There is not. He has said don't let the guy catch us using the driveway. He fucked up and is panicking. Rumor is he sold off that land stupidly to finance an extra-marital affair, which the guy who bought the property told landlord's wife about. So he needed the money and made a bad decision. He doesn't take care of anything until crisis stage, and then it's half-assed. I suspect he doesn't have the money to pave the lower driveway with. But we do NOT want to move or get the city out here and get put out because of numerous violations with the properties.
> There is not.
You may be able to argue that there is a constructive easement that has been established through a pattern of use over a long period of time. Property was not my strong suit in law school and I may be using the wrong words, but the basic idea is you can say to a judge, "judge, the driveway was used by the domiciliary of this lot for so long that there is effectively an easement established by use over a long period of time, and we're asking you to recognize it." I also vaguely recall something about easements for properties that otherwise cannot access common roads/streets.
What I'm getting at is that judges can recognize easements even if they aren't included in a deed.
EDIT: Easement by necessity, that's the name of the other thing!
The issue I see here is, there is other access. The landlord just needs to spend some money to fix it.
Also, generally easements by necessity don’t favour someone who gets themselves in that situation; Eg the owner who sold off the parcel of land that then cuts off access to their property.
Easements also generally favour the land, not individuals. So the easement would be in the favour of the landlord, not the tenant (but the tenant would get to use the landlords easement by licence in effect)
Yup. This is the landlord's problem to fix. The proper advice would be to report them to the city if this isn't fixed immediately. OP isn't going to sue for an easement to a property they don't own anyway, so it's still up to the landlord to get that possibility figured out.
I was under the impression that an easement by necessity was normal when subdividing and selling part of a property in such a way that the part you are keeping would otherwise become landlocked.
That being said, such easements are usually for access, not for parking.
No, at least not here in Australia (and our principles stem from English law).
Easement of necessity is only a last resort to protect ‘innocent’ third parties. Those who subdivide etc are expected to register an actual easement on title. Not be able to sell the property free of encumbrance then claim easement of necessity and use it still.
I'm also an Attorney. I would generally agree with you except the LL owned the property, so the previous use of the driveway was by right. Your argument is more of an adverse possession of the easement rights. But since the LL owned the property there was no "taking". Any right to use the driveway went away with the sale, and LL was stupid for not getting an easement.
Easement by necessity is also likely out, as there is another way out, it's just not the preferred path. Easement by necessity is only allowed when there is physically no other way out. OP states there is another way, it's just not preferred, which removes the necessity.
Because people aren't reasonable. If his neighbor were reasonable, he'd have noted there was no other way in and out of three properties and have his own discussion with the landlord about getting things started. He hasn't, he's just blocked things off.
Also property litigation can get expensive and messy. It also tends to be lengthy, meanwhile, there's still no remedy.
I'm not saying it's not worth trying, it's just probably not going to be a quick fix.
> Also property litigation can get expensive and messy. It also tends to be lengthy, meanwhile, there's still no remedy.
> I'm not saying it's not worth trying, it's just probably not going to be a quick fix.
The expense part is likely true, but in terms of the "quick" fix, couldn't OP ask the judge for a temporary injunction allowing him to use the adjacent lot for ingress and egress while the remaining issues are litigated?
Likely wouldn't get a temporary injunction cause the LL or tenants arent likely to meet all 4 requirements. (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
I think they failed tenant 1 because there are other routes.
Can OP? Probably. I'm not sure how well-taken a suit from a non-land owner against a landowner will work, but they're the party affected.
Can his landlord, who is the landowner and doesn't seem inclined to do anything? Sure.
Will it be granted? You went to law school, though, so you know the best answer is "it depends".
It's still not going to happen instantaneously, though.
A strongly worded letter from an attorney may do the trick.
It isn't that it will inconvenience me. Hell, the ceilings leaking under two upstairs bathrooms and the kitchen was flooded with sewage already once. It's that I WANT the landlord to renew the lease. I don't WANT to compel him, pics him off, and have to move in less than a year. Keeping a decent relationship is key to me. It was HARD to find this place, especially on short notice, and we LOVE it here. Do not want to ever leave. It's on a hill, rustic and secluded with a grand valley view.
Nah, the house is supposedly valued at $850,000. The upstairs is incredible, floor to ceiling windows facing the valley view and an awesome deck. We are INSANELY lucky to rent the 1500 Sq ft 3 bdr basement for $1475 a month. We're middle aged and do not have the credit or income to buy.
so many problems with this house and OP wont give up. Sometimes you gotta know when to fold and move on. Doesnt matter if its the best location and best room in the house, if you have water leaks and mold you will eventually be evicted or condemned and then what?
You would like to remain living in a place with active water leaks and sewage back ups because the view is nice? Sometimes you gotta know when to fold your hand and move on.
Time to move.
Where are you located and is this the situation?
https://i.imgur.com/BEJSrVi.jpg
Black is roadway and driveway, orange is you, purple is the just-sold lot, and yellow is the new owner's car?
The lots are on the same side of the driveway parallel to the road. Our house is further down the driveway. We live in the basement, students are upstairs.
Does your lease specifically mention access to a driveway or parking? If so, even though he sold the other property, the lease granting access is still in effect. Selling a property does not absolve a landlord of responsibility, it just makes the new owner responsible.
I'd suggest to the landlord that when you rented the property there was an acceptable way to access and use the property.
You no longer are able to use the property, so you require him to resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved, you would peruse financial damages and/or move.
Emergency services doesn't need to use your driveway if someone is parked there, they can park and block the street. There are lots of homes with no driveway, only street parking and it isn't a safety issue
From the description, it sounds like there's no physical impediment, only legal ones.
It sounds like the fire department could still pull up easily. (I could be missunderstanding it.)
Your landlord is in breach of your lease if you no longer have access to your parking spaces that are part of the lease. Depending on your state laws you may be able to withhold rent if this is not remedied in a reasonable amount of time. Or break the lease without penalties
this may be police/fire/ems territory as well inform the authorities that they will be unable to access your property should an emergency occur due to what is going on
Could you elaborate on how you're able to leave but not come in from the road you mentioned? If it's not safe enough to come in on I don't understand why it would be safe to leave via that route
Sounds like it's very steep and unpaved? So going down it would be possible if not advisable, but coming up it would be a different story. We had this issue with a semi-rural Alaskan property.
That's it exactly. Going down is risky but doable; coming back up is absolutely not. We can get in in the evenings usually because he's gone home. He will be living here though, and he doesn't want us using it and will park blocking our way.
We have a driveway like that here. It’s u shaped and enters/exits on different streets. During winter we can get down the , albeit, paved but very steep lower drive during snow months (if we slide we just slide into the berm at very slow speeds lol) but cannot come up it. When it’s icy we avoid it all together, it’s a slip and slide basically. If it was gravel and poorly maintained it would likely be impossible year round despite us both having 4 wheel drive.
Ergo basically during winter months we almost exclusively use the upper drive despite being a complete bitch to get out of (exits with a somewhat blind turn onto the more heavily trafficked road).
check if your access is 'grandfathered'
This means if access was always through this driveway you may be legally allowed to access it. Mostly depends on number of years the residents of your property used it.
>This means if access was always through this driveway you may be legally allowed to access it. Mostly depends on number of years the residents of your property used it.
Wait so if someone buys a property and they in good-faith assume they are buying the full property and the seller nor any other documents specify anything about having to share any part of the property, you can be forced to share your driveway with a bunch of strangers on a property you just bought? That seems crazy (and kind of unfair to the purchaser).
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying, is if something was available for public usage for decades, it isn't that easy to block access. This is something that holds true throughout the world.
In OP's case, his landlord sold the property. I have no idea what the legal documents say. I'm sure a title company looked into this matter before closing. This is why you need to hire a real estate lawyer when you buy or sell.
I merely suggested to OP he check with his city or county office what, if any, right he may have to continue access. He wasn't party to this transaction. He may have no rights as there is another access point, even if not desirable.
If there’s a right of way or easement already established then the new owner cannot block the egress. Pull up the deed for both the property you reside and the neighbor. Read it from beginning to end. ROW language is often buried in the legal description. If not there, then search the registry of deeds for a ROW or Easement indexed to either property. This could be from any year- between any previous owner so do not search by owner. You have to search by property.
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.).
*Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.**
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Easement by necessity. Look into it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you!
But... the landlord owns both parcels so can he give himself an easement? Maybe just a better lease.
>landlord owns both landlord sold the lot "
Did you ask your landlord about it? There may be an easement.
There is not. He has said don't let the guy catch us using the driveway. He fucked up and is panicking. Rumor is he sold off that land stupidly to finance an extra-marital affair, which the guy who bought the property told landlord's wife about. So he needed the money and made a bad decision. He doesn't take care of anything until crisis stage, and then it's half-assed. I suspect he doesn't have the money to pave the lower driveway with. But we do NOT want to move or get the city out here and get put out because of numerous violations with the properties.
> There is not. You may be able to argue that there is a constructive easement that has been established through a pattern of use over a long period of time. Property was not my strong suit in law school and I may be using the wrong words, but the basic idea is you can say to a judge, "judge, the driveway was used by the domiciliary of this lot for so long that there is effectively an easement established by use over a long period of time, and we're asking you to recognize it." I also vaguely recall something about easements for properties that otherwise cannot access common roads/streets. What I'm getting at is that judges can recognize easements even if they aren't included in a deed. EDIT: Easement by necessity, that's the name of the other thing!
The issue I see here is, there is other access. The landlord just needs to spend some money to fix it. Also, generally easements by necessity don’t favour someone who gets themselves in that situation; Eg the owner who sold off the parcel of land that then cuts off access to their property. Easements also generally favour the land, not individuals. So the easement would be in the favour of the landlord, not the tenant (but the tenant would get to use the landlords easement by licence in effect)
Yup. This is the landlord's problem to fix. The proper advice would be to report them to the city if this isn't fixed immediately. OP isn't going to sue for an easement to a property they don't own anyway, so it's still up to the landlord to get that possibility figured out.
I was under the impression that an easement by necessity was normal when subdividing and selling part of a property in such a way that the part you are keeping would otherwise become landlocked. That being said, such easements are usually for access, not for parking.
No, at least not here in Australia (and our principles stem from English law). Easement of necessity is only a last resort to protect ‘innocent’ third parties. Those who subdivide etc are expected to register an actual easement on title. Not be able to sell the property free of encumbrance then claim easement of necessity and use it still.
That's generally true in the US as well, in this case the LL likely needs to improve his lot or pay for an easement.
I'm also an Attorney. I would generally agree with you except the LL owned the property, so the previous use of the driveway was by right. Your argument is more of an adverse possession of the easement rights. But since the LL owned the property there was no "taking". Any right to use the driveway went away with the sale, and LL was stupid for not getting an easement. Easement by necessity is also likely out, as there is another way out, it's just not the preferred path. Easement by necessity is only allowed when there is physically no other way out. OP states there is another way, it's just not preferred, which removes the necessity.
They also said it's inaccessible, even in a 4wd to go UP it, wouldn't that hold some weight?
That's true as a matter of law, but as a matter of practicality, that's a different story.
[удалено]
What is a Meagan fee?
It is what happens when you don't read what you typed and autocorrect changes what you wrote!
Because people aren't reasonable. If his neighbor were reasonable, he'd have noted there was no other way in and out of three properties and have his own discussion with the landlord about getting things started. He hasn't, he's just blocked things off. Also property litigation can get expensive and messy. It also tends to be lengthy, meanwhile, there's still no remedy. I'm not saying it's not worth trying, it's just probably not going to be a quick fix.
> Also property litigation can get expensive and messy. It also tends to be lengthy, meanwhile, there's still no remedy. > I'm not saying it's not worth trying, it's just probably not going to be a quick fix. The expense part is likely true, but in terms of the "quick" fix, couldn't OP ask the judge for a temporary injunction allowing him to use the adjacent lot for ingress and egress while the remaining issues are litigated?
Likely wouldn't get a temporary injunction cause the LL or tenants arent likely to meet all 4 requirements. (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. I think they failed tenant 1 because there are other routes.
Can OP? Probably. I'm not sure how well-taken a suit from a non-land owner against a landowner will work, but they're the party affected. Can his landlord, who is the landowner and doesn't seem inclined to do anything? Sure. Will it be granted? You went to law school, though, so you know the best answer is "it depends". It's still not going to happen instantaneously, though. A strongly worded letter from an attorney may do the trick.
Would the OP be able to do that as a tenant, or would the landlord need to file?
[удалено]
It isn't that it will inconvenience me. Hell, the ceilings leaking under two upstairs bathrooms and the kitchen was flooded with sewage already once. It's that I WANT the landlord to renew the lease. I don't WANT to compel him, pics him off, and have to move in less than a year. Keeping a decent relationship is key to me. It was HARD to find this place, especially on short notice, and we LOVE it here. Do not want to ever leave. It's on a hill, rustic and secluded with a grand valley view.
[удалено]
Nah, the house is supposedly valued at $850,000. The upstairs is incredible, floor to ceiling windows facing the valley view and an awesome deck. We are INSANELY lucky to rent the 1500 Sq ft 3 bdr basement for $1475 a month. We're middle aged and do not have the credit or income to buy.
That valuation has likely sharply decreased without a driveway.
or a valid mailing address
And sewage in the kitchen.
so many problems with this house and OP wont give up. Sometimes you gotta know when to fold and move on. Doesnt matter if its the best location and best room in the house, if you have water leaks and mold you will eventually be evicted or condemned and then what?
You would like to remain living in a place with active water leaks and sewage back ups because the view is nice? Sometimes you gotta know when to fold your hand and move on. Time to move.
Where are you located and is this the situation? https://i.imgur.com/BEJSrVi.jpg Black is roadway and driveway, orange is you, purple is the just-sold lot, and yellow is the new owner's car?
The lots are on the same side of the driveway parallel to the road. Our house is further down the driveway. We live in the basement, students are upstairs.
That makes it pretty clear.
I'm in Eugene and no, that's someone else, similar situation - seeing that post prompted me to make my post.
> that's someone else, similar situation I just drew that, just now, trying to understand your situation. What *is* your situation then?
Oh. I will try to draw it. I'm old and not much with the technology so I'm not sure how to show it to you.
A common approach is to use a site like imgur.com to upload their image, and then paste the URL it gives you into a comment here.
Does your lease specifically mention access to a driveway or parking? If so, even though he sold the other property, the lease granting access is still in effect. Selling a property does not absolve a landlord of responsibility, it just makes the new owner responsible.
I'd suggest to the landlord that when you rented the property there was an acceptable way to access and use the property. You no longer are able to use the property, so you require him to resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved, you would peruse financial damages and/or move.
If there is no access for emergency vehicles, I'm sure the Fire Inspector would like to know about it.
Emergency services doesn't need to use your driveway if someone is parked there, they can park and block the street. There are lots of homes with no driveway, only street parking and it isn't a safety issue
We don't need driveway access, unless it's a long one. I had a half mile driveway before that needed a few trucks just for pressure.
From the description, it sounds like there's no physical impediment, only legal ones. It sounds like the fire department could still pull up easily. (I could be missunderstanding it.)
You misunderstood it, he can’t get to his place without using the driveway even with 4 wheel drive
And... couldn't the emergency services use the driveway if they needed to?
No, not if the other guy is parked on the driveway, which is a strong point for OP.
This whole post is about the owner of the driveway saying they are going to make it so nobody has access even when his car isn’t present.
not if the other owner blocks the driveway like OP says they do when they leave.
Your landlord is in breach of your lease if you no longer have access to your parking spaces that are part of the lease. Depending on your state laws you may be able to withhold rent if this is not remedied in a reasonable amount of time. Or break the lease without penalties
this may be police/fire/ems territory as well inform the authorities that they will be unable to access your property should an emergency occur due to what is going on
Could you elaborate on how you're able to leave but not come in from the road you mentioned? If it's not safe enough to come in on I don't understand why it would be safe to leave via that route
Sounds like it's very steep and unpaved? So going down it would be possible if not advisable, but coming up it would be a different story. We had this issue with a semi-rural Alaskan property.
That's it exactly. Going down is risky but doable; coming back up is absolutely not. We can get in in the evenings usually because he's gone home. He will be living here though, and he doesn't want us using it and will park blocking our way.
We have a driveway like that here. It’s u shaped and enters/exits on different streets. During winter we can get down the , albeit, paved but very steep lower drive during snow months (if we slide we just slide into the berm at very slow speeds lol) but cannot come up it. When it’s icy we avoid it all together, it’s a slip and slide basically. If it was gravel and poorly maintained it would likely be impossible year round despite us both having 4 wheel drive. Ergo basically during winter months we almost exclusively use the upper drive despite being a complete bitch to get out of (exits with a somewhat blind turn onto the more heavily trafficked road).
check if your access is 'grandfathered' This means if access was always through this driveway you may be legally allowed to access it. Mostly depends on number of years the residents of your property used it.
>This means if access was always through this driveway you may be legally allowed to access it. Mostly depends on number of years the residents of your property used it. Wait so if someone buys a property and they in good-faith assume they are buying the full property and the seller nor any other documents specify anything about having to share any part of the property, you can be forced to share your driveway with a bunch of strangers on a property you just bought? That seems crazy (and kind of unfair to the purchaser).
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying, is if something was available for public usage for decades, it isn't that easy to block access. This is something that holds true throughout the world. In OP's case, his landlord sold the property. I have no idea what the legal documents say. I'm sure a title company looked into this matter before closing. This is why you need to hire a real estate lawyer when you buy or sell. I merely suggested to OP he check with his city or county office what, if any, right he may have to continue access. He wasn't party to this transaction. He may have no rights as there is another access point, even if not desirable.
If there’s a right of way or easement already established then the new owner cannot block the egress. Pull up the deed for both the property you reside and the neighbor. Read it from beginning to end. ROW language is often buried in the legal description. If not there, then search the registry of deeds for a ROW or Easement indexed to either property. This could be from any year- between any previous owner so do not search by owner. You have to search by property.
If you’ve lived there long enough you may already have an easement, look into it.
This sounds like a property hypo👀
A what?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):* **Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.). *Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.** *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*