Association Formed with No Warranty Deed

[justalayman]

I can get a copy of your warranty deed by going to the county registers office and paying for a copy. They are a matter of public record and as such, viewable by anybody. I wouldn't provide them with anythng but just be aware, they do have access to your deed.

 

[Rooty1]

I can get a copy of your warranty deed by going to the county registers office and paying for a copy. They are a matter of public record and as such, viewable by anybody. I wouldn't provide them with anythng but just be aware, they do have access to your deed.

Thanks, this new association also wants everyone to sign an agreement allowing them to change our CC&Rs and the provisions state that if a member does not pay their (unspecified - no less) dues or fees, they can lien your property and file for foreclosure. So, not only will I not be giving them a copy of my warranty deed, I will not be signing their absurd agreement to join.

 

[Rooty1]

Update - County Owned Bridge and Still Owns Land

Thanks, this new association also wants everyone to sign an agreement allowing them to change our CC&Rs and the provisions state that if a member does not pay their (unspecified - no less) dues or fees, they can lien your property and file for foreclosure. So, not only will I not be giving them a copy of my warranty deed, I will not be signing their absurd agreement to join.

The county just admitted they constructed a bridge at subject location and provided a copy of their commissioner's meeting minutes circa 1966 showing they voted to abandoned it. However, the minutes state, "the public abandoned" the bridge and that it why the county did the same. The problem is there were people living on the west side of the river who needed the bridge - that explains why a swinging foot bridge was built for them.

I.C. 40-203 sets very specific steps the county should have taken to properly abandon their bridge. Does the county have an obligation to prove they followed the law?

Also, the bridge abutments still sit on a county easement - not private property. When a private individual used the county's abutments to construct a new bridge in the late 1960's, the county never deeded that section of land to them.

Since the bridge is owned by the entity who owns the land up which it sits, is it fair to say the county still owns the bridge?

THANK YOU!

 

[FlyingRon]

Again, we can't see the deeds and other actions. You'll need at the minimum a title search and probably a real estate attorney if you need to pursue some action.

 

[Rooty1]

Again, we can't see the deeds and other actions. You'll need at the minimum a title search and probably a real estate attorney if you need to pursue some action.

Okie dokie, thank you so much. One more question if I may. How can one determine the date a statute took effect?

 

[FlyingRon]

Go to a decent library (like one affiliated with a university, possibly one with a law school) and look for access (either print or online) to the "annotated" version of the state statutes. They'll typically include information such as you are looking for.

 

[Rooty1]

Go to a decent library (like one affiliated with a university, possibly one with a law school) and look for access (either print or online) to the "annotated" version of the state statutes. They'll typically include information such as you are looking for.

Will do - thank you!

 

[Rooty1]

Part of the problem is you lack being able to answer pertinent questions. Until you do some real research and get some real answers anything offered is nothing more than speculative.

Let me toss out a few things to try to help.

If the waterway is navigable the public has a right to travel upon it.

The owners of any land have a right to control their land and deny trespass.

unless there is some right of way or easement to access the bridge the owner of the land it rests upon has effectively control of the bridge even if they are not the actual owners of the bridge BUT based on laws regarding fixtures and chattel unless it is a mobile bridge or some other contractual relationship affecting the matter, ownership of the bridge belongs to the owner of the land which it sets upon.

The only issue at that point is whether the owner of the land underlying the waterway can enforce a right to prevent trespass on (over) their land. The law used to consider the land to the center of the earth to the heights of heaven above as belonging to the owner of the land. That has been trimmed a bit to limit the airspace to that which a person can reasonably use. Given the bridge is likely to be a matter of feet above the land, technically the owner of the land under the waterway could in fact enforce a right of control on traffic on the bridge (although the right of travel upon a navigable waterway slaps the rights to airspace above one's land in the face and might afford an argument to deny the troll the right to control travel upon the bridge. That is a question that would require research.)

What is likely to be quite important to the issue is the history of the bridge and involved lands. Knowledge in that area may provide a relatively simple answer to most all questions of the matter. That is where your lack of knowledge prevents any substantive answers to be offered.

Since last posting, the county assigned a parcel number to the bridge hanging in the air (no real property involved.) The real property below the bridge is privately owned and is not navigable.

The newly formed Bridge Association sued the county and unknown defendants to quiet title but failed to name the owner of the real property under the bridge despite knowing his name. The judge granted that request.

The bridge association now owes state and federal income taxes.

Are property owners who paid for bridge repairs but did not join the bridge association liable for these taxes?

Are property owners who paid for bridge repairs but did not join the bridge association liable for insurance coverage?

Are property owners who paid for the bridge repairs but did not join the bridge association liable for the associations attorney retainer fees?

Thank you, Rooty

 

[adjusterjack]

As always, answers to those kinds of questions depend on the terms and conditions of any documents that created the association.

The association's attorney would be in the best position to study the documents and answer the questions.

 

[Rooty1]

The associations documents do not contain any terms and conditions with regard to federal and state income taxes, insurance, or attorney fees. Without a signed contract, how would it be possible for the association to hold non-association members liable for these expenses?

 

[quincy]

The associations documents do not contain any terms and conditions with regard to federal and state income taxes, insurance, or attorney fees. Without a signed contract, how would it be possible for the association to hold non-association members liable for these expenses?

It is nice to see you back again, Rooty1. It appears you have made a little bit of progress with the bridge since your first thread in 2016 and your last thread in 2019.

Am I correct in understanding that the Association is expecting you and the other non-Association property owners to pay property taxes and insurance on the bridge?

 

[Rooty1]

Hi Quincy! Yes, you are correct. The bridge association is expecting all non-association property owners to pay 1) property taxes, 2) state and federal income taxes, 3) insurance, and 4) their attorney retainer fee.

All property owners paid their fair share to repair the bridge (we were told would be sued and not allowed to use the bridge unless we paid.) That was fine, but now we are really going down the rabbit hole.

 

[adjusterjack]

The associations documents do not contain any terms and conditions with regard to federal and state income taxes, insurance, or attorney fees. Without a signed contract, how would it be possible for the association to hold non-association members liable for these expenses?

I don't know. I haven't read the documents, nor do I have any idea what those people may have obligated themselves to when they created the association.

 

[quincy]

For a look at this problematic bridge and the HOA trying to get non-association property owners to pay for it, and additional issues with the properties and bridge (including ownership issues), here are links to some of the background information:

https://forum.FreeAdvice.com/threads/rainwater-natural-flow-theory-civil-law.629458/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/payment-under-duress.628001/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/cause-of-action.627957/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/did-county-commissioners-properly-abandon-bridge.626069/

There are a few other related threads not included here.

Rooty1, I can see how you and the other non-Association property owners could be responsible for paying maintenance fees but I seriously question how the HOA can expect you to pay taxes or insurance on (what they are claiming is) their bridge.

You should have an easement of necessity because your property would be landlocked without use of the bridge.

 

[Rooty1]

For a look at this problematic bridge and the HOA trying to get non-association property owners to pay for it, and additional issues with the properties and bridge (including ownership issues), here are links to some of the background information:

https://forum.FreeAdvice.com/threads/rainwater-natural-flow-theory-civil-law.629458/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/payment-under-duress.628001/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/cause-of-action.627957/

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/did-county-commissioners-properly-abandon-bridge.626069/

There are a few other related threads not included here.

Rooty1, I can see how you and the other non-Association property owners could be responsible for paying maintenance fees but I seriously question how the HOA can expect you to pay taxes or insurance on (what they are claiming is) their bridge.

You should have an easement of necessity because your property would be landlocked without use of the bridge.

Thank you Quincy, I shall explore your links.

In Idaho, we have:

Implied Easement by Strict Necessity
If there is no road at all to the landlocked property then an easement may be implied by strict necessity. Under this doctrine, an easement exists if there was “(1) unity of title and subsequent separation of the dominant and servient estates; (2) necessity of the easement at the time of severance; and (3) great present necessity for the easement.”9 The requirement of “great present necessity” means there is no other legal access to the landlocked property. Usually this involves proof that there are no other roads leading to the property, but it can also be proven where an existing road that serves one part of the property is incapable of serving other parts of the property due to topography.

Since the person that owns the riverbed as private property located under the bridge, that person alone still owns the bridge ... despite the quit claim deed for the bridge only (from the people who simply constructed the current bridge to the bridge association) ... assessment number assigned to the bridge only ... and the quiet title hocus-pocus court action. The bridge sits on this persons real property so he therefore owns the bridge unless HE provides a quit claim deed.

Under my theory as related to the current legal owner v. the Easement by Necessity doctrine, the unity of title and subsequent separation of the dominant and servient estates would date back to the time the current owners ancestors purchased the riverbed in the 1800s. The state owned the land, the county built the original bridge, and the ancestors purchased the riverbed from the state.

Untangling that can of worms in a court of law would be a nightmare I'd rather not undertake.

I'll read your links to see if I can glean any useful information prior to deciding how to proceed but, like you, do not believe non-association members are liable for these associations expenses.

Thank you again,

Rooty