Middle of the road survey - creating landlocked?

[Mrs.Mccray]

The seller owned 98ac in WV, boarderig river. He sold a far SW waterfront piece 3ac to Rob (survey went from middle of river to middle of walking trail - E to W). Soon after, he sold us the waterfront piece just N of Rob, w same survey boundary lines. Me and Rob are good neighbors. We built a nice road along the trail to access our properties and brought utilities in. Now seller wants to sell us neighbor Rob and I the properties contiguous to our own on other side of road/trail, with survey of those lots going to the middle of trail/road. Now, wouldn’t I be landlocking Rob? And the seller still has a few waterfront acres south or Rob. But if Rob and I bought the land on the other side of road, wouldn’t that landlock the sellers most southern piece? Is an easement required for seller if he can go around another way, way up the mountain across his other 50+ acres to get to his remaining southernmost waterfront piece? Re: Rob, he would have no other access if I bought across the road. My q is: when surveys go to middle of road and you own both sides, is easement to other owners required if they have other routes to access?

 

[xylene]

You don't need to solve Rob's problem, even if you are a good neighbor.

If you like, you should approach Rob with a deal for a fair value of the easement.

Get a lawyer and surveyor involved and be sure Rob pays for that.

 

[LdiJ]

You don't need to solve Rob's problem, even if you are a good neighbor.

If you like, you should approach Rob with a deal for a fair value of the easement.

Get a lawyer and surveyor involved and be sure Rob pays for that.

I actually think that the seller would be responsible to provide Rob with an easement, since the seller sold the land to Rob in the first place and cannot landlock him by selling another piece of the acreage. Same things with the acres south of Rob, the seller would have to grant easements before selling the property so that those easements passed to the next owner.

 

[xylene]

I actually think that the seller would be responsible to provide Rob with an easement, since the seller sold the land to Rob in the first place and cannot landlock him by selling another piece of the acreage. Same things with the acres south of Rob, the seller would have to grant easements before selling the property so that those easements passed to the next owner.

That's still Rob's problem.
As I understood it the only easement is over the OP's already owned property.

A map or schematic would help make sense of the issues.

 

[HRZ]

IT is NOT your legal or moral duty to educate the seller ! Do some serious more homework as to deeds, access, surveys et al in SILENCE .if the seller proposes a dumb deal for him you might be smart to lock up the deal and require specific performance ...then you discuss ways to improve things . I simply do not know if the law prohibits a seller from landlocking himself in your state ...do you?

In the example you post..you want paid counsel to hold your hand ...note the time and place to make assumptions .
.

 

[Mrs.Mccray]

That's still Rob's problem.
As I understood it the only easement is over the OP's already owned property.

A map or schematic would help make sense of the issues.

 

[Mrs.Mccray]

I can’t post a pic. It only allows an http link.

 

[Mrs.Mccray]

IT is NOT your legal or moral duty to educate the seller ! Do some serious more homework as to deeds, access, surveys et al in SILENCE .if the seller proposes a dumb deal for him you might be smart to lock up the deal and require specific performance ...then you discuss ways to improve things . I simply do not know if the law prohibits a seller from landlocking himself in your state ...do you?

In the example you post..you want paid counsel to hold your hand ...note the time and place to make assumptions .
.

He wouldn’t be completely landlocking himself as he owns steep hillside property on east that he could traverse to access the far end of his small existing piece south of Rob. But rob and I paid (split cost) over 25k to build the road, bring in utilities, grade and gravel, erosion control, etc. because our pieces are a good 4000 feet from what was the sellers end of road (he was the dead end.. until we extended road through sellers property to access ours. Outside city limits. Not a state or county maintained road. We are now the dead end and there is no sellable properties beyond us. (Too steep for dwelling and wouldn’t qualify for septic, so no new owners would be interested) so we hope to get the land across the new road from us for a song.
The seller just continually invades our existing space with his side by side. If it’s not a true landlock to seller unless we bought across the road to his E boarder, but that’s more acres than we want. I do believe Rob would be truely landlocked though.. as he is end of the road and would need to go through our property... or get easement from seller and build a new going up and over the treaterous hillside.
It just seems really odd to use the middle of road as property survey boundaries, especially when the other side of the road sells to contiguous owners like ourselves... closing off any passageway through our property. Esp if we had the parcels merged to one, to qualify for land/farm use tax reduction

 

[HRZ]

IF the seller has other access points then he is not landlocked ...and I doubt the law requires the other access points to be convenient just that he has them

I know there are issues in my state that if one owns both sides of a road AND the road itself that the properties are considered merged ...but I have no clue about your state.

GIven that you may gain significant tax savings by merger and you may have less traffic I suggest you would be far smarter to get legal counsel to review all the relevant issues and then try to lock up the deal along terms you seek ...in great care NOT to educate seller .

I have seen undevelopable lots suddenly become developable with closed or above ground septic ...and if others have passage rights over the road you improved you would be unwise not to close off that prospect .