Another right of way issue

[jwalbrid]

What is the name of your state? NH
I own a road 40 feet by 300 feet that runs from a main road to the lake front, One of the waterfront lots has a right of way to their lot over the road. I am a back lot. My deed has restriction that no buildings or stuctures be built on road. They are complaining that my Docks over the lake is an ubstuction of the road. They do not in any way obstruct the use of the road. they are over the water. Do they have a case?

 

[seniorjudge]

I give up.

Why do they think that docks in a lake is/are an obstruction on the road?

Clear that up.

 

[jwalbrid]

They are trying to say that the docks are obstructing the access of the back lots to the water. They are not even a back lot. They have their own water front. NH law states that a dock is a structure attached to the land. It is a technicality. They do not want anything on the beach area , as it is not to their liking. They are suing us and we go to court next month , I am just trying to get opinion about what are chances of winning are.The road is deeded to me in seperate deed from my home lot.

 

[seniorjudge]

... I am just trying to get opinion about what are chances of winning are....

50-50, more or less.

 

[jwalbrid]

Thanks for your opinion

 

[Dave Stevens]

It seems to me your case depends on two things 1: the definition of the easement, including the boundaries and what it is supposed to be used for and 2: on what property the dock is located. Also, are the "road" and the "easement" the same thing here? Is the dock located at the end of the easement? Can they argue that they need the easement to launch a boat to the lake?

If the dock is located within the boundary of the easement (or "road" if there is a difference), they have a strong case because you say the easement definition says you cant have a structure in the easement (or "road"). If the structure is not in the easement, then it seems their case is weaker as long as the dock is attached to some other property. If your dock is at the end of the easement but doesn't actually attach to the easement, it just sort of hangs out in the water, then maybe some other laws/ordinances are at play here - it might be that the institution governing the rules of the lakefront are a more applicable jurisdiction. It would seem reasonable that they have a rule that says only residential lots can have a dock. I dunno

 

[jwalbrid]

Dave, Yes the road and easement are the same. There ia a clear and ubunstucted boat ramp for all to use . The docks are placed so that they are in a spot that is obstructed by trees anyway. so as you could not drive over this area. Their deed only states thety have a right of way to said lot (being theirs). My deed restricts structures, I can only assume so I cannot block access for front lots. Which I am not. The state has approved my docks because they have been in place prior to 1978.

 

[jwalbrid]

Also the deeds are very fague to description of right of way , only stating that all abutters have right of way. It is not even spell out the size. I can only go by the pins of the two front lots. Being the road or easement is inbetween them.

 

[Dave Stevens]

Honestly, it sounds like you both have a case. If the easement says nothing can be built on the easement and if the dock is on the easement then that would support their case. However, if the dock merely attaches to the end of the easement and goes into the water, it seems that it is out of the easmement and wouldn't be covered by restrictions spelled out in the easement. Since you have approval by the State for the dock, then you are probably reasonably safe as long as the dock isnt in the easement.

If you are certain that the complainers only have a right to the easement up to their property, you might want to make a stink about them using the rest of the easement - that is of course if they do use the rest of the easement, like for walking down to the lake or something. This would be a red herring of sorts, which you may very well lose in court if pushed. But the purpose of the red herring is to get them to think twice about starting a battle with you - they would then have to weigh the value and the liklihood of losing the use of the remainder of the easement (since they currently enjoy the use of it since you dont prohibit it) against the liklihood and value of winning the removal of the dock. Just try to make the cost of their battle so high that they back down. Of course you will be enemies, but everybody needs a couple of good enemies to make life sprited.

 

[jwalbrid]

Unfortuanly they use the entire road as their lot is on the water front. Since all of this started. I tracked down previous deeds and found their are two owners of the road. Lots were sold but road was never transferred. I have obtained both deeds for road each has 50 percent interest. but one is restricted and one is from before restriction was on road. The original owner was an ice company who retained 50 percent and the person he sold the lots to retained 50 percent Itracked down all heirs and had lawyer make up quick claim and they are filed in registry already. The problem neighbors are saying I can't own it because no taxes have been paid. But no taxes have ever been acessed, should be on peoples court?