Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2008

I never write in a small way, you know this.

Not a problem. Our home was the first built up in these hills,
back in 1949 - 1950 years. Original road was graded dirt shaped
much like a sidewinder moving along. Over the decades, other homes
were built for a total of 12 homes on hundreds of acres of land.
No more homes can be built up here, no land left to buy.

Eventually, the horseshoe shaped part of our road, which runs along
the backside of our hill, was abandoned and the main road straightened
out a little bit by moving the road to the front part of our hill.
Our dirt road section, about an 1/8 mile long, is too narrow and
too rugged for general usage; one car wide, sheer cliffs right and left.

In the Sixties, the city came in and paved the main road. However, there
are no easements nor dedications to the city for road usage; we own the
road. Same applies for utility services; electric, gas, telephone, cable.
Nonetheless, so many people use this road, including city services,
emergency services, much too late for us to close the road. This would
lead to a legal battle I know we would not win. Not interested, anyhow.

Our dirt road is gated at both ends. None use our dirt road except us.
On this, we are in good legal shape. Rather annoying, we have a total
of three driveways. This leads to "yellow books", ads in plastic bags
containing rocks, freebie newspapers and such, being tossed on all
three driveways; three times the normal amount of live spam.

Whatever, I do enjoy periodically teasing our snobbish elitist neighbors,
"We own that road out there, we can forbid you from using our road."

"Adverse Possession" is the right term. After several decades of usage
of our main paved road, this now belongs to the public, or more precise,
there is a "public easement" through adverse possession.

Reminds me of a story. You will delight in this one.

There is acreage adjacent to ours, was acreage. This shady accountant
owned the land. He and wife had plans to build on this land. We did not
want a house next to ours, although hundreds of yards away.

We effected a plan.

Years back, before we could buy our current primary residence,
this land was listed for sale. We were interested. Being halfway
intelligent, we ordered up "perk tests" on the land to be sure a
septic tank could be used. Drilling team came out, drilled down
about six feet and hit virgin hard rock granite. Perk test failed,
no septic tank, no building.

This is when the accountant came in and bought this land without
running any tests to be sure he could build a home. Six years he
fought with the city trying to attain a building permit. No dice,
no septic tank, no nearby sewer line, slope of the land too much,
all kinds of problems.

We bought the home and land, adjacent to his land.

I searched records and found a trust deed on his acreage with a
beneficiary we know personally, trust deed is for $80,000 even.
During a con job dinner with our friend, her lips are loosened
with Mai Tai drinks, she tells us the accountant was in the
middle of a divorce, caught cheating with another woman at their
church, and he filed for bankruptcy. Odd thing about this trust
deed, which caught my attention, no legal description of land,
just a note about "secured by personal property." Ah ha!

Sure enough, with aid of flirting by my husband, she tell us
the trust deed is paper only, completely worthless. She adds
the accountant had her file this trust deed, no money down
from him, no payments, no note, nothing. This trust deed is
filed to keep his land out of the bankruptcy; encumbered full
value, court cannot auction off the land. This, of course, is
a criminal offense.

I call the accountant, asks if he wants to sell his land,
"Yes, and my price is $80,000 for the land. I have a trust
deed on my land for that amount." Lying sack of sh.t.

Year later, for sale sign up on the land.

Our plan goes into action. I stay home all the time, each
and every day. When a realtor shows up with clients, off
I go hiking over to this land, "Hi! I live over there. Did
you folks know the city will not issue a building permit
for this land?" and I explain about perk tests, slope and
all that. All client showings failed; none would buy. Ha!

More time passes and we effect part two of our plan; we
start improving his land, run water lines over, do some
grading, knock down weeds, plant trees. Very nice!

Reminds me, each year we were sure to file a complaint
with our fire department about weeds and fire hazard.
Each year the accountant had to pay to have his land
cleared off, with a tractor.

I catch the accountant out front of his land on a fateful
day. He is sitting in his big black Mercedes, I ask,
"You ready to sell your land to us?" He goes on about
this $80,000 trust deed. "Well, Mr. Shady Accountant,
I looked into your trust deed. Yours is paper only,
no note, unsecured and you filed that trust deed to
keep your land out of bankruptcy proceedings."

He is stunned, turns bright red and drives off in
a big hurry, not a word said.

Month later, we receive a letter from an attorney
giving us permission to make improvements on his
land. This is too cover for "Adverse Possession"
which you mention. This is our clue the accountant
is in a real fix; he cannot stop us because he
knows we have "dirt" on him, the trust deed ruse.

Six months later, he calls, "Would you like to buy
my land?" I tell him we would, he says $80,000 and
I say $20,000 he says no, I say "fine" and hang up.

I know we have him, he is in a real pickle.

Check around with friends, "Oh yeah, Mr. Accountant
is in a sh.t load of trouble, the IRS is after him."

Few days later, he calls, "Would you like to buy my
land?" Sure, $20,000 even. No, he wants $50,000 even.
I counter with $25,000, he counters with $40,O00.
"Well, Mr. Accountant, there is this problem of that
trust deed, you know. How about $30,000 and you make
sure your trust deed is reconveyed?" Out the blue,
"Ok, you have a deal."

Back then the value of the land was about $100,000
and today, about a half million.

Moral: Don't mess with an Indian out to take your land.

Skitt set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

Legalistic BrE would employ the poetic inversion "fee simple" here. Is
thisthe usual AmE form?

There is something in English law (don't quote me on this) about a common
right of way coming into existence if a road is continuously open for a
year and a day or something like that, if the owners do not assert their
rights in this way.

In such cases in the UK, where the owner wishes to retain his rights to the
road, it is usual to deny common access to the road on one day a year,
usually a day which would cause least inconvenience to regular users New
Years's Day, Good Friday and Christmas Day are usual choices.

There's an example in my native city of Cardiff, a footpath links Working
Street (one of the main shopping streets) with Trinity Street (where there
is an entrance to the central market). Usually this footpath is open to the
public providing convenient access to the market, but it passes through the
grounds of St. John's Church and is strictly Church property. So on Good
Friday every year (when the market is not open anyway) the Church
authorities close this footpath off.

Reciprocally, if said common right of way over a road never gets used within
the said year and a day, the owner can assert his rights over the road once
more.

An example of this converse case was formerly found in the neighbouring city
of Newport. In the mid 19th century some railway lines were laid along a
few of the streets to provide access to the early dock and riverside wharf
systems. By the early 20th century these lines had fallen out of regular
use, but the Great Western Railway asserted their right of way over these
lines by running a "light engine" (i.e. a locomotive on its own, not
hauling a train) along them on Good Friday each year. This continued until
1929 after which the railway company abandoned their rights. The tracks no
longer exist....

Your APCTR or whatever it is may well have been inherited from this precept
of English law.

BrE filted:

"Tonight, Abe Vigoda teams up with Erik Estrada on the season premiere of 'Fish
'n' Chips'"....

(It was funnier about 25 years ago)....r

And especially so to those of use who pronounce it "microfish".

--
This post was full when it was composed.
Contents may have settled in shipping.