Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

[justalayman]

Ok, I have been distracted lately. I’m back for a few.

It is not totally unheard of, or even uncommon, for a building to not be included as part of the deeded real estate. A perfect example is a lakeside situation near me.

One person owned the land surrounding the lake. They created lots. They leased these lots to others. Others built cabins on the lots. The cabin was not considered part of the real estate. If the cabin owner/land lessee decided to terminate the land lease, they had that right (obviously within the terms of the lease). They could actually remove the cabin if they chose to. It remained theirs.

The only thing I can’t tell you is whether there was something within the assessors office regarding giving the cabins some sort of identification number.

So, the land owner can sell their land if they choose. Obviously the lease remains intact. The cabin owner can sell their cabin along with their lease of the land. That all is similar to what your situation sounds like.

I suspect the assessor can assign a tax id number (parcel seems to be a misnomer since parcel generally refers to real estate). A construct upon real estate does allow the municipality to collect taxes as regardless of the separate ownership of land and building, the overall collection does allow for the municipality to levy taxes on the entire collection. If they couldn’t levy taxes on the building, well, I would be leasing all of my land to an alter ego me so I could build whatever I wanted to with the taxes remaining based on the unimproved land. The folks in the government are smarter than that. As such, I don’t see a problem with a tax id being created for the bridge. If they want to call it a parcel, while not appropriate in my mind, it isn’t technically incorrect either.

Obviously when the bridge was built there had to be some permission from the land owner or some right afforded by the publicly held right of way. Then, what happens to the bridge would be up to the owner (in the case there was no right to claim it under some prior row of the municipality.) My concern is generally a private entity cannot build upon a public right of way without the municipality agreeing to the construct. In simplest terms, a row is an exclusive easement granted to the municipality where they have the right to permit use to others.


Now, if the bridge remains private, the owner (of the rights more so than the owner of the construct) would have a right to permit whomever they choose to allow to use it use it. Since it sets upon an existing row, the rights holder would have access to the bridge as well.

Now this is going beyond where we’re at but;

It isn’t uncommon for a public right or way, including a roadway, to attach to a privately controlled passageway. The Chicago skyway is an example. The city of Chicago sold the rights to control and maintain the bridge to a private company. Chicago retained actual owership of the physical construct but it wouldn’t have had to be that way.

 

[Rooty1]

Parcel created for bridge hanging in the air

Ok, I have been distracted lately. I’m back for a few.

It is not totally unheard of, or even uncommon, for a building to not be included as part of the deeded real estate. A perfect example is a lakeside situation near me.

One person owned the land surrounding the lake. They created lots. They leased these lots to others. Others built cabins on the lots. The cabin was not considered part of the real estate. If the cabin owner/land lessee decided to terminate the land lease, they had that right (obviously within the terms of the lease). They could actually remove the cabin if they chose to. It remained theirs.

The only thing I can’t tell you is whether there was something within the assessors office regarding giving the cabins some sort of identification number.

So, the land owner can sell their land if they choose. Obviously the lease remains intact. The cabin owner can sell their cabin along with their lease of the land. That all is similar to what your situation sounds like.

I suspect the assessor can assign a tax id number (parcel seems to be a misnomer since parcel generally refers to real estate). A construct upon real estate does allow the municipality to collect taxes as regardless of the separate ownership of land and building, the overall collection does allow for the municipality to levy taxes on the entire collection. If they couldn’t levy taxes on the building, well, I would be leasing all of my land to an alter ego me so I could build whatever I wanted to with the taxes remaining based on the unimproved land. The folks in the government are smarter than that. As such, I don’t see a problem with a tax id being created for the bridge. If they want to call it a parcel, while not appropriate in my mind, it isn’t technically incorrect either.

Obviously when the bridge was built there had to be some permission from the land owner or some right afforded by the publicly held right of way. Then, what happens to the bridge would be up to the owner (in the case there was no right to claim it under some prior row of the municipality.) My concern is generally a private entity cannot build upon a public right of way without the municipality agreeing to the construct. In simplest terms, a row is an exclusive easement granted to the municipality where they have the right to permit use to others.


Now, if the bridge remains private, the owner (of the rights more so than the owner of the construct) would have a right to permit whomever they choose to allow to use it use it. Since it sets upon an existing row, the rights holder would have access to the bridge as well.

Now this is going beyond where we’re at but;

It isn’t uncommon for a public right or way, including a roadway, to attach to a privately controlled passageway. The Chicago skyway is an example. The city of Chicago sold the rights to control and maintain the bridge to a private company. Chicago retained actual owership of the physical construct but it wouldn’t have had to be that way.

Thank you so very much for taking the time to reply. I could buy this theory if a lease existed between the land owner and the bridge builders but there is none. There is no existing ROW across the bridge and a recent request to the county commissioners to create a ROW was denied. They found doing so was not in the public interest. Now, 3 county roads are effectively closed and 20+ property owners are landlocked unless they want to give $ to the entity that constructed the bridge. Giving that entity $ for necessary repairs is one thing but they are sitting on over 8K and have no valid reason to ask for more. Sometimes you are the windshield and sometimes you are the bug. Thanks again! Rooty

 

[justalayman]

Thank you so very much for taking the time to reply. I could buy this theory if a lease existed between the land owner and the bridge builders but there is none. There is no existing ROW across the bridge and a recent request to the county commissioners to create a ROW was denied. They found doing so was not in the public interest. Now, 3 county roads are effectively closed and 20+ property owners are landlocked unless they want to give $ to the entity that constructed the bridge. Giving that entity $ for necessary repairs is one thing but they are sitting on over 8K and have no valid reason to ask for more. Sometimes you are the windshield and sometimes you are the bug. Thanks again! Rooty

Ok, if there is no lease, what difference do you believe it would make? Offhand I don’t see any effective difference.


But, I didn’t see that you are landlocked without the bridge. Is that the result of this situation?

Does that mean you weren’t landlocked prior to this since you could use the bridge?

If true, you may have some legal recourse.

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked

Ok, if there is no lease, what difference do you believe it would make? Offhand I don’t see any effective difference.


But, I didn’t see that you are landlocked without the bridge. Is that the result of this situation?

Does that mean you weren’t landlocked prior to this since you could use the bridge?

If true, you may have some legal recourse.

Because if there is no lease, then how can the assessor create a parcel for the bridge by treating the bridge only as leased real property?

Yes, the result of this situation is now I am landlocked.

Yes, I was not landlocked prior to this since I could use the bridge.

What is my legal recourse?

Thanks!

Rooty7

 

[FarmerJ]

Rooty , I cant help but wonder if anyone in your states attorney generals offices would be of any help in this problem, I say this because of cities that abandoned alleys , what did they do , they split the alleyway in half and re added the strips to each parcel so Im sort of wondering if the state would step in and undo this mess if the bridge could have been turned over to another governmental agency or some how to the affected properties owners?

 

[justalayman]

There needs be no lease. The bridge is there. That’s all that needs be present. Even municipal buildings have tax id numbers although a bridge typically wouldn’t since it is simply considered part of the roadway rather than a separate construct.

There are a million things running through my head at the moment (about this) so excuse me if my post appears disjointed.

First, does the county row continue across the waterway? If so, regardless of anything else, given the bridge is within the row, only the county could prohibit or allow another to prohibit your passage across the bridge.

Next, in your title history of your property does it have anything that would refer to the bridge as access?

I suspect you have an argument that if the county (somehow) abandons an access road, whomever is the person that results with ownership and control of the land the row laid upon cannot prohibit others from continuing the use as otherwise it would landlock their property without an acess to a public row. If under no other basis, there would be an easement or necessity. I don’t believe the bridge owners association (or whatever they want to call themselves) could demand you become a member of their association. They might be able to charge you a fee for maintenance, if in fact the roadway can be allowed to revert to probate control, but that is just a guess on my part at the moment.

I am not certain the county could abandon a roadway that is the sole means of access to the properties. That is something somebody with much better knowledge of Idaho land laws than into answer. While they may be able to not maintain the roadway, allowing what was a public road to revert to private control, when it is still a necessary roadway may not be possible.

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked property

1) First, does the county row continue across the waterway? If so, regardless of anything else, given the bridge is within the row, only the county could prohibit or allow another to prohibit your passage across the bridge.

Yes, the county road begins, ends at the edge of the bridge, and continues again on the opposite edge of the bridge.

The county abandoned the bridge in the 1960s stating it had been abandoned by the public. That was not true as there were 3 properties who relied on the bridge for ingress and egress. In the 1960s the county was required to also declare that the bridge was no longer in the public interest but they did not do that. (The question of any statutes of limitation regarding their lack of public interest declaration was raised but never answered.)

The bridge was merely the means by which the public could travel on the county ROW. There is no evidence that shows how the county acquired a deed the riverbed in the early 1900s in order to build the original bridge. And there is no evidence that shows the county deeded the riverbed bed back to its owner when they abandoned the bridge in the 1960s.

I understand that had the owner of the riverbed given the county verbal permission to build the first bridge that the ROW would stay forever.

The recent request to the commissioners to declare a ROW at the location of the bridge was denied because they declared it was not in the public interest. At a minimum, they should have asked the owner of the riverbed for an easement but they did not.

So, I am not certain one could say, "The bridge is within the ROW." It's more like, "The bridge is between the ROW."

According to the assessor, the owner of the riverbed wasn't, "Claiming ownership" of the bridge and was not paying property taxes on it. (The newly formed bridge association is paying property taxes.)

2) Next, in your title history of your property does it have anything that would refer to the bridge as access?

Yes, my title reports reads, "Access is not guaranteed." (I know, what was I thinking?)

3) I suspect you have an argument that if the county (somehow) abandons an access road, whomever is the person that results with ownership and control of the land the row laid upon cannot prohibit others from continuing the use as otherwise it would landlocked their property without an access to a public row.

The owner of the riverbed has been silent. It's the party who constructed the replacement bridge in the 1960s (right after the county abandoned their bridge) that is the problem. They have said all property owners must pay unspecified annual fees or stop using the bridge and they will sue property owners for trespass should they continue to use the bridge without paying. The result for non-payers is becoming homeless.

4) If under no other basis, there would be an easement or necessity.

Yes, we have thought about an easement by necessity but must prove a) there was unity of title between the dominant and servient estates followed by a subsequent conveyance of the dominant estate. b) the necessity of the easement existed at the time of the severance; and c) there is a great present necessity for the easement.

b) and c) are a slam dunk. The problem is a) because the conveyance of the dominant estate happened before the current bridge was constructed. Does that matter? Since there has been some sort of bridge at this location for over 100-years, would any bridge count?

5) I don’t believe the bridge owners association (or whatever they want to call themselves) could demand you become a member of their association. They might be able to charge you a fee for maintenance, if in fact the roadway can be allowed to revert to probate control, but that is just a guess on my part at the moment.

The bridge owners association (that is what they call themselves) attempted to force all property owners to join and even wanted a copy of our deeds so they could amend our CC&Rs and lien our properties if we failed to pay.

They eventually gave up on that idea and now just want $ in exchange for use. As previously stated, I don't mind paying but when they are sitting on 8K which far exceeds the amount necessary for the next stage of repairs, their greed is making me angry. How much is enough?

6) I am not certain the county could abandon a roadway that is the sole means of access to the properties.

That is precisely what the county did and pooh-poohed the fact that there were, "Only 3 property owners that relied on the bridge" in the 1960s when they abandoned the bridge.

So, the million dollar question remains. If you can help answer 4. a) above, that would be dandy.

Thank you ever so much,

Rooty

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked

Rooty , I cant help but wonder if anyone in your states attorney generals offices would be of any help in this problem, I say this because of cities that abandoned alleys , what did they do , they split the alleyway in half and re added the strips to each parcel so Im sort of wondering if the state would step in and undo this mess if the bridge could have been turned over to another governmental agency or some how to the affected properties owners?

I sincerely doubt my AG would intervene. Convos with the state has resulted in them running for the hills; they don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole. Some property owners are claiming they "own" the bridge - others don't want to own it. The problem is, how can Party A "own" a bridge that sits on the property of Party B without a valid deed?

Thank you for your input,

Rooty

 

[justalayman]

Yes, the county road begins, ends at the edge of the bridge, and continues again on the opposite edge of the bridge.

i means does it continue across the waterway, as in, continuous. If there was a public roadway there it is almost guaranteed the row continues right on across the waterway. There would need to be a row for there to be a public bridge across a waterway. Just as a row can lay upon dry land, it can lay on the riverbed as well.

I understand that had the owner of the riverbed given the county verbal permission to build the first bridge that the ROW would stay forever.

not true. Road row’s get (formally) abandoned all the time.

But if the conncectinf roadways were built utilizing row’s I would think the bridge was built using a row as well

According to the assessor, the owner of the riverbed wasn't, "Claiming ownership" of the bridge and was not paying property taxes on it. (The newly formed bridge association is paying property taxes.)

unless the bridge was separated from the underlying property (like the cabins in my example), nobody would pay taxes on it, at least separately. It would be seen as an improvement of the land.

Yes, my title reports reads, "Access is not guaranteed." (I know, what was I thinking?)

that just means the seller wasn’t Assuring access via an easement. If there was a pubic roadway you could access, there would be no reason to gurantee access. Generally, most properties become landlocked if you remove the road they are built adjacent to.

The owner of the riverbed has been silent. It's the party who constructed the replacement bridge in the 1960s (right after the county abandoned their bridge) that is the problem. They have said all property owners must pay unspecified annual fees or stop using the bridge and they will sue property owners for trespass should they continue to use the bridge without paying. The result for non-payers is becoming homeless.

Again, I suspect the bridge is built within the existing row.
But tell me (again if you’ve already explained it); what happened to to original bridge? Who removed it?


4a;

May Depend on who razed the public bridge

As to the common ownership issue; while typically it requires prior common ownership, that isn’t always true. In this situation it isn’t the prior ownership that has caused your land to be landlocked. It is the act of either the government or whomever razed the original bridge.


As to fees to use the bridge;

Allocation of costs to maintain a roadway on an easement are based on actual costs. Tell them to provide a bill for the costs of repair at then conclusion of each year and you will pony up your share (which is the total divided by the number of parcels utilizing the bridge)

 

[FarmerJ]

Have you thought about going to television station consumer affairs desk for help especially since this could in theory cause elected people/ public officials some embarrassment in the media if they don't attempt to try to resolve this since each side of the bridge is count road ?

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked

There was a road that continued across the waterway and had to be public at one time as the road and bridge were created at the same time in the early 1900s as part of a wagon road.

I do not know how much of that original wagon road existed in the 1960s when the county abandoned the bridge.
A few years after the current bridge was constructed (shortly after the county’s abandonment) a new subdivision was created. Part of the original road existed at that time and new roads were constructed. All of those roads were dedicated to the public when the county approved/created the subdivision.

I have searched for deeds until I am blue in the face and found nothing regarding the bridge or the riverbed.

I do not believe the owner of the riverbed ever paid taxes on the bridge as an improvement of the land.

The bridge in question was used by all property owners for access when I bought my land. I became landlocked when the entity who constructed the current bridge decided no one could use it any more without first: joining their association (which didn’t fly) or now: paying money.

The bridge that existed when the county abandoned it was a cable foot bridge. I do not know who put it up but believe it was removed by the entity that built the current bridge.

You are correct, the county created the landlocked situation when they abandoned their bridge and our fate was sealed when the original bridge was razed.

I have told them I would be more than happy to pay my fair share of actual repairs. That is not good enough; they are insisting I continue to add to their ever growing coffers and risk civil action for trespass if I don't pay.

I call that extortion!

Thank you again,

Rooty

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked

Have you thought about going to television station consumer affairs desk for help especially since this could in theory cause elected people/ public officials some embarrassment in the media if they don't attempt to try to resolve this since each side of the bridge is count road ?

Yes, that thought has crossed my mind. And now that you mention it, that is precisely what I shall do.

Thanks for the nudge!

Rooty

 

[justalayman]

Part of the original road existed at that time and new roads were constructed. All of those roads were dedicated to the public when the county approved/created the subdivision.

Then there had to be a legal access.

Either that or the bridge was a private easement but I suspect given the roadways themselves became public, I would think whatever allowed the access was public.

 

[Rooty1]

Landlocked

Then there had to be a legal access.

Either that or the bridge was a private easement but I suspect given the roadways themselves became public, I would think whatever allowed the access was public.

I agree, the road before the bridge, the bridge itself, and the road after the bridge all had to be public at one time.

Thank you again for your thoughtful insight and time.

Rooty

 

[cbg]

I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to be able to stop myself from making comments about lonely bridges.