What? Easement ridiculousness...

[Karenj]

No, the OP said the names on the two deeds (original grant and grant to the town) were the same.



So I will ask the question; Is the signer of the original easement deed the same as the signer of the deed to the town? Did that person own the OP's property at the time of both signings?

Also, the OP's new statement changes things somewhat;

Then the only person the OP would have to deal with to extinguish the easement through his property would be the property that could use the OP's property for "ingress and egress", and that would seem to be only the property adjacent to his. If I'm reading this correctly, all the other properties that were subdivided off the dominent tenant's property have access via the town's easement which does not cross the OP's property. The OP should be able to extinguish the easement on his property with the consent of the one neighbor directly behind him.

This has been somewhat confusing and I may have misspoke in a prior post. The difficulty in assessing the legalities is compounded when new information continues to surface.

The dominant tenant (that the original rights were sold TO) sold the rights to the town and then sold their property. They did not own my property or any of the properties that the easement runs through.

I have tried your suggestion already (mentioned earlier). The town said that everyone living on that side had to agree (as everyone living on that side owns ingress and egress rights on my little portion). We got all but one and he flat out refused. And no, it was not the people directly behind me, they thought it was a good idea.

I apologize for any lack of information. I had to read both deeds over again and noticed that the survey was different and did, indeed, end at my property line on the second deed.

 

[justalayman]

No, the OP said the names on the two deeds (original grant and grant to the town) were the same.



So I will ask the question; Is the signer of the original easement deed the same as the signer of the deed to the town? Did that person own the OP's property at the time of both signings?

Also, the OP's new statement changes things somewhat;

Then the only person the OP would have to deal with to extinguish the easement through his property would be the property that could use the OP's property for "ingress and egress", and that would seem to be only the property adjacent to his. If I'm reading this correctly, all the other properties that were subdivided off the dominent tenant's property have access via the town's easement which does not cross the OP's property. The OP should be able to extinguish the easement on his property with the consent of the one neighbor directly behind him.

This has been somewhat confusing and I may have misspoke in a prior post. The difficulty in assessing the legalities is compounded when new information continues to surface.

Read that again. The dominant tenants. The name granting rights to them and the deed transferring rights to some e
Asement were the same. Never did the servient tenant give rights to the town

 

[justalayman]

Ok, when it comes down to it it sounds like nobody has transferred the rights of the easement on your property to anybody. You can only enforce your rights regarding your property.

So, if that means posting no trespassing signs and enforcing them by calling the police so be it

 

[154NH773]

If the easement "deadends" on your property without going all the way through, then the only property that NOW could utilize your property for ingress and egress is your back neighbor. If he will relinquish his rights to the easement, get him to sign a deed and then you are done. Tell the town they own no rights to your property. Fence it off and keep people out. If they feel strongly enough about it they will sue to quiet title. If everything you say is correct, it is likely you will win.
Now that you have confirmed that the deed to the town was granted only by the dominant tenant, then I agree with justalayman that the deed is meaningless.

All this being said, I advise you to consult a lawyer who has access to all the relevant documents.

 

[Karenj]

If the easement "deadends" on your property without going all the way through, then the only property that NOW could utilize your property for ingress and egress is your back neighbor. If he will relinquish his rights to the easement, get him to sign a deed and then you are done. Tell the town they own no rights to your property. Fence it off and keep people out. If they feel strongly enough about it they will sue to quiet title. If everything you say is correct, it is likely you will win.
Now that you have confirmed that the deed to the town was granted only by the dominant tenant, then I agree with justalayman that the deed is meaningless.

All this being said, I advise you to consult a lawyer who has access to all the relevant documents.

Thank you for helping me out. I know that the town has no rights to my property, but everyone else does, according to the deed. I will contact a lawyer but I don't hold out much hope, unless this one holdout sells his house.

I appreciate all of the decent people here.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you for helping me out. I know that the town has no rights to my property, but everyone else does, according to the deed. I will contact a lawyer but I don't hold out much hope, unless this one holdout sells his house.

I appreciate all of the decent people here.

I think you are misunderstanding what deed we are talking about. The only deed that controls you in any, way, shape or form is the deed originally granting the easement to the one dominant tenant. I don't think that the deed between the city and the other dominant tenants has anything to do with you, because the city only claimed the easement up to the edge of your property. I think that is why its so important to have any attorney review all of the paperwork.

No owner of your property ever granted an easement to the guy that's attempting to hold out on you. I would personally be tempted to just help nature take its course by throwing some grass seed out there and by starting mowing when grass/weeds take over what's left of that dirt road...which WILL happen over time anyway.

 

[154NH773]

You must understand that the original easement was for "ingress and egress". The neighbor who is holding out has no rights on your property because he has rights only in the direction of the exit onto a public road.

Others have expressed the opinion that the subdivision and the expansion of the easement rights to additional properties could be an over-burdening of the easement, and I agree that would be a reasonable argument in court, at least in regard to your property. A court would have the final say on that particular issue.

I don't think it applies to you, because I believe the town is wrong, but if you are unable to fully utilize land containing a right of way, the you can ask for a real estate tax abatement on that section.

 

[Karenj]

You must understand that the original easement was for "ingress and egress". The neighbor who is holding out has no rights on your property because he has rights only in the direction of the exit onto a public road.

Others have expressed the opinion that the subdivision and the expansion of the easement rights to additional properties could be an over-burdening of the easement, and I agree that would be a reasonable argument in court, at least in regard to your property. A court would have the final say on that particular issue.

I don't think it applies to you, because I believe the town is wrong, but if you are unable to fully utilize land containing a right of way, the you can ask for a real estate tax abatement on that section.

I don't understand why he has no rights on my property....The easement is for the "heirs and assigns". So isn't that him? I understood it to mean that the dominant tenant has rights to the entire length of the easement.

Sorry for my confusion. If he only has rights in the direction of the exit....That would be great.

I fully intend to understand this before I die

 

[LdiJ]

I don't understand why he has no rights on my property....The easement is for the "heirs and assigns". So isn't that him? I understood it to mean that the dominant tenant has rights to the entire length of the easement.

Sorry for my confusion. If he only has rights in the direction of the exit....That would be great.

I fully intend to understand this before I die

The owner of your property who granted the easement to the dominant tenant behind you granted only an easement to that property. Other people granted an easement to the rest of the "street" out to the main road. Therefore the easement is not one long easement, but several easements added together. Each of the property owners through whose land the various easements pass, are only bound by the easements that owners of their property granted.

Now, apparently all of the dominant tenants granted jointly some sort of rights to the easements to the city...but it appears that because they only paved to the edge of your property, that they only granted whatever they granted to the city, the easements on other properties.

Let me try to give a technical example:

D1 was granted an easements by S1, S2, S3 and S4 to get from his property to the main street.
S2, S3, S4 granted an easement to D2, subject to D1's continuing easement.
S3 and S4 granted an easement to D3, subject to D1 and D2's continuing easement.
S4 granted an easement to D4, subject to D1, D2 and D3's continuing easement.

Nobody has rights to an easement beyond ingress and egress, which ends at the end of their property. Therefore the only person that matters in your case, is D1. It might be different if the easement resulted in a through street, that was paved from one main road to another, which would make ingress a egress go in either direction, but that is not the case here.

You can let nature take its course, or you can help nature along, but unless the nature of your neighborhood changes, or D1 needs further ingress and egress on his property, that dirt lane is going to eventually disappear.

 

[154NH773]

I don't understand why he has no rights on my property....The easement is for the "heirs and assigns". So isn't that him? I understood it to mean that the dominant tenant has rights to the entire length of the easement.
Sorry for my confusion. If he only has rights in the direction of the exit....That would be great.

LdiJ is essentially correct except at the time the original easement was written (if I am getting this correctly), there were only two properties, yours and the lot behind you. The lot behind you was subsequently subdivided and the owners of those subdivided lots are assuming that all rights granted to the original lot also belong to them. They may be correct, but the original easement was for "ingress and egress". Ingress means that they are allowed to get to their property from the main road, and egress means they can get to the main road from their property. On a dead end street, as LdiJ said, the grant only allows them rights in one direction - OUT. There is no need for anyone except the property behind you to travel on your property to get OUT, and therefore the others have no right to do so, and have no claim to your property at all.

Any of the neighbors can sell any easement rights to the town across THEIR property, but nobody has the right to change or modify the easement rights across your property but you, or your predecessor.

There may be subtleties in the deeds that have not been brought out in these posts, so I highly recommend talking to a local land use attorney.

 

[justalayman]

Properties split off from the first dominant tenement enjoy the same rights afforded the first dominant tenement.

It may be contestable if the added use is considered to be an over burdening.

 

[Karenj]

Thanks all...

I'm actually finding it all very interesting in an Alice-in-Wonderland kind of way.

I think I'm still stuck though. But I'm glad that I am not my neighbors. Unless the town is paying them rent, it all seems very wrong to me.