Who owns the bridge?

[Rooty1]

I think you are smart to head to the county. Most record searches will not be done for you by the county (or city/township/agency/whatever), even for a fee, unless the search has been narrowed and defined sufficiently. Your search parameters, in other words, are probably too large.

A search firm can cut down the time for you to find what you want, but it can get costly. That said, I agree with tranquility that records searches of any kind can often be time-consuming and tedious. Good luck.

Thank you so much!

 

[quincy]

Thank you so much!

You're welcome, Rooty1. Good luck.

 

[Rooty1]

You're welcome, Rooty1. Good luck.

Hi Quincy, update and question:

The court granted quiet title to the private organization that formed the new bridge association. Now I drive from a public road, on to a private bridge (posted with no trespassing signs) and back on to a county road to get to my home.

Real property or real estate consists of:

1. Lands, possessory rights to land, ditch and water rights, and mining claims, both lode and placer.
2. That which is affixed to land.
3. That which is appurtenant to land.

The bridge is considered a fixture (and improvement) affixed to the land.

Improvements are real property regardless of whether or not such improvements are owned separately from the ownership of the land upon or to which the same may be erected, affixed, or attached.

So, despite the riverbed being privately owned by another, it looks like the bridge association now owns the bridge as a matter of law.

Have I got that right?

As such, I am now landlocked. But, the county says I am not landlocked because the bridge association's assessments are "reasonable."

However, I.C. § 40-203(2) in unambiguous, “No highway or public right-of-way or parts thereof shall be abandoned and vacated so as to leave any real property adjoining the highway or public right-of-way without access to an established highway or public right-of-way.”

So, the county is full of bologna - correct?

Thanks!

Rooty

 

[justalayman]

Hey rooty1. Sorry to hear about your continued frustrations.

A couple points (and bear with me as I don’t recall all of the specifics).

The excerpt of statute you posted is completed with the following.

The burden of proof shall be on the impacted property owner to establish this fact.

When was the property abandoned? If no impacted landowner objected, the abandonment could go forward. Do you know if anybody objected to the abandonment at the time it was being dealt with?

If nobody objected then, the abandonment issue is beyond objection now.

I presume nobody argued against the coa’s claim of ownership of the land. If not, then that too is pretty much a done deal.


Given you have already argued the point of being charged to be able to access your property, other than attempting to argue that actually In court, I think you’ve lost. I suspect you would lose an objection in court as well as when there is an easement, a dominant tenant is responsible for the costs to maintain said easement. If it is a shared easement the costs are shared among the dominant tenants. Unless the fees charged are actually unreasonable, I see the fee as nothing more than paying the costs to maintain the bridge.

 

[Rooty1]

Thank you justalayman, I just wanted to confirm that a bridge is, in fact, considered a fixture (and improvement) affixed to the land. Not private property.

At this point, an Easement by Necessity may be my only option.

Thanks again!

Rooty

 

[quincy]

Thank you justalayman, I just wanted to confirm that a bridge is, in fact, considered a fixture (and improvement) affixed to the land. Not private property.

At this point, an Easement by Necessity may be my only option.

Thanks again!

Rooty

Hi, Rooty.

I believe you want an easement by implication rather than an easement by necessity.

You can check on this link, a Utah government site on property rights, easements:
https://propertyrights.utah.gov/easements/

Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

Thank you justalayman, I just wanted to confirm that a bridge is, in fact, considered a fixture (and improvement) affixed to the land. Not private property.

At this point, an Easement by Necessity may be my only option.

Thanks again!

Rooty

Do you mean for the formality of it? My understanding is that you are allowed to use the bridge if you pay some specified fee.

As to categorizing the bridge.

Real estate is generally considered to be the land and all permanent fixtures upon the land. Constructs on the land can be owned separately from the land it sets upon.

As an example: a friend owns a lake cottage. They lease the land beneath the cottage. For taxation purposes the cottage is considered real estate but the cottage is taxed to the owner while the underlying land is taxed to the owner of record.


I believe you meant to ask if the bridge is a fixture upon real estate or PERSONAL property.

Due to the permanency of the construct it would be considered to be real estate for most purposes.

But even that doesn’t always mean everything. In some states with a mobile home, the only difference between it remaining personal property (when placed on commonly owned land) and real estate is by retiring the certificate of title to the state. Even in some of those states the certificate of title can be reissued and the home converted back to personal property.

 

[Rooty1]

Hi, Rooty.

I believe you want an easement by implication rather than an easement by necessity.

You can check on this link, a Utah government site on property rights, easements:
https://propertyrights.utah.gov/easements/

Good luck.

Thanks, I am in Idaho, not Utah.

Looks to me that either may work. BUT, the bridge that existed at the time of severance is not the same bridge that is here today. The original bridge was constructed by the county circa 1910. It washed away and was replaced several times until the last county-owned cable foot bridge. That foot bridge was abandoned in 1966 by the county and replaced by the current one which is privately owned.

Does it matter "which bridge" or can it be "any bridge"?

Easements By Necessity – To establish an easement by necessity, a claimant must prove that:

1. There was unity of title between the dominant and servient estates followed by a subsequent conveyance of the dominant estate (the property which benefits from the easement);
2. The necessity of the easement existed at the time of the severance; and
3. There is a great present necessity for the easement.

Easements By Implication From a Prior Use – To establish an easement by implication, Idaho laws requires that a claimant prove three essential elements.

1. He must demonstrate unity of title or ownership and a subsequent severance of the dominant estate;
2. He must demonstrate apparent continuous use long enough before the dominant estate was transferred to show that the use was intended to be permanent; and
3. He must demonstrate that the easement is reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the dominant estate.

But, if I would then be responsible for all of the maintenance, me thinks that's not such a good idea after all.

THANK YOU AGAIN!!!!

Rooty

 

[quincy]

Oops. I'm sorry about the mistake in your state name, Rooty.

 

[Rooty1]

Oops. I'm sorry about the mistake in your state name, Rooty.

That's okay Quincy. I have decided that I am going to jump off that darn old bridge and be done with this - lol.

Rooty

 

[quincy]

That's okay Quincy. I have decided that I am going to jump off that darn old bridge and be done with this - lol.

Rooty

Hahaha.

 

[justalayman]

And don’t take my “like” as an approval of the stated action. It really was in reference to the humor (I hope it was humor anyway) in your post.

 

[quincy]

And don’t take my “like” as an approval of the stated action. It really was in reference to the humor (I hope it was humor anyway) in your post.

I was going to add a "like" too but hesitated for the same reason.

After all the trouble Rooty has had with the bridge, it is easy to understand the frustration.

 

[Rooty1]

The bridge saga continues.

Brief history: In the 1960s, a non-profit corporation constructed a bridge over and across a river owned by a private individual.

While a well-known Boise real estate attorney recommended the private individual provide an easement to the corporation, that never happened.

Several years ago, the non-profit corporation provided a Quit Claim Deed for the bridge only to a newly formed Bridge Association. This deed was void of any legal description and was filed with the county. The county assessor attempted to assign a parcel number for the bridge only but the title company refused so it is filed as, "Leased Residential."

The bridge association filed suit to quiet title to the bridge only naming the county and unnamed persons. The county did not respond and the court granted their request.

Two years ago, the State of Idaho purchased the river from the private individual. The Title Insurance Policy reads, " 17. Rights, if any, of the public or owners of land generally to the West of the land of use, maintenance, ingress or egress, to, from, over and across the bridge."

The State has refused a request to provide easements to the owners of land to the West of the river to cross the bridge and we are landlocked without it.

When the State was asked who owns the bridge, their answer was, "We don't know."

It is my understanding that highways, roads, and bridges are part and parcel of the underlying fee. As such, whoever owns the real property, owns its structures. Therefore, in this case, the State owns the bridge.

Am I correct?

Thank you, Rooty

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm not going to read back over this whole thread.

If "we" are landlocked then "we" needs an attorney or "we" stays landlocked.