Association Formed with No Warranty Deed

[Rooty1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

New association formed to manage real property. Association is amending CC&Rs and collecting dues. The problem is, the association has no warranty deed to property in question. County reported, "No one owns the property". Is that legal? Thanks.

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

New association formed to manage real property. Association is amending CC&Rs and collecting dues. The problem is, the association has no warranty deed to property in question. County reported, "No one owns the property". Is that legal? Thanks.

That appears to be missing all sorts of info
If you are speaking of an hoa, the hoa needs own no property. With the limited informstion I cannot say if the association can legally be created or what powers they may wield if it is legal.

And regardless of what the county said, somebody owns the property.

 

[Rooty1]

That appears to be missing all sorts of info
If you are speaking of an hoa, the hoa needs own no property. With the limited informstion I cannot say if the association can legally be created or what powers they may wield if it is legal.

And regardless of what the county said, somebody owns the property.

The real property sits under a bridge. Association claims they own the bridge but they have no warranty deed to that land. Some believe the county owns the land as they once had a bridge there.

 

[FlyingRon]

Unlike vehicles, you don't possess property by holding on to a paper deed. The "warranty" in the deed just proivdes recourse for the grantee against the grantor for defects in the title. You need to have someone who is experienced in title search issues to research the ownership of the property (which will be all the deeds, rights of way, easements, and other legal actions like eminent domain). Best is to then get them to provide a warranty on that informaiton in the form of an owner's title insurance policy.

 

[Rooty1]

Unlike vehicles, you don't possess property by holding on to a paper deed. The "warranty" in the deed just proivdes recourse for the grantee against the grantor for defects in the title. You need to have someone who is experienced in title search issues to research the ownership of the property (which will be all the deeds, rights of way, easements, and other legal actions like eminent domain). Best is to then get them to provide a warranty on that informaiton in the form of an owner's title insurance policy.

Thank you. The title company has refused to run a title search; said I need to be an attorney because I do not own the land in question. They also refused a request for a Litigation Guarantee even if I were a pro per litigant.

This association claims they own the property. My request for them to provide me with a copy of their warranty deed to prove they own it has fallen on deaf ears.

 

[justalayman]

Then find another title company. Researching titles is what they do as long as you are willing or pay there is no reason to refuse. They do it every day for people that are not attorneys and do not own the property.

They have no obligation to show you anything. If you have much of an understanding you can probably find out if there is a deed recorded for that property with the hoa as grantee.

 

[Rooty1]

Then find another title company. Researching titles is what they do as long as you are willing or pay there is no reason to refuse. They do it every day for people that are not attorneys and do not own the property.

They have no obligation to show you anything. If you have much of an understanding you can probably find out if there is a deed recorded for that property with the hoa as grantee.

Thank you again. A second title company looked for free and could find no recorded deed - this jives with the county who said, "No one owns it." This association is new and in the process of being formed so they cannot be a grantee. The association has said, "Join us or stay off our bridge." But since they do not hold a warranty deed to the property the bridge sits on, they are trying to pull my leg

 

[latigo]

A new association formed to manage land under a bridge?!

How does one go about getting on board this get rich scheme? Stand in line or take a number? And just who is pulling whose leg?

Whatever!

If there happens to be a water way over which there is this bridge that you are so worked up over that happens to have been determined to be navigable . . . .

Then all of the ground that is submerged by the ordinary high water mark is held in "Public Trust" and no individual or association has or can acquire title.

Any other earthshaking issues troubling you? Geez!

Furthermore an "association", per se, cannot hold title to property, real or personalty.

 

[justalayman]

Is this a sneaky way for a troll to consume time of the posters here?

An implausible and relatively undefined situation involving the real estate under a bridge possessed by one, albeit with no evidence of ownership but due to that claims ownership also claims the right of control of the overlying bridge.

Sounds like a Creative description of a trolls life.

If so I applaud the author. Well crafted.

 

[Rooty1]

A new association formed to manage land under a bridge?!

How does one go about getting on board this get rich scheme? Stand in line or take a number? And just who is pulling whose leg?

Whatever!

If there happens to be a water way over which there is this bridge that you are so worked up over that happens to have been determined to be navigable . . . .

Then all of the ground that is submerged by the ordinary high water mark is held in "Public Trust" and no individual or association has or can acquire title.

Any other earthshaking issues troubling you? Geez!

Geez is an understatement Thank you for confirming the navigable waterway issue however, the county said a private individual owns the bed of the river to the high water mark but not the land where the bridge abutments sit. Not sure I believe that one.

Your kindness is much appreciated!

 

[justalayman]

Geez is an understatement Thank you for confirming the navigable waterway issue however, the county said a private individual owns the bed of the river to the high water mark but not the land where the bridge abutments sit. Not sure I believe that one.

Your kindness is much appreciated!

Re navigable waterways: it is common for the underlying bed to be owned whomever owns the land adjacent to the waterway. If the land under the waterway is delineated such it is a parcel seperate from the adjacent lands then there could be seperate owners.

As to the bridge itself: ownership is irrelevant if the bridge sets upon private land unless there is some easement in place to allow others to even access the bridge.


It sounds like you need to head on down to wherever any gis maps are held and research the parcels involved. Once you determine the parcel identification you can research county land records to determine ownership.

 

[Rooty1]

Is this a sneaky way for a troll to consume time of the posters here?

An implausible and relatively undefined situation involving the real estate under a bridge possessed by one, albeit with no evidence of ownership but due to that claims ownership also claims the right of control of the overlying bridge.

Sounds like a Creative description of a trolls life.

If so I applaud the author. Well crafted.

Unfortunately, my inquiry was not a sneaky way to consume anyone's time. As implausible as it sounds, you have managed to hit the nail on the head with your perfect description of the very real situation. Yes indeed, these new association people claim they own and control the bridge and land it sits on but have no evidence of ownership. Needless to say, I will be joining their group

 

[Rooty1]

Re navigable waterways: it is common for the underlying bed to be owned whomever owns the land adjacent to the waterway. If the land under the waterway is delineated such it is a parcel seperate from the adjacent lands then there could be seperate owners.

As to the bridge itself: ownership is irrelevant if the bridge sets upon private land unless there is some easement in place to allow others to even access the bridge.


It sounds like you need to head on down to wherever any gis maps are held and research the parcels involved. Once you determine the parcel identification you can research county land records to determine ownership.

This is the best advice ever and I shall do exactly what you suggested. GIS maps here I come. THANK YOU!!!

 

[justalayman]

Part of the problem is you lack being able to answer pertinent questions. Until you do some real research and get some real answers anything offered is nothing more than speculative.

Let me toss out a few things to try to help.

If the waterway is navigable the public has a right to travel upon it.

The owners of any land have a right to control their land and deny trespass.

unless there is some right of way or easement to access the bridge the owner of the land it rests upon has effectively control of the bridge even if they are not the actual owners of the bridge BUT based on laws regarding fixtures and chattel unless it is a mobile bridge or some other contractual relationship affecting the matter, ownership of the bridge belongs to the owner of the land which it sets upon.

The only issue at that point is whether the owner of the land underlying the waterway can enforce a right to prevent trespass on (over) their land. The law used to consider the land to the center of the earth to the heights of heaven above as belonging to the owner of the land. That has been trimmed a bit to limit the airspace to that which a person can reasonably use. Given the bridge is likely to be a matter of feet above the land, technically the owner of the land under the waterway could in fact enforce a right of control on traffic on the bridge (although the right of travel upon a navigable waterway slaps the rights to airspace above one's land in the face and might afford an argument to deny the troll the right to control travel upon the bridge. That is a question that would require research.)

What is likely to be quite important to the issue is the history of the bridge and involved lands. Knowledge in that area may provide a relatively simple answer to most all questions of the matter. That is where your lack of knowledge prevents any substantive answers to be offered.

 

[Rooty1]

Part of the problem is you lack being able to answer pertinent questions. Until you do some real research and get some real answers anything offered is nothing more than speculative.

Let me toss out a few things to try to help.

If the waterway is navigable the public has a right to travel upon it.

The owners of any land have a right to control their land and deny trespass.

unless there is some right of way or easement to access the bridge the owner of the land it rests upon has effectively control of the bridge even if they are not the actual owners of the bridge BUT based on laws regarding fixtures and chattel unless it is a mobile bridge or some other contractual relationship affecting the matter, ownership of the bridge belongs to the owner of the land which it sets upon.

The only issue at that point is whether the owner of the land underlying the waterway can enforce a right to prevent trespass on (over) their land. The law used to consider the land to the center of the earth to the heights of heaven above as belonging to the owner of the land. That has been trimmed a bit to limit the airspace to that which a person can reasonably use. Given the bridge is likely to be a matter of feet above the land, technically the owner of the land under the waterway could in fact enforce a right of control on traffic on the bridge (although the right of travel upon a navigable waterway slaps the rights to airspace above one's land in the face and might afford an argument to deny the troll the right to control travel upon the bridge. That is a question that would require research.)

What is likely to be quite important to the issue is the history of the bridge and involved lands. Knowledge in that area may provide a relatively simple answer to most all questions of the matter. That is where your lack of knowledge prevents any substantive answers to be offered.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. To complicate matters even more, I have a State Transportation Department map circa 1930's that shows "County Bridge" as well as actual photos of the bridge from the same time period. Of course, the county has denied ownership. A similar situation occurred with a neighboring subdivision. After years of expensive litigation, the judge declared the county owned that bridge but the PA ignored the judge (hard to believe, I know.) So, the State stepped in and, using federal highway dollars, repaired that bridge.

The odds of this happening again are slim to none and folks in my subdivision cannot afford to hire an attorney and sue the county.

In the meantime, this new association has stated they own the bridge and think they can force us to join and want a copy of our Warranty Deed. That is not going to happen We are hoping we can simply pay our fair share of bridge repair monies and call it good. We shall see. Thank you again, it is refreshing to find someone who actually understands this mess.

Happy Easter!