom was granted a valid easement via a road extension in accordance with the large lot recording.

[formerroofer]

Additionally the complete item three is here.

3.) xxx Realty, (seller), reserves the exclusive right to extend the road easements to adjacent property, or properties or divisions thereof, which abutt the property herein described, or properties to which this easement is assigned, provided, however, that the recipients, their heirs or assigns, of any such extension, would agree to pay their own prorata cost of the above stated maintenance agreement, not only for property being served by said extension, but the property herein described. Xxx Realty, or its assigns, reserves the exclusive right to deed the easement road, or roads, or ant extension thereof, to the county for public road, and reserve the right to grant the use of said easement for any utility service, whether public or private, without the consent of subsequent owner or purchaser.


XXX Realty is out of business (and was out of business in 2005) and was known as xxx Realty Inc. and is listed in many of the original easements granted to them ans xxx Realty Inc., A Washington Corporation.

An easement / easement extension was granted in 2005 to the owner (Mr. B)
of an adjacent abutting property.
Said easement was granted by the principal (Mr. M) of xxx Realty. Part of which reads as follows.


**************......
Whereas, xxx Realty is now a dissolved corporation and Mr. M was the sole stockholder therein and the successor in interest to xxx Realty.

Now therefore, Mr. M, as his separate estate, successor in interest to xxx Realty, Inc., a dissolved corporation, Grantor in consideration of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, does hereby grant and convey to Mr. And Mrs. B, husband and wife, their successors and assigns, Grantees, the easement described as follows: **************


The question then comes as has been brought to my attention. Mr. M did not have the authority to grant said easement (thereby invalidating that granting of the easement)
Inasmuch that only xxx Realty
has the right to grant said easement and not its assigns or successors as is stated and not implied. No such implication should be taken as later in that same paragraph “ Xxx Realty, or its assigns, reserves the exclusive right ...” is explicitly stated.

Please comment on this argument that Mr. B's easement is invalid.

Would Mr. B then be able to achieve access to this easement via the current Quiet Title Action against us by reason of implied necessity?

And would it be appropriate for the current land owners in control of said easements then ask that that they be compensated in addition to paying a proportional amount of the road maintenance as opposed to only paying the proportional road maintenance without any additional compensation as is proposed in Mr. B's quiet title action?

Said easement in question is marked on the plat map and is recorded as part of the large lot and there is no dispute that an easement exists. In dispute is the use of the easement by an adjacent property owner (whom claims to be effectively land locked, as other accesses are more costly and our roads are currently developed with the exception of 660' which is the road easement extension. )