"Encroachment" on Rail Road property -- survey says does not exist

[bw2013]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Property in Ohio, we now live in FL

Hi, any help would be appreciated.
I am part of a family owned business. We owned a piece of property in Ohio. 40+ years ago the Rail Road company claimed there was an encroachment onto RR property, and drew up an agreement to rent the property each year. This past year we put the property on the market. The new buyer wanted to buy out the encroachment, so they got the property surveyed. Turns out there is no encroachment. A second survey also verified this.
The RR company terminated the agreement, and the property was sold. When I spoke to the RR rep about getting a refund, he claimed that the RR was still using "railroad maps" and their position was there was still an encroachment, but it "wasn't worth pursuing". I advised we've paid rent for over 40 years and I want something back. He said "even if they did have to pay, they would only go as far as the statute of limitations allows".... and basically blew me off.

Does anybody know what legal right we have to collect the money back, and if there is indeed a statue of limitations?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give advice.

 

[STEPHAN]

What are we talking about? Give us an idea of what your family was paying per year?

Keep in mind that you signed a contract. Nobody forced you to do that. You could have sorted this out 40 years ago.

The point about statute of limitation is valid also.

 

[justalayman]

Two things/

You will only be able to go back as far as the statute of limitations allows if the RR doesn't willingly go back any further. There are other defenses of equity that would also most likely defeat your claim as well.

Whomever agreed to this originally apparently did nothing to verify the RR statement. That act alone will likely defeat any claim you may have had otherwise.

It would be no different than if I was your neighbor and walked up to you and told you you were encroachig on my land. Yada yada later we have a rental agreement. Discovery later shows no encroachment. I owe you nothing. You had the opportunity and right to verify my claim. You didn't. My mistake and your failure to verify my claim simply means we terminate the contract and move on with life. There's no claim for you to pursue.

 

[bw2013]

Well 40 years ago the "rent" was about $30.00, then $60.00, then up to about $360. last year.
It's not a ton of money unless you consider the whole amount paid over time. Forty + years ago nobody challenged the RR records. It was assumed that they were correct.

So what you both are saying is that since it was never contested we can't legally ask for any of the money back?

 

[Ohiogal]

Well 40 years ago the "rent" was about $30.00, then $60.00, then up to about $360. last year.
It's not a ton of money unless you consider the whole amount paid over time. Forty + years ago nobody challenged the RR records. It was assumed that they were correct.

So what you both are saying is that since it was never contested we can't legally ask for any of the money back?

Your assumption cost you.

 

[justalayman]

So what you both are saying is that since it was never contested we can't legally ask for any of the money back?

basically; yes

and even using $360 as the regular cost, over 40 years that is all of $14,400 (40 years). You would spend a good percentage of that in legal fees to even attempt to reclaim that money.

Then, you have the issue of this being a business. Depending on if the contract was sign by a person or the business and how the business was structured, the business may have to sue or, if an individual signed the contract, unless it was the same person each time, you may have an issue of who would have a right to make any claim and for how much.


Even if the statute of limitations allowed 8 years (I believe the current sol for written contracts although I am not certain this would be the applicable sol but most other possible sol's are shorter), you are talking only $2900.

Then, if you have to travel to Ohio? Geesh, it would cost you money.


This is one of those things you go; well, I guess we should have checked for ourselves and move on.

 

[bw2013]

Thanks for the replies. I don't know if this will matter but the original agreement was signed by my grandfather. Not as the owner of the business, but the owner of the property. The property was then sold to my father, who eventually sold it to me. No other agreements were ever signed with the RR, they just continued to send bills for payment once a year, and the bills were paid.

 

[justalayman]

then you would have the added requirement of proving each subsequent landowner acquired the right to sue based on your grandfather's signature.



It really wouldn't be worth it to bother.

 

[bw2013]

then you would have the added requirement of proving each subsequent landowner acquired the right to sue based on your grandfather's signature.



It really wouldn't be worth it to bother.

I would have to prove each land owner acquired the right to sue?

Can you please tell me what that means?

I didn't sign anything with the RR. I paid their bill which was based on their misinformation.

Am I allowed to declare you owe me something, claiming I have accurate proof, and then put the burden (and expense) on you to prove me wrong? I have no liability here?

Doesn't seem right to me

 

[justalayman]

bw2013;3224284]I would have to prove each land owner acquired the right to sue?

Can you please tell me what that means?

let me try to say this without being to overly verbose (ya, right)


many rights of a landowner are transferred to as subsequent owner of the land through a deed. Not all rights of a person, even though they are a landowner and some contract or such includes land they own transfer to a subsequent owner.

You state this was agreed upon by your grandfather as an individual. I have no way of knowing if the terms of the contract were attached to the deed such that any rights gained in the contract would transfer to subsequent owners of the land. If grandfather is alive and still owns the property, then this is his issue to deal with. If he is deceased and for some reason (as it happens way too often) the title of the property has not been transferred to the proper person, you would have to settle that just to figure out who might have standing to seek repayment.

If g pa is deceased and title properly transferred, then you can look to see if the contractual rights transferred as well. If they did, then the current owner may have standing to seek repayment.

If they didn't, then it becomes a matter of who is the party (on your side of the deal) to the contract and if they may be able to seek repayment for any time they paid the rent.

There are so many variables I don't really want to attempt to go to in depth with that though. Just let it be said that to sue the RR, you will have to prove you have a right to sue for what you are suing for and that could get very difficult and expensive to do.

Am I allowed to declare you owe me something, claiming I have accurate proof, and then put the burden (and expense) on you to prove me wrong?

but you would have the right to dispute the claim. You accepted the claim and then, while you may have a right to seek repayment for some period of time,the statute of limitations precludes you from attempting to seek a refund for years before some specified point.

even without that, there are doctrines of esstoppel that could be used to argue it would not be equitable to demand you be repaid for some long gone issue or that since you accepted the contract was valid without challenge, then you are the one that should suffer.

Doesn't seem right to me

look at it from the other side:

I sent you a bill believing the demand is proper and correct. You paid it without question for 40 years. You then discover you really had no obligation to pay me as you had not right to charge me to rent the land in the contract. Now, am I expected to repay you for YOUR 40 years of error and agreement the contract was valid? It was your error that allowed this to continue regardless of whether it was their error that originally caused it.

It would be inequitable to demand I repaid you for the period you paid me that was essentially based on mutual error.