Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

[justalayman]

While you argue the plaintiff "missed the boat", I don't think the attorney of record feels quite the same. Otherwise he likely would have filed for a dismissal due to the expiration of the time within the SOLs. Continuing a case that is so clearly determined to be unable to be prosecuted would be an ethics violation on his part. I really suspect there is something you are missing.


I don't understand your statement that you inherited no liability as the road was already damaged. That in itself would not preclude an action against you. It may give some level of defense but it is an issue to be determined by the courts. You can inherit liabilities caused by the actions of a predecessor in title in many situations (think; gas station and contaminated ground due to tank leakage). In addition, what it reasonable is a matter for a court to determine. What you see as reasonable is not necessarily what a court will see as reasonable.

I'm curious as to in what manner did the plaintiff object in 2009. Additionally there are acts that can toll many sol time limits. In addition, if you have made any changes since then, it could provide for new claim

Generally speaking, rarely is anything as simple and cut and dried as you suggest your situation is. The fact the case is moving forward without seeking an dismissal of the suit suggests it isn't as simple as you claim it is. The title insurance company will not want to spend anymore money than is absolutely necessary to defend this action. They are notoriously tight with their money.

 

[Rooty1]

While you argue the plaintiff "missed the boat", I don't think the attorney of record feels quite the same. Otherwise he likely would have filed for a dismissal due to the expiration of the time within the SOLs. Continuing a case that is so clearly determined to be unable to be prosecuted would be an ethics violation on his part. I really suspect there is something you are missing.


I don't understand your statement that you inherited no liability as the road was already damaged. That in itself would not preclude an action against you. It may give some level of defense but it is an issue to be determined by the courts. You can inherit liabilities caused by the actions of a predecessor in title in many situations (think; gas station and contaminated ground due to tank leakage). In addition, what it reasonable is a matter for a court to determine. What you see as reasonable is not necessarily what a court will see as reasonable.

I'm curious as to in what manner did the plaintiff object in 2009. Additionally there are acts that can toll many sol time limits. In addition, if you have made any changes since then, it could provide for new claim

Generally speaking, rarely is anything as simple and cut and dried as you suggest your situation is. The fact the case is moving forward without seeking an dismissal of the suit suggests it isn't as simple as you claim it is. The title insurance company will not want to spend anymore money than is absolutely necessary to defend this action. They are notoriously tight with their money.

I sincerely believe that my attorney - provided by my homeowners insurance companies did, in fact, violate ethics rules. I will know tomorrow after speaking to my adjusters.

The Plaintiff mailed me a letter in 2009 stating my driveway damaged the road. I wrote back stating the road was damaged when I moved here in 2006 and was no worse less normal wear and tear.

Thank you again.

 

[justalayman]

I sincerely believe that my attorney - provided by my homeowners insurance companies did, in fact, violate ethics rules. I will know tomorrow after speaking to my adjusters.

The Plaintiff mailed me a letter in 2009 stating my driveway damaged the road. I wrote back stating the road was damaged when I moved here in 2006 and was no worse less normal wear and tear.

Thank you again.

So how did your driveway damage the road? Being an inanimate object, generally, unless it was made of some substance that was motile and somehow attacked the adjacent road, just how did your driveway damage the road?

And if you can get an actual answer from that question, I suggest you have the basis for a very slow action monster movie.
___________________________________

It's been decades in coming (get it, it's moving that slowly)
Scientists have found no way to stop it
It's wreaked havoc over the several inches it has moved over the last several decades. It's;

The driveway that ate Boise, eventually!!!

__________________________________

Wow have I got to find more activities to do over the weekends.

Anyway, keep us posted. This is an interesting issue.

 

[Rooty1]

So how did your driveway damage the road? Being an inanimate object, generally, unless it was made of some substance that was motile and somehow attacked the adjacent road, just how did your driveway damage the road?

And if you can get an actual answer from that question, I suggest you have the basis for a very slow action monster movie.
___________________________________

It's been decades in coming (get it, it's moving that slowly)
Scientists have found no way to stop it
It's wreaked havoc over the several inches it has moved over the last several decades. It's;

The driveway that ate Boise, eventually!!!

__________________________________

Wow have I got to find more activities to do over the weekends.

Anyway, keep us posted. This is an interesting issue.

The Plaintiff is alleging that I have allowed rain water and melting snow to run down my driveway and on to the road. And that this water/melting snow has damaged the road. I have ditches and culverts to divert the water that are doing the best job they can do.

Every property owner on the uphill side of the road has water that runs down their property and driveways and on to the road but they are not being named as defendants.

My neighbor is a nut job and you are VERY funny!!!

 

[NC Aggie]

The Plaintiff is alleging that I have allowed rain water and melting snow to run down my driveway and on to the road. And that this water/melting snow has damaged the road. I have ditches and culverts to divert the water that are doing the best job they can do.

Every property owner on the uphill side of the road has water that runs down their property and driveways and on to the road but they are not being named as defendants.

My neighbor is a nut job and you are VERY funny!!!

Let me apologize in advance for not reading through everyone post in this thread, I've only read the initial post and your most recent post. But in regards to naturally occurring runoff, legally you would only be liable for damages if #1 Improvements upon your land changed or altered existing drainage patterns that adversely impacted or caused damage to real property or structures AND #2 A plaintiff can PROVE that those improvements and those improvements ALONE caused the damage.

During my previous employment for a local municipality, I investigated and resolved citizen's drainage complaints. For issues that didn't involve runoff from the public right of way, the property owners had to resolve themselves and quite often many of these issues involved their neighbor's runoff. A few of the ones I investigated ended up with one property owner filing lawsuit, but none of them ever resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. These types of cases are difficult and rare to result in a judgment for the plaintiff because property owners seeking relief often fail to prove that they've taken reasonable action to mitigate damage or the impact of naturally occurring runoff.

So is the road in question a private shared roadway?

 

[Rooty1]

Let me apologize in advance for not reading through everyone post in this thread, I've only read the initial post and your most recent post. But in regards to naturally occurring runoff, legally you would only be liable for damages if #1 Improvements upon your land changed or altered existing drainage patterns that adversely impacted or caused damage to real property or structures AND #2 A plaintiff can PROVE that those improvements and those improvements ALONE caused the damage.

During my previous employment for a local municipality, I investigated and resolved citizen's drainage complaints. For issues that didn't involve runoff from the public right of way, the property owners had to resolve themselves and quite often many of these issues involved their neighbor's runoff. A few of the ones I investigated ended up with one property owner filing lawsuit, but none of them ever resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. These types of cases are difficult and rare to result in a judgment for the plaintiff because property owners seeking relief often fail to prove that they've taken reasonable action to mitigate damage or the impact of naturally occurring runoff.

So is the road in question a private shared roadway?

Thank you so much for your post.

I understand that Idaho has imposed a reasonableness requirement upon the Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law.

In general, a neighbor will not be responsible for damage to property caused by runoff from naturally occurring rain and land conditions.

These rules impose liability on any landowner that changes his or her land in a way that changes the natural flow of surface water across the land. But, each landowner is legally privileged to make a “reasonable” use of his land, even though the flow of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to others,

The road is a non-maintained county road. The subdivision dedication states property owners are responsible for road construction and maintenance.

My title insurance exception states I am responsible for an assessment for road maintenance.

But no Road Maintenance Agreement was ever filed so those assessments were not reduced to writing.

Plaintiff does not own the road. My property is located on the side of a mountain. The road was damaged when my predecessor in interest purchased the property nearly 25 years ago and constructed the driveway and home. The driveway is not unreasonable for without it, my property would be useless.

 

[quincy]

Let me apologize in advance for not reading through everyone post in this thread, I've only read the initial post and your most recent post. But in regards to naturally occurring runoff, legally you would only be liable for damages if #1 Improvements upon your land changed or altered existing drainage patterns that adversely impacted or caused damage to real property or structures AND #2 A plaintiff can PROVE that those improvements and those improvements ALONE caused the damage.

It probably would have helped if you had read through the entire thread. This was discussed in depth already.

 

[Rooty1]

It probably would have helped if you had read through the entire thread. This was discussed in depth already.

You are correct Q but it made me feel good just the same to see that someone with experience in this watery area believes the Plaintiff will not prevail.

Carry on soldiers!!!

Rooty

 

[quincy]

You are correct Q but it made me feel good just the same to see that someone with experience in this watery area believes the Plaintiff will not prevail.

Carry on soldiers!!!

Rooty

I am just hoping you understand that NC Aggie apparently based her "belief" on nothing more than a handful of unsubstantiated cases from a municipality in North Carolina (not Idaho) and nothing was presented to support her (questionable) claim that "these types of cases are ... rare to result in a judgment for the plaintiff."

Because NC did not provide supporting evidence for her statements, repeated what was already said previously, and did not take the time to read what you wrote about your situation so was lacking in important facts when she posted, essentially NC Aggie's post only served to make a long thread unnecessarily longer (as does this one of mine ).

 

[Rooty1]

I am just hoping you understand that AC apparently based her "belief" on nothing more than a handful of unsubstantiated cases from a municipality in North Carolina (not Idaho) and nothing was presented to support her (questionable) claim that "these types of cases are ... rare to result in a judgment for the plaintiff."

Because NC did not provide supporting evidence for her statements, repeated what was already said previously, and did not take the time to read what you wrote about your situation so was lacking in important facts when she posted, essentially NC Aggie's post only served to make a long thread unnecessarily longer (as does this one of mine ).

Yes Q, I understand and you are correct. However, you are NEVER unnecessarily long.

 

[quincy]

... However, you are NEVER unnecessarily long.

.. ... ...

 

[Rooty1]

Meanwhile back at the bridge...

Hello legal peeps.

I am trying to find the language from I.C. § 40-133(d)) (1961) and I.C. § 40-104 (1963).

Any suggestions as to where I can look?

Formal Abandonment/Vacation & Validation (County and Combined)

Today:

I.C. §§ 40-203(1), 40-604(4), 40-203A.

History—General Authority:

Rev. Stat. of Idaho Terr. § 870 (1887).

I.C. Ann. § 1145 (1901).

I.C. Ann. § 882 (1908).

1 Compiled Stat. § 1312 (1919).

I.C. Ann. § 39-401 (1932).

I.C. § 39-401 (1943).

I.C. § 40-501(1948).

— break in history —

Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 82 (1950).

Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 93 (1951).

I.C. § 40-133(d)) (1961).

— break in history —

I.C. § 40-604(4) (1985).

I.C. § 40-604(4) (1993).

History—Specific Procedures:

I.C. § 40-104 (1963).

I.C. § 40-203(1) (1986).

I.C. § 40-203(1) (1993).

Rooty says, "Thanks!"

 

[TheGeekess]

Google Scholar.

 

[Rooty1]

I.c. § 40-104 (1963)

Thank you.

I see two search options:

1) Articles

2) Case law

Neither option are giving me the original text from I.C. § 40-104 (1963).

Am I doing something wrong?

 

[Rooty1]

Leased Real Property

Thanks so much. I still have a problem believing that roads and bridge are not part and parcel of real property and that the County can create a "parcel for just a bridge."

Your previous statement that, "Unless this is a hovering bridge, it involves real property. Somebody owns that property." makes the most sense.

Your input is greatly appreciated. It is people like you that help people like me sleep at night.

UPDATE:

Company A has leased the bridge to Company B.

The county assessor has created a parcel and assigned a parcel number to the bridge stating he is treating it as leased real property.

No real property is involved.

Any guesses on how that is possible?

Thanks, Rooty