Damage to Utilities on Easement

[Proejo]

I don't think 6 months is "quickly" and that is what it took the last time. Also, even if the cleanout is accessible, there may be need to have a truck near the cleanout, which would negate the presumed benefit of leaving access to the clean out. (at least I am sure the neighbor would want to dissallow a truck on the patio)

Bottom line is the OP's rights are to have nothing that is specifically restricted by his deed which states



The blocks, regardless of how easily they can be removed, are "material" that interferes with the installation and maintenance of the utility. The serviant tenant has already proven himself to desire control of the easement and willingly restricted and is still attempting to restrict access to the easement.

Keep the blocks off the easement or the next time, he may end up requiring you to seek legal assistance to get them removed. Obviously, the neighbor wants to make you respoonsible for any damage he may do. Best to prevent it before it happens.

I disagree, and it appears that the HOA disagrees with you, too. It's all in how you interpret the writing and your interpretation is bent one way and mine another. I read that he has a right to place something there that doesn't interfere with maintenance. As long as the HOA is on his side on this issue and his patio remains of a temporary character then I don't see the value in continuing to press on. The pipe is repaired, the clean out exposed and life should go on.

 

[justalayman]

I disagree, and it appears that the HOA disagrees with you, too. It's all in how you interpret the writing and your interpretation is bent one way and mine another. I read that he has a right to place something there that doesn't interfere with maintenance. As long as the HOA is on his side on this issue and his patio remains of a temporary character then I don't see the value in continuing to press on. The pipe is repaired, the clean out exposed and life should go on.

HOA's are notorious for enforcing or not enforcing rules as they see fit. That is what a court is for. A court is the ONLY legal decision that makes any difference. As I posted, the OP was injured by the patio so I would definately take that as a "vision of the future" so to speak if anything were to happen again.


As well, the blocks most definately would interfere with the maintainance if, as I posted, a truck needed to be brought to the cleanouts. Without a doubt, based solely on the OP's info, the serviant tenent is going to put up a fuss.

Hell, just look at what the OP said about the patio owner:

He is taking another hard stand that he has absolutely no responsibility for the line or any damages that occur in his yard, and the end of his dealings with us is to reinstall the patio with cleanout's exposed.

The guy has absolute liability for any damages he, or a contractor he hires, does to the sewer line. He obviously has no intention of living up to his responsibilities.


If the guy wants to act this way, for the fun of it, I would hire a sewer cleaner to clean the lines once or twice a year (at minimum). Since the sewer guy would need to visit each cleanout, we would see how much resistance the neighbor would cause. There is nothing wrong with pre-emptive mainainance like this so the guy has nothing to complain about. If his patio gets damaged, tough stuff. If it did, that would prove that it is a hinderance to the mainainance of the sewer line.

The HOA only has the authority a court will give it and the HOA does not have the authority to unilaterally define or clarify the deed.

 

[Proejo]

... for the fun of it, I would hire a sewer cleaner to clean the lines once or twice a year (at minimum). Since the sewer guy would need to visit each cleanout, we would see how much resistance the neighbor would cause.

No offense, but this is a perfect example of nothing more than embittered and needless needling, having no other purpose than to continually escalate tensions. If an agreement can be reached that the guy is responsible for the cost of removing and/or replacing his patio if work needs to be done there for some reason (doubtful since the pipe has been replaced) then all should be well. I wouldn't ever worry about the fact he's placed pavers there, only that he's responsible for them. Other than that, why worry?

 

[justalayman]

No offense, but this is a perfect example of nothing more than embittered and needless needling, having no other purpose than to continually escalate tensions. If an agreement can be reached that the guy is responsible for the cost of removing and/or replacing his patio if work needs to be done there for some reason (doubtful since the pipe has been replaced) then all should be well. I wouldn't ever worry about the fact he's placed pavers there, only that he's responsible for them. Other than that, why worry?

First, it actually would not be unneccessary needling (I'm not sure but I don't think needling is illegal anyway unless you are an unlicensed accupuncturist).

What is wrong with preventative maintainance? Ever hear of roots in a drainline? Happens all the time. As well, many things not suggested to be put into a sewer line end up there. Diapers, baby blankets, string mop heads, etc. Each of them can cause enough problems to require augering or jetting of the sewer line.

It also sets the stage for what it would be like should something serious actually happen and more in depth work be required.

Next, if you reread the thread, you should notice the patio owner requires the OP to be responsible for the reinstallation of the patio. This, again, is the serviant tenant attempting to control the OP and the easement. In your last post, even you suggested that the serviant tenant be responsible for the costs but as noted, they refuse to do so. So why worry? because he said you should worry. He has already notified the OP as to what he expects, legal or not. That is a problem in the making.

Rather than having crap back up into his home (again), costing him many many dollars (again) while he fights with the HOA (again) or even worse, a legal battle, the best action is to prevent this from happening again while things are a bit less than settled anyway.

The other thing about your posts that is troubling is the fact that the damage is self evident as to what caused the original problem but you merely state,

In normal, compacted soil it's almost impossible to cause damage if the line is buried properly UNLESS something like a tractor or backhoe runs across the top of the cleanout and presses the line downward

Gee, do ya think that when the patio area was cleared and leveled, they had a tractor or backhoe doing the work? Since the timing was also correct, it stands for itself and I believe a court would uphold the same finding if the OP had taken it to court. I mean, that is exactly the damage the OP described with this:

It is suspected that the contractor used a tamper (to pack and level the soil) directly on our cleanout, which caused it to crack and buckle at the joint below, as well as slightly belly at just that location. This contractor also cut our cleanout (without our permission or knowledge) and capped mine in concrete

The cleanout was even cut off and you come up with:

Here in Texas the ground is famous for shifting and causing damage to water and sewer pipes, underground utilities and to the foundation of homes

Ya, that really sounds like shifting ground to me. Granted, the damage actually happened before this owner took possession so there would be that issue to deal with but with the current owners position, I can see exactly the same thing and scenario happening all over again.

The serviant tenent needs to realize what it means to be a serviant tenent of an easement. It can drastically alter the usage of property that is legally yours and there is legally little that can be done about it. He needs to learn to live within the rules he was given which he is obviously having a hard time doing.


End of my input on this thread.

 

[easement2006]

It's very telling that even strangers, with no vested interest, are getting heated over this issue. I'm surprised the law isn't more clear cut on easement rights. When I purchased this townhouse, the title company made it very clear to me that I could not build anything over the easement on my property due to the Declaration language concerning the easement (the sewer lines run across all of the townhouses on my block, so I have the same easement rules and regulations on my property). So, now that a patio has been built and allegedly damaged my purpose of the easement, I can't believe that this owner has absolutely no responsibility because, like proejo states, the damage is virtually impossible to prove.

The more Proejo writes, the more I'm leaning towards stopping the reconstruction. I feel like, legally, I have every right to stop the patio due to the Declaration verbiage. I would prefer to have the Patio Owner sign off that he will take on responsibility for any future unnatural damages to be seen at that cleanout site. I have no doubt that the rest of my line is safe and sound from the patio construction, but the vertical cleanout has proven itself the only point of weakness. If the patio is really so damage free, this patio owner shouldn't hesitate to sign off on that. I just feel that I would be an idiot to let this all start up again without any prearranged agreement between servient and dominant owners.

Plus, the patio owner knew that I was repeatedly flooding with sewage, and he still was refusing to lift his patio, taking a hard line with us over a couple of bricks! I feel like the law is on my side, and with an uncompromising, self-serving neighbor, why should I put myself into the same unsanitary and costly situation? Remember, in the end, he's whining over a patio ... I'm dealing with sewage in my kitchen and thousands of dollars worth of repairs. 7 out of 8 plumbers that came to provide estimates over the 6 months confirmed that it was unnatural damage due to direct downward force on the cleanout (1 plumber didn't want to say the cause until he actually dug the pipes up) ... and the plumber that actually did the work confirmed that the damage seen at the couplings proved that it was unnatural damage due to direct downward pressure on the cleanout. No matter how unlikely that damage sounds on a forum, that's what the pros are telling me.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to be vindictive, I'm not trying to drag this out (I have better things to do with my time), and my intention is not to stop the patio reconstruction UNLESS I find out that he has absolutely no liability for damages that he causes in the future and this patio will continue to be a source of interference. As soon as he builds this patio, my warranty for the sewer repairs will presumably be terminated (since the plumber can point to the patio, and the patio owner can point to the plumber), so if this owner has absolutely no responsibility ... what other choice do I have?

 

[nappyheadkev]

if he was a new home owner , i'm sure he had the property inspected before purchase, if he claimes he didn't know about the easment then the inspector should be held responsible. they are bonded for such incidents. and they are paid for an accurate inspection of the property including septic permits easments and even termites. personally, i would sue the previous owner, the new owner, the inspector, and even the county and let the judge decide who is at fault. if your other neigbors are effected also, maybe you could team up and share the burden of filing the suit