Who owns the bridge?

[Rooty1]

adjusterjack - You can acquire the gist by simply reading the one post above from today.

I was hoping for something more than the general legal advice to get an attorney but thank you for your input.

 

[LdiJ]

I have read this entire thread and I am uncertain of what the actual, bottom line concern is at this point. I could guess at various scenarios, but you haven't really said.

Apparently you do have physical ingress and egress to your home. So, why is this an issue at this time? Is someone trying to deny you ingress and egress? Are you objecting to paying a fee/toll to use the bridge and that is your main issue? Are you trying to sell your property and having trouble doing so because there isn't a good enough locked in right to ingress and egress? In other words, what actually sparked you to do this research?

If you have an immediate, practical problem the solutions can be different than if this is a long term, intrinsic issue.

 

[quincy]

The bridge saga continues.

Brief history: In the 1960s, a non-profit corporation constructed a bridge over and across a river owned by a private individual.

While a well-known Boise real estate attorney recommended the private individual provide an easement to the corporation, but that never happened.

Several years ago, the non-profit corporation provided a Quit Claim Deed for the bridge only to a newly formed Bridge Association. This deed was void of any legal description and was filed with the county. The county assessor attempted to assign a parcel number for the bridge only but the title company refused so it is filed as, "Leased Residential."

The bridge association filed suit to quiet title to the bridge only naming the county and unnamed persons. The county did not respond and the court granted their request.

Two years ago, the State of Idaho purchased the river from the private individual. The Title Insurance Policy reads, " 17. Rights, if any, of the public or owners of land generally to the West of the land of use, maintenance, ingress or egress, to, from, over and across the bridge."

The State has refused a request to provide easements to the owners of land to the West of the river to cross the bridge and we are landlocked without it.

When the State was asked who owns the bridge, their answer was, "We don't know."

It is my understanding that highways, roads, and bridges are part and parcel of the underlying fee. As such, whoever owns the real property, owns its structures. Therefore, in this case, the State owns the bridge.

Am I correct?

Thank you, Rooty

Seven years later and there are still questions about bridge ownership, huh? Are you being asked to pay for use of the bridge to access your property? If so, who is assessing this fee?

 

[Rooty1]

Hi Quincy, I was hoping you were still around; thank you for joining the conversation.

Yes, after 7+ years, the bridge is still an issue and yes, I am paying bridge maintenance and repair fees to the Bridge Association. Despite not being an association member, I am also paying their attorney's fees, their state and federal income taxes, insurance, property taxes, etc.

To answer LdiJ's questions, my current Title Insurance Policy states, "Access is not guaranteed."

I would like an easement to legally establish permission and accessibility to help avoid any possible contention when I decide to sell my property.

 

[LdiJ]

Hi Quincy, I was hoping you were still around; thank you for joining the conversation.

Yes, after 7+ years, the bridge is still an issue and yes, I am paying bridge maintenance and repair fees to the Bridge Association. Despite not being an association member, I am also paying their attorney's fees, their state and federal income taxes, insurance, property taxes, etc.

To answer LdiJ's questions, my current Title Insurance Policy states, "Access is not guaranteed."

I would like an easement to legally establish permission and accessibility to help avoid any possible contention when I decide to sell my property.

I don't think that you have any real hope of getting what you want.

Obviously the bridge association was formed by people with similar goals. To make sure that a bridge is maintained so that everyone who needs it is able use it. Without maintenance, it would eventually become unusable. In fact, in the early part of your thread maintenance was one of your big concerns. Fees are charged to ensure that money will be available to maintain the bridge. The cost of the administration of the organization are built into the fees for using the bridge, which makes perfect sense and is completely normal/expected.

If the association were to give someone an easement, then they would no longer have leverage to make them contribute to the costs associated with maintaining the bridge. That easement would give someone the right to use the bridge whether they paid the fees or not. While I suppose it would be possible to structure an easement that would ensure continued payment, it would be cumbersome and might not be enforceable.

The county isn't going to force the issue because the county has determined that the fees to use the bridge are reasonable, and therefore you are not landlocked. I see no reason why a court would force the issue either.

Why aren't you a member of the association? Is it because you don't qualify to be a member for some reason? If so, what is that reason? Or, is it because you choose not to be a member of the association? If so, why not?

All in all, this is no different than any "toll" situation or situation where a private road is paid for and maintained by the people who need to use it.

 

[quincy]

... I am paying bridge maintenance and repair fees to the Bridge Association. Despite not being an association member, I am also paying their attorney's fees, their state and federal income taxes, insurance, property taxes, etc.

To answer LdiJ's questions, my current Title Insurance Policy states, "Access is not guaranteed."

I would like an easement to legally establish permission and accessibility to help avoid any possible contention when I decide to sell my property.

I think the bridge maintenance and repair fees are probably legitimate fees. I do question the other association fees you are being charged. But I think you need an attorney in your area arguing on your behalf the unreasonableness of these additional fees. Your property ownership (if I remember correctly) predates the Association.

 

[LdiJ]

I think the bridge maintenance and repair fees are probably legitimate fees. I do question the other association fees you are being charged. But I think you need an attorney in your area arguing on your behalf the unreasonableness of these additional fees. Your property ownership (if I remember correctly) predates the Association.

How would you expect the association to cover its administrative expenses if those expenses are not built into the fees charged to use the bridge? Every organization has expenses that have to be covered by it's income. Also, I don't see the relevance in the fact that his property ownership predates the association.

 

[quincy]

How would you expect the association to cover its administrative expenses if those expenses are not built into the fees charged to use the bridge? Every organization has expenses that have to be covered by it's income. Also, I don't see the relevance in the fact that his property ownership predates the association.

The bridge predates the association as does Rooty’s own property ownership. He used the bridge to access his property before the association existed. He previously did not have to pay to access his property.

 

[Rooty1]

LdiJ and Quincy, thank you for your replies.

This issue is between the State of Idaho and landlocked property owners - not the county.

A Easement Agreement from the State could include language similar to the following, "Dominant estate holders rights and duties - shall have the duty to repair and maintain the property subject to the easement and shall at all times keep the easement property free and open for the benefit of the dominant estate and any other concurrent users."

Such language would eliminate the State's fear that the bridge will not be maintained by all users.

I did not join the Association because they wanted the deed to my property so they could create a covenant that runs with the land. However, per their Bylaws, should a member be delinquent in paying their fees, the Association could initiate foreclosure procedures. No thank you.

The State wrote, "Since the bridge has been in use since the 1960’s and access across this bridge is indispensable to the reasonable use of property on the west side of the river, it is beyond dispute that owners of the bridge (emphasis added) can use it and maintain it." But then the State claims to not know who owns the bridge.

How is the State able to give permission to use the bridge if they do not owns the bridge?

And, what possible reason could the State have for not reducing this permission to writing in the form of an easement that can be recorded?

My bridge ownership question remains unanswered. Does the State own the bridge as a matter of law, or does the Bridge Association?

Thank you, Rooty

 

[Zigner]

The State wrote, "Since the bridge has been in use since the 1960’s and access across this bridge is indispensable to the reasonable use of property on the west side of the river, it is beyond dispute that owners of the bridge (emphasis added) can use it and maintain it." But then the State claims to not know who owns the bridge.

How is the State able to give permission to use the bridge if they do not owns the bridge?

Based on what you state they "wrote," the state isn't saying the know who owns the bridge. They are simply giving their opinion about who can use and maintain it.

And, what possible reason could the State have for not reducing this permission to writing in the form of an easement that can be recorded?

You are asking us to enter the mind(s) of some unknown individuals or entity.

My bridge ownership question remains unanswered. Does the State own the bridge as a matter of law, or does the Bridge Association?

It's apparent that your question goes beyond the scope of an internet forum.

 

[LdiJ]

The bridge predates the association as does Rooty’s own property ownership. He used the bridge to access his property before the association existed. He previously did not have to pay to access his property.

And the bridge was not being maintained prior to that (Rooty himself expressed concern about that). The bridge has been transferred to the ownership of an entity who will maintain it. Prior to that there was no guarantee that a usable bridge would remain available at all.

 

[LdiJ]

LdiJ and Quincy, thank you for your replies.

This issue is between the State of Idaho and landlocked property owners - not the county.

A Easement Agreement from the State could include language similar to the following, "Dominant estate holders rights and duties - shall have the duty to repair and maintain the property subject to the easement and shall at all times keep the easement property free and open for the benefit of the dominant estate and any other concurrent users."

Such language would eliminate the State's fear that the bridge will not be maintained by all users.

I did not join the Association because they wanted the deed to my property so they could create a covenant that runs with the land. However, per their Bylaws, should a member be delinquent in paying their fees, the Association could initiate foreclosure procedures. No thank you.

The State wrote, "Since the bridge has been in use since the 1960’s and access across this bridge is indispensable to the reasonable use of property on the west side of the river, it is beyond dispute that owners of the bridge (emphasis added) can use it and maintain it." But then the State claims to not know who owns the bridge.

How is the State able to give permission to use the bridge if they do not owns the bridge?

And, what possible reason could the State have for not reducing this permission to writing in the form of an easement that can be recorded?

My bridge ownership question remains unanswered. Does the State own the bridge as a matter of law, or does the Bridge Association?

Thank you, Rooty

The Bridge Association owns it according to what you posted.

"The court granted quiet title to the private organization that formed the new bridge association."

The state is no longer involved in the matter unless the state chooses to appeal the court's decision. I cannot think of any reason why the state would want to do so.

Also, in the following paragraph:

The State wrote, "Since the bridge has been in use since the 1960’s and access across this bridge is indispensable to the reasonable use of property on the west side of the river, it is beyond dispute that owners of the bridge (emphasis added) can use it and maintain it." But then the State claims to not know who owns the bridge.

The state isn't giving permission to use the bridge. The state is saying that it is beyond dispute that the owners of the bridge can use it and maintain it. The state is making a statement of the obvious there, not giving permission.

 

[Rooty1]

Just found this discrepancy:

Last month, the State wrote" landowners have an easement by operation of law" but yesterday, that changed to, "owners of the bridge can use it and maintain it."

I do not own the bridge so does that mean I cannot use it?

 

[LdiJ]

Just found this discrepancy:

Last month, the State wrote" landowners have an easement by operation of law" but yesterday, that changed to, "owners of the bridge can use it and maintain it."

I do not own the bridge so does that mean I cannot use it?

You do not own it, but you use it by permission of the owners, because you pay them a fee to use it. The owners of the bridge are using it by providing it's services, for a fee, to those who need it. It is similar to a toll bridge or toll road.

You are looking at the bridge as if it is some sort or public property that must be available for you to use or where rights can be given to you by some public entity. It is not. It may or may not have been private property prior to the court action, but since the court action it is private property owned by the bridge association. The bridge association filed that quiet title suit so that they would own the property and therefore feel comfortable spending money to maintain it.

Therefore, the only entity that can give you an easement is the bridge association and it is unlikely that they would ever consider doing so. Only the owners of a property can give an easement on the property.

 

[Rooty1]

Got it, thanks to all.

Happy Holidays!

Rooty