Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

[Rooty1]

'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

Why the current questions about rainwater, Rooty?


(I have always liked your evil laugh, justalayman. )

I too like justalayman's evil laugh.

A kooky neighbor wants to sue saying the rainwater from my driveway has ruined the county road. CC&Rs speak to property owners maintaining the road but no Mtc. Agree. was ever filed with the county.

Never mind the fact she does not own the road, hence no standing.

Then she wants to sue for damaging her auto and body. There are 6 other property owners on the uphill side of the road whose water also runs on the road but she is not going to sue them. She too allows water to run down the road. It's personal.

 

[justalayman]

The riverbed is owned by a private individual. The bank above the high water line is owned by the county. The road before and after the bridge is a non-maintained county road.

Repeated inquiries to the county have been ignored. Now they say they are going to create a parcel for the bridge ONLY.

You said the county has an easement. If true, somebody is the servient tenant and owns the servient tenement.

 

[Rooty1]

Keys v. Romley

Quincy, after reading Keys v. Romley I will venture to guess that my neighbor is toast. Since she does not own the property upon which her claim rests (she wants me to spend 50K to repair the entire 1-mile long road) I doubt the court will determine she has standing. Her property line starts at the end of the road in question; I own up to her gate.

She may try for damages to her vehicle and person but as long as my umbrella policy holds, I think I am good.

Quincy is the bomb!

 

[Rooty1]

Reply to thread 'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

You said the county has an easement. If true, somebody is the servient tenant and owns the servient tenement.

The County ROW exists due to a circa 1910 wagon road constructed by the County with state funds. I cannot find anything to suggest the County ever abandoned their easement. At best, they tried to abandon the bridge structure (which is false) but never the ROW.

In an attempt to get it out of their hair, the county plans to create a parcel for the bridge only. Seriously!!!

 

[justalayman]

How would this action get it out of their hair? If anything it would do just the opposite at least unless they are giving the parcel to the underlying landowner and relinquishing all rights to the bridge.

 

[Rooty1]

Reply to thread 'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

How would this action get it out of their hair? If anything it would do just the opposite at least unless they are giving the parcel to the underlying landowner and relinquishing all rights to the bridge.

I believe the County is trying to hide the fact that they never abandoned the ROW - many hours of research at the Records Office yielded nothing.

When they abandoned the bridge structure only in the 1960s, they claimed they were doing so because the bridge had been abandoned by the public for 5-years. I have photos that prove otherwise.

The newly filed quitclaim deed to the bridge by the Assoc. has no predecessor in interest. First, the assessor said the person who owns the riverbed was going to deed the riverbed; now he is saying that will not happen and he plans to create a parcel based on the description of the bridge in the quitclaim deed. This deed speaks only to the bridge - no real property is involved.

Once this happens, the County can say the Bridge Assoc. owns the bridge (although not true) hoping questions as to ownership will go away. I told the assessor roads and bridges part and parcel of real property (which he obviously knows) and asked him to explain how he could create a parcel for just the bridge. He would not answer me. I know this sounds crazy but it's true.

 

[Rooty1]

'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

You said the county has an easement. If true, somebody is the servient tenant and owns the servient tenement.

The servient tenant is the riverbed owner; the dominant tenement is the county.

 

[justalayman]

A bridge assoc. was formed and tried to force everyone to join - that went over like a lead balloon. So, the entity that built the bridge in the 1960s (on what looks like a county easement) gave the assoc. a quitclaim deed to the bridge only.

Now the county plans to create a parcel based on the quitclaim deed description which is the bridge ONLY.

I say the county is full of bologna.

Anybody can quitclaim their interest in anything to another party. Executing a quitclaim doesn't mean you own it nor does it mean you necessarily have an interest in it. It simply means you are relinquishing any current interest you may have in the property to whomever is the grantee.

The state cannot create an Parcel including only the bridge because it in itself is not real estate. It is a fixture that becomes part of the land it sets upon in most cases BUT not necessarily. It can remain a privately owned construct just as a house can actually remain a separate entity from the land it sets upon.

So run through this once more if you will. Here is what I understand things to be;

There was a bridge, state or county owned. It fell into disrepair. It was razed and a footbridge was built.

Now here is where I get lost. Was there another vehicle bridge built and if so, who built it?

 

[Rooty1]

Who owns the bridge?

Anybody can quitclaim their interest in anything to another party. Executing a quitclaim doesn't mean you own it nor does it mean you necessarily have an interest in it. It simply means you are relinquishing any current interest you may have in the property to whomever is the grantee.

The state cannot create an Parcel including only the bridge because it in itself is not real estate. It is a fixture that becomes part of the land it sets upon in most cases BUT not necessarily. It can remain a privately owned construct just as a house can actually remain a separate entity from the land it sets upon.

So run through this once more if you will. Here is what I understand things to be;

There was a bridge, state or county owned. It fell into disrepair. It was razed and a footbridge was built.

Now here is where I get lost. Was there another vehicle bridge built and if so, who built it?

Sorry Justy, I thought I answered your question but clearly I did not.

1. The County traffic bridge washed away and replaced by a footbridge.

2. The County abandoned the footbridge claiming it had been abandoned by the public - not true. No evidence exists that they abandoned their ROW.

3. Shortly after the County abandoned the bridge structure, a private corporation removed the footbridge and constructed a traffic bridge. This corporation never owned the real property.

4. This same corporation just gave a quitclaim deed for the bridge only to a newly formed bridge assoc.

5. The County plans to create a parcel for the bridge only; no real property involved.

How can I determine if the bridge can now become a privately owned construct and remain a separate entity from the land it sets upon if A) the County improperly abandoned the bridge structure and B) the County never abandoned their ROW?

THANK YOU!!!

 

[justalayman]

Actually you probably had answered the questions I asked but as a thread grows, it becomes more difficult to find the answers. This just made it simple and clear.

Just because a bridge sets upon a public row does not mean the state owns it. As long as the owner of the property allowed the bridge to be built and it did not interfere with the state's rights (or they didn't object), a private bridge can be built.

So, unless the owner of the underlying land objects to the situation and the activities leading up to today, so far I don't see anything wrong other than this (paraphrased) "creating a parcel of only the bridge but no underlying real estate". It may be as simple as I am misinterpreting the term used to be more those involved are. To me, a parcel in land situations is basically a plot of land that can be assigned a tax id number. A bridge seperate from land is personal property and as such, would not have a tax id.

The bridge can remain privately owned. In fact, unless the state accepts the dedication of the bridge to the state it does remain privately owned. Often times a state will not accept the dedication of a roadway or structure unless it meets the state's construction requirements. Just because the state may have a row doesnt mean they must provide a bridge to connect the two sides of the waterway. Whether they abandoned the row is also irrelevant unless the state wishes to place a bridge on the row connecting the two sides of the waterway. You would have a legal right to use the public row on either side of the bridge but unless the state accepts the dedication of the bridge it would remain private property and under the control of the owner.

 

[Rooty1]

Who owns the bridge?

Actually you probably had answered the questions I asked but as a thread grows, it becomes more difficult to find the answers. This just made it simple and clear.

Just because a bridge sets upon a public row does not mean the state owns it. As long as the owner of the property allowed the bridge to be built and it did not interfere with the state's rights (or they didn't object), a private bridge can be built.

So, unless the owner of the underlying land objects to the situation and the activities leading up to today, so far I don't see anything wrong other than this (paraphrased) "creating a parcel of only the bridge but no underlying real estate". It may be as simple as I am misinterpreting the term used to be more those involved are. To me, a parcel in land situations is basically a plot of land that can be assigned a tax id number. A bridge seperate from land is personal property and as such, would not have a tax id.

The bridge can remain privately owned. In fact, unless the state accepts the dedication of the bridge to the state it does remain privately owned. Often times a state will not accept the dedication of a roadway or structure unless it meets the state's construction requirements. Just because the state may have a row doesnt mean they must provide a bridge to connect the two sides of the waterway. Whether they abandoned the row is also irrelevant unless the state wishes to place a bridge on the row connecting the two sides of the waterway. You would have a legal right to use the public row on either side of the bridge but unless the state accepts the dedication of the bridge it would remain private property and under the control of the owner.

Thank you so much!

One more questions if I may:

If the County did not properly abandon their dedicated bridge (they said it had been abandoned by the public for 5-years - yet I have photos showing otherwise) can a case now be made that they still own it despite the fact they allowed the footbridge to be removed and replaced by a private corporation?

 

[justalayman]

the bridge they own is probably somewhere in a landfill. They don't get to claim ownership of the bridge somebody else built simply based on its location is the same as where the footbridge was.

 

[Rooty1]

the bridge they own is probably somewhere in a landfill. They don't get to claim ownership of the bridge somebody else built simply based on its location is the same as where the footbridge was.

Okie dokie, thank you so very much.

Rooty

 

[Rooty1]

Who ownse bridge?

the bridge they own is probably somewhere in a landfill. They don't get to claim ownership of the bridge somebody else built simply based on its location is the same as where the footbridge was.

Forgot to ask ... since a quitclaim deed is a legal instrument which is used to transfer interest in REAL PROPERTY, why do you suppose it was used as opposed to say, a Bill of Sale or something else?

 

[justalayman]

Merely a guess but maybe either they simply used the wrong document or maybe they believe the association with the land takes it into a real property issue or its the best thing they could come up with to indicate relinquishing any held interest to another party.

They wouldn't use a bill of sale because from what you stated so far, there was no sale. Ultimately a letter stating they were relinquishing any claim to the bridge in favor of the county would fill the bill which in its most basic sense, what a quit claim deed actually is.