Thank you Quincy, I shall explore your links.
In Idaho, we have:
Implied Easement by Strict Necessity
If there is no road at all to the landlocked property then an easement may be implied by strict necessity. Under this doctrine, an easement exists if there was “(1) unity of title and subsequent separation of the dominant and servient estates; (2) necessity of the easement at the time of severance; and (3) great present necessity for the easement.”9 The requirement of “great present necessity” means there is no other legal access to the landlocked property. Usually this involves proof that there are no other roads leading to the property, but it can also be proven where an existing road that serves one part of the property is incapable of serving other parts of the property due to topography.
Since the person that owns the riverbed as private property located under the bridge, that person alone still owns the bridge ... despite the quit claim deed for the bridge only (from the people who simply constructed the current bridge to the bridge association) ... assessment number assigned to the bridge only ... and the quiet title hocus-pocus court action. The bridge sits on this persons real property so he therefore owns the bridge unless HE provides a quit claim deed.
Under my theory as related to the current legal owner v. the Easement by Necessity doctrine, the unity of title and subsequent separation of the dominant and servient estates would date back to the time the current owners ancestors purchased the riverbed in the 1800s. The state owned the land, the county built the original bridge, and the ancestors purchased the riverbed from the state.
Untangling that can of worms in a court of law would be a nightmare I'd rather not undertake.
I'll read your links to see if I can glean any useful information prior to deciding how to proceed but, like you, do not believe non-association members are liable for these associations expenses.
Thank you again,
Rooty
