ROW Usage & Liability

[Mrs Bridges]

What is the name of your state? Maine

My neighbors sold their home, and now I have a new neighbor. She is not living there full-time yet. Her property used to be part of my family's property (which is now my property). In 1967, my parents sold this parcel to family friends, and at the same time created an easement over my homestead lot to benefit this parcel, which reads,

"Also granting a right of way to the wharf on the shore of the Kennebec River for the purpose of ingress or egress to the wharf to maintain a float, over other land of the Grantors (more particulary described as Lot 9, Map 42, Wharf Area.....etc."

Our old neighbors moved, taking their boat, but selling their float and ramp with the house. It is still attached to my wharf. My new neighbor does not have a boat. Reportedly, she is not particularly interested in the ROW to the river aspect of this property, but purchased it because it is close to town.

Evidently, the lone float with no boat has been enticing to a number of pre-teen boys from the town who have discovered it. They have been swimming there recently, jumping off the float into the water. I went down and asked who they were, and inquired could they all swim. I cautioned them about walking around barefoot on my land, as my husband built our float there recently, and there could be a stray nail. I also cautioned them about going near the demo wood pile of the old float. Then I went up to my new neighbor's house and introduced myself and exchanged a few pleasantries. She said that she does not get too upset about kids playing on her property because they have short attention spans, and soon they are off doing something else.

My other neighbor who is on the river side, like we are, saw the boys the other day when I was away. He said they were "playing chicken" and swimming underneath the float, and seeing who could stay underwater longest. The river does have a strong current, and many years ago my neighbor had the sad task of pulling two drowned boys out of the water there in the cove. So he went out and told them it was private property, and that they had better leave. That was about a week ago, and as far as I know, they have not been back.

When my parents originally granted the right of way in 1967, the intent was ingress or egress for boating access. Is my new neighbor allowed to give permission to whomever for swimming off her float? If someone should drown, am I liable? In the past, counsel has told me that as long as I don't have something negligent on my property, such as an open well, that I really don't have to be overly concerned. I am certainly not the only waterfront property owner, and anyone could gain access to river over any number of properties and drown.

Next question. Currently, my neighbor does not have a boat. Is she allowed to give permission to a third party to tie up to her float, and cross my land? My understanding is that the ROW is supposed to be for the benefit of her property. So if someone were visiting her, and they came by boat to do it, and were her guests -- then okay. But, otherwise, it would be overburdening the easement.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state? Maine

My neighbors sold their home, and now I have a new neighbor. She is not living there full-time yet. Her property used to be part of my family's property (which is now my property). In 1967, my parents sold this parcel to family friends, and at the same time created an easement over my homestead lot to benefit this parcel, which reads,

"Also granting a right of way to the wharf on the shore of the Kennebec River for the purpose of ingress or egress to the wharf to maintain a float, over other land of the Grantors (more particulary described as Lot 9, Map 42, Wharf Area.....etc."

Our old neighbors moved, taking their boat, but selling their float and ramp with the house. It is still attached to my wharf. My new neighbor does not have a boat. Reportedly, she is not particularly interested in the ROW to the river aspect of this property, but purchased it because it is close to town.

Evidently, the lone float with no boat has been enticing to a number of pre-teen boys from the town who have discovered it. They have been swimming there recently, jumping off the float into the water. I went down and asked who they were, and inquired could they all swim. I cautioned them about walking around barefoot on my land, as my husband built our float there recently, and there could be a stray nail. I also cautioned them about going near the demo wood pile of the old float. Then I went up to my new neighbor's house and introduced myself and exchanged a few pleasantries. She said that she does not get too upset about kids playing on her property because they have short attention spans, and soon they are off doing something else.

My other neighbor who is on the river side, like we are, saw the boys the other day when I was away. He said they were "playing chicken" and swimming underneath the float, and seeing who could stay underwater longest. The river does have a strong current, and many years ago my neighbor had the sad task of pulling two drowned boys out of the water there in the cove. So he went out and told them it was private property, and that they had better leave. That was about a week ago, and as far as I know, they have not been back.

When my parents originally granted the right of way in 1967, the intent was ingress or egress for boating access. Is my new neighbor allowed to give permission to whomever for swimming off her float? If someone should drown, am I liable? In the past, counsel has told me that as long as I don't have something negligent on my property, such as an open well, that I really don't have to be overly concerned. I am certainly not the only waterfront property owner, and anyone could gain access to river over any number of properties and drown.

Next question. Currently, my neighbor does not have a boat. Is she allowed to give permission to a third party to tie up to her float, and cross my land? My understanding is that the ROW is supposed to be for the benefit of her property. So if someone were visiting her, and they came by boat to do it, and were her guests -- then okay. But, otherwise, it would be overburdening the easement.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

**A: read your recorded ROW/easement document.

 

[seniorjudge]

When my parents originally granted the right of way in 1967, the intent was ingress or egress for boating access.

How do you know this?

 

[Mrs Bridges]

**A: read your recorded ROW/easement document.

I can certainly read the recorded ROW/easement document, which I quoted in my post, and I can take a stab at interpreting it. My interpretation is that the ROW is to be used for ingress and egress and not for swimming or other recreation. Also, the ROW tells me nothing of possible liability if somebody drowns, and that was another question I had.

 

[seniorjudge]

Anybody can sue anyone else for anything at any time any where.

Buy liability insurance and lots of us.

None of us here can tell you what a court may or may not do.

 

[Mrs Bridges]

When my parents originally granted the right of way in 1967, the intent was ingress or egress for boating access.

How do you know this?

Because my dad told me this on many occasions before he died. My mother, who is still living, tells me this as well, and she has made a notarized statement detailing the ROW and its intended usage, which includes this fact, among others.

When I was a teenager, and first heard about the ROW, and did not understand its concept, I asked my dad, "Why didn't you just sell them the land?" He replied, "Because I want to retain control of how this land is used, what's done on it, and what happens to it."

My dad was a co-worker of the woman who bought the property with her husband. They were looking for "waterfront" property so they could moor their small boat. Our families had been friends for years. The property was not already "for sale", but when my dad learned that they were actively seeking waterfront, he asked them if they would be interested in buying a corner acre off him & my mom, with a ROW to the water, and they could attach a float to our wharf.

That's how I know.

 

[seniorjudge]

What you, me, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and my favorite rabbi think about this ROW (even if we put it into a statement notarized by Bill Clinton and George Bush) is 100% irrelevant.

Now, if you will tell us EXACTLY what the ROW says, then we can have an intelligent discussion.


"Also granting a right of way to the wharf on the shore of the Kennebec River for the purpose of ingress or egress to the wharf to maintain a float, over other land of the Grantors (more particulary described as Lot 9, Map 42, Wharf Area.....etc."

If that is what the easement says and nothing else, then it is pretty broad.

 

[Mrs Bridges]

What you, me, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and my favorite rabbi think about this ROW (even if we put it into a statement notarized by Bill Clinton and George Bush) is 100% irrelevant.

Irrelevant because the members of the illustrious group mentioned above are not one of the original grantors, and my mother is. I have read that when ROW cases come to Court, one of the considerations given is the original intent of the grantor(s). Often, these people are long dead, and so then it is incumbent upon the lawyers to try to build a case for what the grantors had in mind, inferred from various evidence. Being that my mother is an original grantor, and still alive, I would think that a Court would be very interested in what she has to say about it.

 

[seniorjudge]

Irrelevant because the members of the illustrious group mentioned above are not one of the original grantors, and my mother is. I have read that when ROW cases come to Court, one of the considerations given is the original intent of the grantor(s). Often, these people are long dead, and so then it is incumbent upon the lawyers to try to build a case for what the grantors had in mind, inferred from various evidence. Being that my mother is an original grantor, and still alive, I would think that a Court would be very interested in what she has to say about it.

One more time.

All that stuff is irrelevant.

Only what ma put in the original document is relevant.

Good luck and keep in touch.

Bye.