Who owns the bridge?

[quincy]

Got it, thanks to all.

Happy Holidays!

Rooty

It was nice to see you back on the forum, Rooty1, although it would have been nicer if you had come back to say that everything with the bridge was resolved.

Happy holidays!

 

[Rooty1]

Thanks Quincy, I would not go so far to say everything with the bridge has been resolved.

I still don't understand why the law firm of Givens & Pursley said the private owner of the river should provide the Bridge Association with an easement but now that the river is owned by the State, no such easement is necessary.

Or, how could a court could approve the associations Quit Claim Deed when there was never a deed in the first place; or how the State could not know who owns the bridge on their property yet have the authority to say landlocked property owners can use it.

I am tired of this bridge as I am sure you are too. It is water under the bridge at this point so all's well that ends well.

Take care, Rooty

 

[quincy]

... I would not go so far to say everything with the bridge has been resolved.
...

I understood that. It seems there is still much to do.

Have a good evening.

 

[Rooty1]

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.

LdiJ - one more question if I may. Why do you suppose the County considers the bridge to be "Leased Residential" when there is no lease agreement, no lessee, no lessor, and no residence? Thanks/

 

[LdiJ]

LdiJ - one more question if I may. Why do you suppose the County considers the bridge to be "Leased Residential" when there is no lease agreement, no lessee, no lessor, and no residence? Thanks/

I can't answer that question without knowing the full context. No one can. It may be another misinterpretation on your part, like when you misinterpreted a declarative statement of the obvious from the state, as permission.

 

[quincy]

I think you should get a lawyer involved to research the easement issue, Rooty1. I agree that there could be an issue with it if/when you decide to sell your property.

How much approximately are you being assessed for use of the association’s bridge?

 

[adjusterjack]

I still don't understand why the law firm of Givens & Pursley said the private owner of the river should provide the Bridge Association with an easement but now that the river is owned by the State, no such easement is necessary.

Or, how could a court could approve the associations Quit Claim Deed when there was never a deed in the first place; or how the State could not know who owns the bridge on their property yet have the authority to say landlocked property owners can use it.

The how is explained by the "did."

If no one challenges the "did" then the "did" is a done deal.

 

[Rooty1]

quincy - The 21 property owners have each paid about $5,000 over the course of 8 years or so for a total of more than $100,000.

 

[LdiJ]

quincy - The 21 property owners have each paid about $5,000 over the course of 8 years or so for a total of more than $100,000.

That is pretty reasonable for a bridge, considering that it only serves 21 households. That is only about $625.00 a year per household. You can certainly pay a lawyer to research the situation for you but I am not surprised that the powers that be feel that the fee is reasonable, because it is.

 

[quincy]

quincy - The 21 property owners have each paid about $5,000 over the course of 8 years or so for a total of more than $100,000.

Thanks for answering my question, Rooty1.

So you have been paying the bridge association approximately $625 a year for the last eight years to maintain the bridge and access your property by way of the bridge.

Does this assessment include any other fees that property owners in the HOA are required to pay or is the $625 only for the bridge?

Here is a link to one of your earlier threads where you say you are not an HOA member but you must pay for use and maintenance of the bridge (which would be a common fee for an easement):
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/payment-under-duress.628001/

I think I understand your concern about not having a recorded easement, however. A residential lease seems weird - and is liable to raise questions for any potential buyer of your property.

 

[Rooty1]

LdiJ:

Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder.

The State could easily provide all property owners on the West side of the river with an easement that would include a duty to repair and maintain the bridge. How could that be cumbersome and not enforceable? (Also, FYI, for decades, property owners had been donating funds for bridge maintenance, but it was not spent on the bridge.)

When the county abandoned the right-of-way over and across the bridge, the bridge would have reverted to the owner of the underlying fee. As such, the private party owner of the river became the owner of the bridge. That explains why Givens and Pursley recommended that the Bridge Association acquire an easement. Why would the Association need to obtain an easement from that property owner but not the new one? This is why I believe the bridge is now owned by the State.

In addition, when the county abandoned the bridge (for a second time) they violated I.C. § 40-203(2), “No highway or public right-of-way or parts thereof shall be abandoned and vacated so as to leave any real property adjoining the highway or public right-of-way without access to an established highway or public right-of-way.” There is no "reasonable fee" exception.

The States 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 known as the AlaccaBridge."

First, the State said an easement came with the property when they bought it. Then they said they understood that the bridge exemption requires them to allow access to the public and property owners across the bridge. Then they said property owners have an easement by operation of law that includes all four (4) of the following: An Easement by Express Grant and an Easement by Prescription and an Easement by Necessity and an Easement by Implication from a Prior Use. Then that changed to “owners of the bridge” have an easement by operation of law. Reminds me of the children’s game, “Go fish.”

While you may believe that the state is saying that it is beyond dispute that the owners of the bridge can use it and maintain it, that is only their opinion. Why do you seemingly believe that reducing said permission to writing is unreasonable?

The Quitclaim Deed used to transfer ownership of the bridge only to the Association is dubious at best. A quitclaim is a formal renunciation of a legal claim against some other person, or of a right to land. A person who quitclaims renounces or relinquishes a claim to some legal right or transfers a legal interest in land. The bridge was nothing more than a structural improvement to the real property of another when it was built. As such, whoever owns the land owns the bridge.

There is no “misinterpretation” regarding the "full context" involving the County treating the bridge as "Leased Residential" and my university student loan officer takes offense. The County Tax Master document is sitting in front of me, and it clearly shows LR 31N04E334205S with a market value of $15K. The county assessor said there must be a Lease Agreement between the State and God Knows Who, but she did not know where to find it. Smells fishy to me.

 

[Rooty1]

Quincy

Yes, I have been paying the bridge association approximately $625 a year for the last eight years to maintain the bridge and access my property by way of the bridge.

As previously mentioned, the money I have paid is for the bridge only but includes their federal and state taxes (they were supposed to form a non-profit but did not), attorney fees, property taxes, insurance, etc.

Worse, after spending $100K on repairs, the bridge has serious design and construction flaws. There is no where for the rain and snow to drain creating an Olympic sized swimming pool on the deck and the curbs were never installed which will allow a vehicle to fly off the edge into the water 30+ feet below. Now the association wants us to pay even more money to have those defects fixed.

I believe you understand my concern perfectly. A designation by of county of a Leased Residential bridge makes no sense.

 

[LdiJ]

LdiJ:

Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder.

The State could easily provide all property owners on the West side of the river with an easement that would include a duty to repair and maintain the bridge. How could that be cumbersome and not enforceable? (Also, FYI, for decades, property owners had been donating funds for bridge maintenance, but it was not spent on the bridge.)

Once again, no the state cannot do so. Why? Because the state doesn't own the bridge and only the owners of a property can give an easement on the property. A court can sometimes force the owners of a property to give an easement, but the state has no authority to do so.

When the county abandoned the right-of-way over and across the bridge, the bridge would have reverted to the owner of the underlying fee. As such, the private party owner of the river became the owner of the bridge. That explains why Givens and Pursley recommended that the Bridge Association acquire an easement. Why would the Association need to obtain an easement from that property owner but not the new one? This is why I believe the bridge is now owned by the State.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Givens and Pursley is not recommending that the bridge association get an easement to the bridge. They are recommending that the bridge association (the owners of the bridge) get an easement from the private party owners of the riverbed that allows them to have their bridge on the riverbed. That may or may not be a good idea at this point, but I cannot see any logical way that you could think that means that the bridge is now owned by the state.

In addition, when the county abandoned the bridge (for a second time) they violated I.C. § 40-203(2), “No highway or public right-of-way or parts thereof shall be abandoned and vacated so as to leave any real property adjoining the highway or public right-of-way without access to an established highway or public right-of-way.” There is no "reasonable fee" exception.

There is no "reasonable fee" exclusion either. It does not say that the access has to be free. It just says that there has to be access.

The States 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 known as the AlaccaBridge."

Notice the bolded? I think that there is context missing here.

First, the State said an easement came with the property when they bought it. Then they said they understood that the bridge exemption requires them to allow access to the public and property owners across the bridge. Then they said property owners have an easement by operation of law that includes all four (4) of the following: An Easement by Express Grant and an Easement by Prescription and an Easement by Necessity and an Easement by Implication from a Prior Use. Then that changed to “owners of the bridge” have an easement by operation of law. Reminds me of the children’s game, “Go fish.”

I think that you need to have your own attorney explain things to you.

While you may believe that the state is saying that it is beyond dispute that the owners of the bridge can use it and maintain it, that is only their opinion. Why do you seemingly believe that reducing said permission to writing is unreasonable?

Because it is not permission. It is an expression of an opinion. Expressing an opinion is not giving permission. The state has no authority here to give permission.

The Quitclaim Deed used to transfer ownership of the bridge only to the Association is dubious at best. A quitclaim is a formal renunciation of a legal claim against some other person, or of a right to land. A person who quitclaims renounces or relinquishes a claim to some legal right or transfers a legal interest in land. The bridge was nothing more than a structural improvement to the real property of another when it was built. As such, whoever owns the land owns the bridge.

A quiet title suit granted the transfer. The quitclaim deed was merely the method used to execute the court's orders. Therefore it is not dubious. Its a court order.

There is no “misinterpretation” regarding the "full context" involving the County treating the bridge as "Leased Residential" and my university student loan officer takes offense. The County Tax Master document is sitting in front of me, and it clearly shows LR 31N04E334205S with a market value of $15K. The county assessor said there must be a Lease Agreement between the State and God Knows Who, but she did not know where to find it. Smells fishy to me.

Consult an attorney. A bridge cannot be "leased residential" because it is not residential property. It cannot be lived in by someone. I also don't know why the county assessor would think that there must be a lease agreement between the state and god knows who, since the state does not own any of the property involved and apparently never has.

You really need to consult an attorney. You need someone to explain things to you whom you will believe.

 

[Rooty1]

LdiJ

Humor me - I pull up to your house, construct a foot bridge on your front lawn, and claim I own it. Is that okay?

And, if the bridge does not have a parcel number, and it is not Leased Residential, what is it?

 

[LdiJ]

LdiJ

Humor me - I pull up to your house, construct a foot bridge on your front lawn, and claim I own it. Is that okay?

No, but if I objected, and the person constructing it took it to court, and for one reason or another a judge said that they did own it, then they would own it. It would be a done deal. Or, in the alternative if it was there because some prior owner of my lawn gave permission for it to be built, or allowed it to be built, and again, someone took it to court and got a judge to say that they owned it, then it would also be a done deal. Or, in the alternative if multiple people were using it and needed it, and no one claimed responsibility/ownership of it and therefore it wasn't being maintained, it would be possible for someone to take it to court to obtain ownership so that it could be maintained. It is indeed possible for land to be owned by one entity, and the structure upon the land owned by another.

And, if the bridge does not have a parcel number, and it is not Leased Residential, what is it?

Why do you think that the alternative to a parcel number is a "leased residential" designation?

It doesn't have a parcel number because it isn't land. It sits on someone else's land, but it is not land itself. Residential property is property that someone can live in or build a home upon. Hence the term "residential". That bridge would more properly be classified as commercial property. Or possibly as unzoned/undesignated property. It however, is not leased to anyone. It is owned by the bridge association who allow people to use it for a fee. You could legitimately call it a toll bridge.

The bottom line here is that the bridge association sued for quiet title. The judge granted their suit. No one appealed that court order. Therefore it is a done deal. The bridge association owns the bridge.