Pond Riparian and Easement Rights

[PayrollHRGuy]

And, again, that does not matter.

It seems to matter to the OP.

 

[quincy]

It seems to matter to the OP.

PondJamesPond not only indicates his central concern in the question he asked in the title and text of his posts but he also indicates his concern in his username.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

PondJamesPond not only indicates his central concern in the question he asked but also indicates his concern in his username.

And then he went on about the unknown footprints. Which is what was being talked about at the time.

 

[quincy]

And then he went on about the unknown footprints. Which is what was being talked about at the time.

The footprints are what led to his question about what rights his neighbors might have in crossing his yard but the question centers on the pond rights granted the homeowners whose property abuts the pond.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

This thread has been reported for moderator review. It has strayed off topic.

The footprints are what led to his question about what rights his neighbors might have in crossing his yard but the question centers on the pond rights granted the homeowners whose property abuts the pond.

The rights were explained to the OP very early on. He then mentioned why he thought they had been exceeded (the footprints). You kept going on about the rights themselves and blocked the OP from answering a question that might have helped the OP.

 

[quincy]

The rights were explained to the OP very early on. He then mentioned why he thought they had been exceeded (the footprints). You kept going on about the rights themselves and blocked the OP from answering a question that might have helped the OP.

Yes. All was explained early on. Any possible utility easement, however, has nothing at all to do with the rights of neighbors to access the pond. Yes, utility workers could have made the footprints. But that has nothing at all to do with pond access by the neighbors.

 

[not2cleverRed]

full and unlimited riparian and easement rights with respect to that portion of the pond and/or island lying within the boundaries of that owner's lot.

The key here is to find what the demarcation is.

I will assume that this body of water is small enough that the effect of tides is insignificant. I am used to bodies of water where the easement is determined in terms of distance from the median high water mark.

It certainly should not extend tens of feet from the ponds edge: access to the pond does not mean access to the entire lot.

 

[quincy]

The key here is to find what the demarcation is.

I will assume that this body of water is small enough that the effect of tides is insignificant. I am used to bodies of water where the easement is determined in terms of distance from the median high water mark.

It certainly should not extend tens of feet from the ponds edge: access to the pond does not mean access to the entire lot.

It’s a man-made pond.

 

[not2cleverRed]

It’s a man-made pond.

I know. That's why I stated that it's probably smallish.

It is hard to argue that limiting passersby to the 15 ft wide strip of land at water's edge would impede the use of the pond(s) and island(s). The covenant clearly states that "The riparian and easement rights granted herein shall be construed so as to allow the free and unimpeded use of the pond(s) and island(s) by every owner of a lot abutting that pond, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter established." The only condition or limitation I can see in the passage James posted is that everyone needs consent from the other owners in order to do something like erect a pier or floating dock.

I have the impression that the intent of the covenant was to encourage a forgiving attitude towards those just trying to enjoy the pond, so that if someone was having a bit of an adventure with their canoe, for example, they need not worry about being charged with trespassing.

I also think James might be overreacting a little, as there is no proof that this is a pattern of behavior yet. It could just be clueless guests of one of the other owners, in which case James should be thankful that they are not *his* guests - believe me, such people make miserable house guests.

@PondJamesPond , next time you notice such footprints close to your house, follow them. Take note of which other neighbors are affected, and casually discuss your concerns for their privacy. In other words, build a consensus. You may amicably agree to seek an clarification of the conditions and limitations of the covenant.

 

[quincy]

I know. That's why I stated that it's probably smallish.

It is hard to argue that limiting passersby to the 15 ft wide strip of land at water's edge would impede the use of the pond(s) and island(s). The covenant clearly states that "The riparian and easement rights granted herein shall be construed so as to allow the free and unimpeded use of the pond(s) and island(s) by every owner of a lot abutting that pond, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter established." The only condition or limitation I can see in the passage James posted is that everyone needs consent from the other owners in order to do something like erect a pier or floating dock.

I have the impression that the intent of the covenant was to encourage a forgiving attitude towards those just trying to enjoy the pond, so that if someone was having a bit of an adventure with their canoe, for example, they need not worry about being charged with trespassing.

I also think James might be overreacting a little, as there is no proof that this is a pattern of behavior yet. It could just be clueless guests of one of the other owners, in which case James should be thankful that they are not *his* guests - believe me, such people make miserable house guests.

@PondJamesPond , next time you notice such footprints close to your house, follow them. Take note of which other neighbors are affected, and casually discuss your concerns for their privacy. In other words, build a consensus. You may amicably agree to seek an clarification of the conditions and limitations of the covenant.

Of course, if James follows the footprints next time (if there is a next time), he then is doing what he does not want others to do on his property.

There could be other “conditions and limitations” outlined elsewhere.

 

[LdiJ]

Two sets of prints or not, it still easily could have been meter readers.

 

[quincy]

Two sets of prints or not, it still easily could have been meter readers.

Yes. But it doesn’t matter. Learning to whom the footprints belong - meter reader, kid and parent, neighbor, prowler - will not help James understand how far neighbors are entitled to wander from the pond’s edge into the abutting property of neighbors.