Who owns the bridge?

[Rooty1]

So, I build a footbridge in your front yard and you own it.

I give a Quit Claim Deed for the footbridge to a friend who files it with the County.

Isn't that falsifying a deed?

 

[quincy]

Is this bridge that has been giving you so many headaches over the years now owned by the ALACCA Bible Camp?

 

[Rooty1]

Quincy

ALACCA gave a Quitclaim Deed for the bridge only (that sat on the private property of another) to the newly formed Bridge Association.

 

[quincy]

Quincy

ALACCA gave a Quitclaim Deed for the bridge only (that sat on the private property of another) to the newly formed Bridge Association.

The Bible Camp transferred their ownership interest (if any) in the bridge to the HOA’s Bridge Association by way of a quitclaim deed and a court then granted the Bridge Association’s suit to quiet title. The Bridge Association now holds title to the bridge.

If your intent now is to show your property has permanent easement rights to access your property via the Association’s bridge, I think you will want an Idaho attorney to assist you.

The issues with the bridge probably could have been more easily resolved years ago had you sought local legal assistance at that time, as advised by members of this forum and by those on similar sites where you sought advice and direction. I am aware that you have mentioned that the high cost of hiring an attorney has precluded you from doing so in the past.

 

[Rooty1]

Thanks Quincy.

"The Bible Camp transferred their ownership interest (if any)" ... is the key.

The question is, because they constructed the bridge on the private property of another, what ownership interest did they have?

I say none.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks Quincy.

"The Bible Camp transferred their ownership interest (if any)" ... is the key.

The question is, because they constructed the bridge on the private property of another, what ownership interest did they have?

I say none.

A court of law said differently when they granted the suit to quiet title. Therefore your opinion is meaningless. You could have intervened in the quiet title suit to try to stop the court from granting the suit but you did not do so. The owner of the land could have intervened in the quiet title suit to attempt to gain title to the bridge, but chose not to do so. No one challenged or appealed the court's ruling so it is a done deal.

However, again, it is possible for one person/entity to own land and another person/entity to own a structure upon that land.

On more time: You need to consult with a local attorney. You need to talk to someone who can explain things to you and you will believe their answers.

Please don't take this as being snarky, because it is not. You do not appear to understand some of the fundamentals of the law as far as these issues are concerned. You would not necessarily be expected to understand those fundamentals. However, when people are trying to explain some of them to you, you simply refuse to believe them which makes it difficult to help you learn those fundamentals.

 

[Rooty1]

LdiJ

No snark taken. Thanks.

 

[quincy]

Thanks Quincy.

"The Bible Camp transferred their ownership interest (if any)" ... is the key.

The question is, because they constructed the bridge on the private property of another, what ownership interest did they have?

I say none.

The Bible Camp apparently was the only one to claim an ownership interest. You didn’t own the bridge so the title change was not something you could control.

I have some worry that you have not acted in a timely enough manner to secure an easement by necessity, however.

Discuss with the attorney you see the Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decisions that appear to apply a 4-year statute of limitations to quiet title and easement right actions. My reviews of the decisions were cursory at best - but my impression is that you don’t have the luxury of waiting to act, if you haven’t waited too long already.

 

[Rooty1]

Thank you Quincy, I shall follow through on your recommendation.

Take care, Ms. Rooty