×

697
698

Neighbors stupidly caused themselves to be landlocked. Are we going to be legally required to share our private road?

(self.legaladvice)

submitted by mattolol

Here is a picture of the land area.

State: MN.

The vertical gray strip on the left side of the image is the public main road.

I own the land in pink. Our private road we use to access it is entirely on our land (surrounded by pink, denoted by "our road"). It has a locked gate and the sides of our land that are against roads are fenced. We have remotes for it or can open/close it from our house.

The neighbor used to own the land in blue AND purple, but sold the purple land to someone else a couple of weeks ago. They accessed their property by a gravel road on the purple land before, but the person who owns it now is planning on getting rid of that gravel road. Apparently when they sold the land they were assuming they could start using our private driveway instead. They didn't actually check with us first. They've effectively landlocked themselves, ultimately.

The neighbors want to use our road (denoted in gray) and make a gravel road from our road onto their property in blue that they still own.

We have had some heated discussions about it and things went downhill fast. They say that by not giving them access to our private road we are infringing the rights of their property ownership. Now they are threatening to sue us.

If they sue, is it likely that a judge would require us to let them use our road? Do we need to lawyer up?

THanks

top 200 commentsshow all 381
sorted by:
best

[–]taterbizkit 401 points402 points  (78 children)

Going by general principles of easements and property transfers:

When blue severed his parcel into blue and purple, he should have reserved an easement across purple.

You have no legal relationship with blue and no duty to provide blue with access. That blue did not check with you for permission first is not your problem.

An easement is a "burden" on title. A parcel of land carrying an easement is (at least in theory) reduced in value to some extent. Thus, a neighboring landowner with whom you have no legal relationship cannot impose a burden on your land. Something you do has to give rise to the easement.

I cannot imagine your neighbor having any recourse against you whatsoever. If he were the purple guy and sold off the blue portion to a third party, that party could claim an easement by implication (or by necessity) against purple. Court assumes that the purchaser wouldn't have made the purchase without assuming he'd have access.

It's a little different in blue's case. He may or may not be able to claim an easement against purple. Against you, can't see it.

Don't worry about an attorney unless he sues you. If you decide to allow him access or reach some kind of settlement, make sure to use a written lease that shows that he has your permission to use the access. You want it in writing. He may have no intention of attempting to gain an easement by prescription, and your state's laws may not allow it under these conditions. But a writing is cheap to do and defeats any claim of easement by prescription.

(Prescriptive easement is when you are unaware of or ignore your neighbor using your land for a long period of time, such that he can later claim a right to use it indefinitely. Giving explicit permission to use the land defeats this since it shows you were aware of and not ignoring your rights.)

Google "MN easement by necessity" and look at the top unsponsored link. I'd paste the link but my browser is making it unintelligible. Anyway, it's a link to a PDF that appears to discuss easements in MN. I can't vouch for it since I'm not barred in MN, but it appears to cover the ground.

[–]libre-m 129 points130 points  (5 children)

The burden on title part is particularly compelling - its quite likely the neighbours deliberately sold the land without and easement for their own access, not wanting to reduce the sale value of the land, which it would because the new owners want to use the whole of the land for livestock. You can't have your cake and eat it too - maximise the sellable value of your own land and reduce that of OP. The courts are going to be very skeptical.

[–]taterbizkit 78 points79 points  (4 children)

Oh good point. Easements are an equitable remedy, and it could be argued that blue has unclean hands -- or at least that he benefits from his own mistake in the form of a better selling price to purple.

If the judge grants blue an easement across purple's land, it'd be interesting to see what purple does, and whether that would be enough to rescind the sale.

[–]BullsLawDan 79 points80 points  (1 child)

Someone used "equitable remedy" and "unclean hands" in a real-world legal situation.

If anyone needs me, I'll be hiding my law-boner behind my desk.

[–]libre-m 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Embarrassingly I forgot the phrase 'clean hands' because it's my birthday and I'm tipsy.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Happy tipsy birthday. I hope that while forgetting clean hands you had the kind of fun that involves dirty feet.

[–]mattolol[S] 62 points63 points  (60 children)

Thanks. I found information on easements but not the specific necessity ones. I will read up on that.

Unfortunatley someone here is saying it's likely a judge would order the easement on our land because we already have a road...

[–]taterbizkit 95 points96 points  (16 children)

I can't say this would save your ass, but if there is in fact a gravel road across purple's property at this moment, go get pictures of it showing that Blue's most reasonable access would be that gravel road. An easement should go where there was "unity of title" -- that is, where the property was owned by one person (that's the unity of title part), then when it is split, it should go across the part that was sold -- and not were it would burden an innocent third party (you)'s interests.

It's not your problem that purple wants to fence off his property. That's between him and blue. (at least the way I see it).

[–]mattolol[S] 60 points61 points  (15 children)

A friend actually suggested the exact same thing! We took pictures from several angles with a newspaper in the picture (so they can't say those pictures were old).

[–]internetnickname 62 points63 points  (3 children)

Not worth much to you but know that an internet stranger (and plenty here, it seems) really hopes this works out for you. That's total presumptuous bullshit on his part and it enrages me for you. He can't eat his cake and have it, too.

[–]Krusha2117 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Or eat his cake and have some of yours as it stands.

[–]taterbizkit 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Completely off-topic: Are you Ted Kaczynski? Just curious.

According to an AUSA friend of mine who worked on the Unabomber case (the first killing was reported to his office when he was a noob, so they had the case for the whole duration), the phrase "eat his cake and have it too" is what brought the guy down.

He apparently had a personal peeve against people who say "have your cake and eat it too", and would rant to family members -- including his brother -- whenever he heard it.

The "Manifesto" included the phrase in the "eat / have" form in two places, which is what apparently made his brother certain enough of the unabomber's identity to make the call to the FBI.

[–]internetnickname 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Haha, I am not, although I am familiar with the case and that story.

Honestly, I thought I had read somewhere that the initial proverb was the way I stated it, you cannot eat your cake and have it, too (which at first glance does seem to make more sense than having the clauses reversed). So I started using it that way because A)I thought it was initially correct and B) it simply makes more sense. I looked it up though and it doesn't appear it's the case, although both forms are acceptable. Still interesting to read here

[–]morto00x 28 points29 points  (10 children)

You can also get satellite images from Google Maps, Yahoo Maps and Here (Microsoft). Probably a few months outdated, but they would definitely be a good complement to your photos.

[–]DammitMiriam 14 points15 points  (8 children)

This works better than a newspaper. Someone can keep a newspaper for a year and then take photos with it.

Newspapers (or similar time stamps) are good for proving that something didn't happen prior to a specific day, not for proving something happened on or after a specific day.

[–]SoMuchMoreEagle 9 points10 points  (4 children)

It shows the state of the property at the time of the sale or soon after, which is the important part.

load more comments (3 replies)

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Unless there's a lot of trees. Google satellite is useless in my town because we have these awesome old trees that block out the sun (and the eye in the sky).

    [–]Reddisaurusrekts 145 points146 points  (29 children)

    No one can really tell you what a judge will think, but my (equally useless I suppose) opinion would be that the judge wouldn't be too impressed by the neighbours profiting by selling off their land, failing to be prudent about access, and then requesting that they are entitled to rights to someone else's property.

    Also

    a gravel road on the purple land before

    They can use this road too, because in the reverse, why can you not say you're planning to get rid of your road? Please do update though.

    [–]mattolol[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

    I will update thanks

    [–]MiaFeyEsq 31 points32 points  (0 children)

    Yep, essentially they would be making OP carry the burden of the transaction re: road access. If they had reserved an easement, maybe shit neighbors wouldn't have got as much money in the sale... but that isn't OP's problem.

    [–]Thuraash 109 points110 points  (25 children)

    Not a MN lawyer, but I completely agree with this. Easements are valuable, and an easement burden can (and in this case probably will) reduce the value of the land subject to it. Here, the neighbor profits by selling his land unencumbered, therefore at higher value. Then, he seeks a free easement of necessity against OP, diminishing the value of OP's land due to the encumbrance running down the fucking center of it, benefiting from the road that OP expended value to build, and increasing the value of the landlocked tract because it is no longer isolated. Even if he has to pay for the easement, that's fucking ridiculous.

    /u/mattolol: Instead of playing ball with your neighbor's easement horseshit, my suggestion to you (I'm not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc., you know the drill), if this is something you're willing to do, is as follows:

    Make a good faith offer to sell them a ten foot wide strip of property along the northernmost edge of your land for the (reasonable) price of your choosing, PLUS the reasonable cost of new fencing to demarcate the new property line.

    Send the offer to them in a letter that provides a very brief summary of how they landed themselves in this predicament, and indicating that although you do not see how you could possibly be responsible for their failure to reserve an access path when they sold their property, you are willing to work with them in good faith to help them out of the pickle they put themselves in.

    Send the letter by certified mail RRR/E, and obviously keep a copy. I would also send a duplicate by email. If this goes to court, I think it's important to have as much evidence as possible to show that you're the reasonable party here, that you find it unacceptable to have an unasked for and utterly detrimental easement of "necessity" running down the middle of your property, and that you proactively and in good faith offered the neighbor reasonable solutions that did not involve you picking up after his dog because he couldn't be bothered.

    IMO, it would be a good move to sell a strip of your property and let them build their own damn road. If you flatly refused, then this would likely become a highly acrimonious waste of everyone's time, money, and nerves.

    Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, get a lawyer! Someone who knows property law, and that you trust to keep the peace and a level head when you, your neighbor, and everyone else is fuming mad. You don't necessarily want your lawyer talking for you yet, but definitely engage one and run your letters and negotiations by your lawyer just to make sure you don't give up something you don't want to, or end up saddled with some unwarranted expenses because you forgot to cross a "t;" this isn't your fault, and you shouldn't be paying for it, IMO.

    Best of luck, and do tell us how it pans out!

    [–]Fluxman222 28 points29 points  (1 child)

    Don't forget to include in that offer the cost of the relocation/removal and replanting of the trees along northern line of the property.

    [–]Thuraash 18 points19 points  (0 children)

    Yes. Those trees are valuable, and OP will lose the benefit of their presence because of the neighbor's stupidity. They should pay for moving or replacing them at the new property line as part of the purchase, IMO.

    [–]NetPotionNr9 52 points53 points  (14 children)

    I am not sure why there is so much advice for OP to sell his land and him to take on the burden. Why should he not simply reject the neighbor's ludicrous and onerous demands and make him get an easement or buy back a sliver of land from the owner he just sold to (surely, to a higher price) and let them duke it out instead of OP. As mentioned, I don't see how this is OP's burden. It seems to me like giving any little bit on this allows for a wedge to possibly drive this open even further.

    [–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (7 children)

    Because he stands to profit if Blue accepts it and has a rock-solid show of good faith if Blue rejects it. A judge (and, if necessary, an appeals judge) is much less likely (as in approaching certainty) to favor Blue's argument if OP has made a good faith offer that solves the problem -- let alone one which makes as much sense as this offer (it avoids awkward and value-decreasing easements, it maintains a clean property line, it solves the problem in a better manner than any other I can think of, and it avoids future problems of Pink and Blue arguing about the use of the easement, etc).

    When it comes to legal advice, it's like playing chess. You don't always want to sacrifice your pawn, and it sucks that you've been put in a position where one of the best possible strategies is to sacrifice your pawn, but given the state of the board, we'd be failing OP if we didn't mention the strategy and its potential merits.

    Alternatively, OP can keep this idea in his back pocket as a counter offer. Tell Blue to fuck off; if it makes it to court and if it looks like the judge may rule in Blue's favor (which I believe is highly unlikely but it could happen), this would be a much better alternative.

    And hey, everybody, this is exactly why you should have fences, walls, big fucking rocks, and/or big old fucking trees along your property line. Unless OP had the idea to subdivide his plot at some point in time, having a nice wall would likely have prevented Blue from even considering the possibility (Blue would have gone after Purple instead). Good walls make good neighbors. That said, I would not start constructing a wall now -- that would be a show of bad faith (essentially preempting the judge, and judges REALLY don't like that).

    [–]BullsLawDan 10 points11 points  (4 children)

    Ok Robert Frost. ;)

    [–]TickledPear 16 points17 points  (3 children)

    Actually that poem is about Frost questioning the old aphorism "Good fences make good neighbors". Frost thinks it's silly to continually repair the fence separating his apple orchard and his neighbor's pine trees, but the neighbor still relies on the old aphorism. Frost only continues to repair the fence to be neighborly.

    [–]BullsLawDan 14 points15 points  (2 children)

    Listen. I haven't had an English Lit class in nearly 20 years and I am legendary among my high school for skipping 112 out of 188 days of English class my senior year. You should be bowing down to the fact that I even remembered that shit.

    Ninja edit: And now I work in a career where my English reading and writing skills are literally a majority of the job. Go figure.

    [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

    Actually /u/tickledpear gave a response that reminded me so much of my roommate at Dartmouth. I had the same manic disdain as you did for English classes (as evidenced by the grammar of most of my posts). My roommate helped me survive by distilling extraordinarily complex literature themes down to one or two sentences. This guy here did that so nicely with this often misquoted concept from Frost. Here's an early tip of the makers to Karl, my old friend who was a pure genius but couldn't figure out how to properly clean the fucking bathroom! :)

    load more comments (1 reply)

      load more comments (2 replies)

        load more comments (6 replies)

          load more comments (8 replies)

            [–]no-mad 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            you're planning to get rid of your road?

            I like this.

            [–]NetPotionNr9 14 points15 points  (2 children)

            I don't see how this is going to turn out well if you give even an inch on this, unless you have a great relationship with your idiot neighbor. I can't quite tell how large the properties are and whether things are to scale, but it strikes me that it would be quite annoying to have someone constantly driving down your driveway and possibly even parking vehicles along the road (maybe when they're having big events or because they need to park their boat somewhere) that bifurcates your land. I would do all I can to reject the advances and push them towards doing what they are attempting to do with you to the new owner of the land they sold. I don't see how this will end up well if you even give an inch and you will surely hate yourself for giving in once your property has turned into their driveway.

            [–]no-mad 15 points16 points  (1 child)

            Neighbor needs to buy a road from the person he sold the land to.

            [–]couldabeen 13 points14 points  (0 children)

            My vote is for this solution as well. If the seller had not been greedy, they would have reserved an access for themselves over the parcel they were selling. Oh, but then they would have received less money for it. No sympathy.

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            I think that's very unlikely, because no similar prior use existed, while a different suitable one did elsewhere, and the new inconvenience is Blue's own making and did not involve you (despite their unfounded representations to Purple).

            load more comments (9 replies)

              [–]MiaFeyEsq 18 points19 points  (2 children)

              Nice bar exam answer! Also correct.

              [–]arbivark 3 points4 points  (1 child)

              I got a 98 on my first semester property exam. I'm standing in line to hand in the exam and girl in front of me says, 'yeah and the cutting down of the trees means you talk about waste" and i slap myself on the forehead because i didn't talk about waste. she got a 99. it doesn't really apply here because there's no tenancy issue, but it reminded me of that old exam.

              [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              Great answer. I am a PLS in Tennessee and couldn't have explained it better.

              load more comments (7 replies)

                [–]epic31 493 points494 points  (17 children)

                Not advice, but THANK YOU for bringing a fresh, well explained and documented novel issue to this sub and thanks to all the commenters for providing thoughtful responses. Reminds me of the good ol days of this sub.

                [–]mattolol[S] 112 points113 points  (6 children)

                Ha...I'm glad that my dilemma made you happy :)

                [–]UlyssesSKrunk 59 points60 points  (0 children)

                HOORAY FOR OP'S SUFFERING!!!

                [–]taterbizkit 12 points13 points  (2 children)

                This is the first topic I've seen in quite a while (months?) that generated this much interest without causing a flame war between how the law works and how cop-haters want the law to work.

                [–]mattolol[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                Yes, my misfortunate seems to be very amusing to some people here :P I'm glad at least it is interesting though.

                load more comments (1 reply)

                  [–]anriana 92 points93 points  (4 children)

                  Seconding this! This is one of the few threads where I (a non-lawyer) have gone "Wow, I should sit this out because it's a complicated issue." It's a big change from "my roommate is doing something annoying that doesn't violate the lease, can I take his property away?" and "I got drunk and don't like the consequences, can I make them go away?"

                  [–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (1 child)

                  "I got drunk and don't like the consequences, can I make them go away?"

                  Well now we have a crappy "internet lawyer" solution to this problem!

                  "If you're wanted by the police, just sell any easements of your land so your house is landlocked. The cops can't come to your house to arrest you without trespassing on your neighbor's property. Thus, you're completely safe from arrest!"

                  [–]arbivark 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                  that's funny. i rented a room to a guy who, we didnt know, is on probation, so the cops have the right to search his room. my other tenants want to know if they can keep the cops out of the rest of the house. i may have to evict the guy to resolve the problem.

                  [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

                  Third. This is very interesting and I hope we get updates and a resolution. In OP's favor of course.

                  [–]Thuraash 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                  Welcome to real legal work! This kind of challenge is exactly why I got into this business.

                  load more comments (5 replies)

                    [–]SaggingZebra 44 points45 points  (2 children)

                    Honestly, your neighbor has made a very expensive problem for himself. At this point, he will lose any case against you. He can sue the owner of the purple property and you may get joined to the case.

                    In my opinion, the likely outcome is the blue owner will get an easement over the gravel drive of purple's property and have to contribute to the maintenance of that road. The purple will probably counter sue to recoup a portion of the sale price of the parcel or to have the contract between blue and purple rescinded all together. The whole process will likely cost the blue property owner a lot of money in litigation cost and he will look to settle.

                    The option of you having to grant an easement is pretty remote, but you should be on the look-out for a case. If you get pulled into litigation get a lawyer and make sure they request your legal fees and costs be paid by the blue party that pulled you into the case.

                    Don't let the blue property owner use your driveway. Keep records of any correspondence you have with the other property owners. Record phone calls if you have too. Wait on retaining a lawyer, until the other property owner sues.

                    [–]medgno 16 points17 points  (0 children)

                    On the topic of keeping records of correspondence, IANAL, but it appears that Minnesota is a single-party consent state meaning that it is legal to record phone calls without telling your neighbor you are recording them.

                    But again, IANAL.

                    load more comments (1 reply)

                      [–]TominatorXX 91 points92 points  (4 children)

                      Read this -- your answer is in here and I don't think the other side can get an easement out of your property just because they need it.

                      http://olson-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Establishing-Access-to-Real-Property-MSPS-2011.pdf

                      What makes this so ridiculous is they could have so easily reserved an easement from the property they sold. And without even talking to you they did this? They're idiots. I suspect they will have a good legal malpractice claim next as their real estate attorney must be incompetent if he didn't warn them of this.

                      See this:

                      The Court of Appeals stated in Lake George Park, L.L.C. that, unless the party claiming an implied easement is claiming against the person who was the owner at the time of severance, the use must have been continuous and apparent: ―Appellant cites no Minnesota case where an easement of necessity was implied for the benefit of a party remote to the severing transaction without a showing of apparent and continued use. This court, as an error correcting court, is without authority to change the law. Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid America Employees, 576 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).

                      Here, they've never had use of your property. And your property and theirs was never joined at the time of the severance. I think a prescriptive easement is far more likely as to the recent buyer than from you. Continuous use at the time of severance.

                      [–]Ubel 16 points17 points  (0 children)

                      OP, I do believe this is exactly what you're looking for.

                      Show his link and quote to whatever lawyers you talk to, if they're not already aware of it they should be very interested.

                      [–]warpus 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                      What makes this so ridiculous is they could have so easily reserved an easement from the property they sold.

                      They probably didn't want to because it would have sold for less then. That's probably what their "logic" was - pure greed.

                      load more comments (1 reply)

                        [–]The_Original_Gronkie 28 points29 points  (1 child)

                        Don't you love it when someone gets mad at you because you refuse to let them take advantage of you?

                        [–]mattolol[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                        Oh it's great.

                        [–]illuminutcase 82 points83 points  (43 children)

                        I can't offer any advice, but please don't forget to update us on how this one pans out. I have to know how a judge is going to handle this stupid property owner. Did they not plan ahead? What were they thinking?

                        [–]grasshoppa1Quality Contributor 42 points43 points  (42 children)

                        Did they not plan ahead? What were they thinking?

                        They probably know that they could go to court if they need to. The judge isn't going to let the property remain landlocked. There's an easement by necessity in there somewhere, the question is just where.

                        [–]mattolol[S] 116 points117 points  (40 children)

                        Well I sure hope a judge wants the easement to be in the purple area then.

                        Sharing our road with our neighbors opens up a lot of headaches. We would have to give them access to the gate. They get a lot of deliveries when they're not home during the day and want us to leave the gate unlocked at all times for that.

                        We have 3 kids (soon to be 6) and animals who play out there. It's safe because no one can drive on the road unless we explicitly open it, and we know to check for kids. That gets complicated by the neighbors using it, too.

                        We also just plain like our privacy. All the land that isn't covered by fence is covered by trees. I don't want people driving through our yard half a dozen times a day. My picture doesn't show it quite accurately because I am horrible at paint, but they would pretty much drive through the middle of our yard to get to theirs.

                        And what about maintenance? We open ourselves up to drama if there's ever a problem with the gate that inconveniences the neighbors, and we handle maintenance and snow removal ourselves. They have already said they don't plan to contribute to any maintenance costs because we'd have to maintain the road whether they used it or not.

                        So I am really worried about this.

                        [–]OnesNew 99 points100 points  (9 children)

                        The fact that your road is fenced to protect your petschildren and animals and they want you to leave the gate open is one of the most relevant facts to argue against the use of your road. As the others have said, the fact they didn't reserve an easement on purple land is also against them. Please update us on this someday. I really hope it goes well for you -- and I'd make sure to hire a good lawyer since it seems you have a lot at stake. Also, if there is a suit, I'd be inclined to include the purple neighbors as a related party, but a lawyer can advise you on this.

                        [–]mattolol[S] 31 points32 points  (6 children)

                        Thanks. I'm going to start looking into the best lawyers for this in our area so that I can be prepared if something comes of it all. If anything worthwhile happens I'll come back and update.

                        [–]mrrp[🍰] 12 points13 points  (4 children)

                        You might want to actually hire the best lawyer now, before the other party does.

                        [–]geoelectric 12 points13 points  (3 children)

                        Assuming it's in good faith, I think even an initial consultation would effectively reserve the lawyer due to conflict of interest.

                        Just don't do that as a legal tactic with all the good lawyers in the area (or any you don't legitimately think you'd hire later). We've already seen that thread.

                        load more comments (1 reply)

                          load more comments (2 replies)

                            [–]The_Original_Gronkie 32 points33 points  (5 children)

                            So they've already told you that they expect access to YOUR road and had the gall to tell you that they don't intend to contribute to its maintenance? Sure you'd have to maintain it anyway, but all the wear and tear is yours. Their use of it is going to cause additional wear and tear, perhaps doubling it, and yet they expect you to cover the costs of THEIR use? The judge is going to love hearing that one. Do you have that expectation in writing? If I were you, I would demand that all future conversation regarding the use of your road be handled by email.

                            Edit: Jeez, the more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. The neighbor is in a tight spot of his own making. If anything, he should be begging you for use of your road, and offering to pay ALL maintenance costs in order to persuade you to cooperate. Fuck him. Tell him to sue you if he can find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case.

                            [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children)

                            Jeez, the more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.

                            Tell me about it. I almost wish this was happening in my state so that I could get involved.

                            [–]Gumstead 31 points32 points  (15 children)

                            You don't need to defend your reasons to us, its your road and you can do as you please. And if you ever do go to court over it, make sure the final settlement gets them contributing to maintenance if they get to use it, their reason is bullshit, its childish logic.

                            [–]mattolol[S] 31 points32 points  (14 children)

                            I just don't want to seem like a jerk for not being neighborly. :)

                            [–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (4 children)

                            These people are literally trying to strong-arm rob you. This isn't about "neighborly" at all.

                            This is the equivalent of me remodeling my house without any bathrooms and then demanding that my neighbor let me use his shitter whenever I want, however I want, because it's convenient to me that his toilet is closest to my ass.

                            What they are doing is, frankly, the most un-neighborly and un-American thing anyone can do when it comes to property, and the fact that they're going about it and making the additional demands they are puts it so fucking far over the top that they should be deported to communist China.

                            [–]cheebie 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                            And who refuses to pay for a plumber when he clogs it.

                            I'm all for being neighborly but refusing to pay maintenance? Super rude.

                            [–]DeadDoug 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                            I...I love you

                            load more comments (2 replies)

                              [–]ultralame 40 points41 points  (2 children)

                              Neighborly? Dictating to you that they should be able to use your land, dictate how how your gates are used, force removal of trees, force you to pay for their removal and then refusal to pay for maintenance of the road they demand to use...

                              Not a lawyer, but I'd say you have been extremely Neighborly simply by not firebombing their property.

                              [–]MildlyAgitatedBovine 24 points25 points  (1 child)

                              simply by not firebombing their property.

                              /r/legaladvicethatmayormaynotincludetheuseofnapalm

                              [–]Hockeybeard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                              This should DEFINITELY be a thing.

                              [–]Gumstead 36 points37 points  (0 children)

                              This is America, you are free to do as you please. There is a difference between being neighborly and not letting some asshole assume he has a right to use your property and not even think he should have to pay for it.

                              [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

                              IANAL

                              That's commendable, and also very prudent. I know what it's like to have neighbours you don't get along with well. It just plain sucks. To whatever extent you can avoid an escalation, it's worth it -- so long as it does not result in unfair and unnecessary infringements of your own rights and free enjoyment (and safe and sane use) of your own land.

                              I personally feel that this is between those two parties, and does not involve you. Blue apparently made representations to Purple that were untrue, and for whatever reason Purple did not verify them. If Purple had pointed out the issue, then I think an argument exists that Purple had reason to perform due diligence to verify that before going through with the deal, and may bear some responsibility -- even though normally, a warranty deed puts all liability on the seller. (Which again, means that it does not involve you, or obligate you in any way.)

                              This is between those two parties only. A usable means of access existed prior to the sale. That the partition may have severed that access does not make it disappear if it was there before the partition, and now constitutes the grantor's only practical access. The fact that your driveway may be convenient for them does not give them any right whatsoever to it. It was obviously not necessary for them to ever use it before the sale. If it was going to be, then it was incumbent upon them both to settle that up with you prior to sale, and to fix a formal legal agreement to that effect. Their failure to do so implies that they either expected to retain their prior use of the gravel drive, or simply took you for granted. Neither of those implies any liability or obligation on your part.

                              As the severance resulted from the partition, it seems clear to me that an easement by necessity exists where it was before, not in any new place that did not serve that purpose before. (A civil authority could order such a thing through eminent domain, as when they move a road or somesuch, but not as a consequence of bad land deals that you aren't party to.)

                              One option you could consider is offering to sell a suitable strip of land along the edge of your property along the new parcel, for Blue's use. Blue would have to pay you for that, as it would constitute a purchase.

                              As much as you have every good intention in wishing to avoid escalation, you have been drawn into someone else's problem through no fault of your own, and bear no responsibility to solve it for them. If your neighbour is simply an incompetent dealer, or is prone to take advantage of your good nature, then this is not likely to be last time you have an issue with them, and at some point you need to draw a clear line in the sand -- as politely as you can, but firmly nonetheless.

                              load more comments (2 replies)

                                [–]illuminutcase 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                They're currently using purple's dirt road to get out of their property, but purple guy wants to put up a fence. The law might actually prevent purple from doing that.

                                [–]BullsLawDan 54 points55 points  (2 children)

                                Surprised no one else has said this yet:

                                Just to avoid any "misunderstanding", send your neighbor a letter, certified return receipt requested, stating that they do not have permission to use your land or driveway, and that any use of your land will be considered trespassing.

                                Because I can 100% guarantee if they do trespass and you call the cops, they are going to say they had permission. When you whip out the letter and show they are liars, they will be in trouble.

                                [–]mattolol[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                                I will do this, thanks.

                                load more comments (1 reply)

                                  [–]EmeraldGirl 67 points68 points  (45 children)

                                  Whatever you do, do not allow them to use the road even once. IANAL, but some state's property laws have a portion which establishes their right to use your property essentially because it's the status quo. In other words, if you let them use the road, they can claim that you knew about it and it was never a problem, so they have a right to continue. My parents very nearly got screwed out of being allowed to fence their yard because kids used the side yard to access the park behind it.

                                  Keep the gate locked. Refuse them access. Refuse to accept packages at the gate for them, etc.

                                  [–]mattolol[S] 88 points89 points  (26 children)

                                  We are not letting them use it right now at all, don't worry.

                                  They told us that the new owners are going to put a fence up starting 10 days from now and they will no longer be able to use the gravel driveway so in their words "you will have to start leaving your gate unlocked until you can get some extra gate keys for us." They are still assuming even though we flat out told them no.

                                  I have no plans of leaving the gate unlocked. Unless a judge tells me I need to let them I don't plan to. And even if a judge tells me to let them I plan to fight it.

                                  [–][deleted] 101 points102 points  (9 children)

                                  If they break your lock or otherwise get around the gate, call the cops immediately and charge them with trespassing. Don't even thing about being "cool" or nice.

                                  [–]GlenCocosCandyCane 36 points37 points  (5 children)

                                  He shouldn't even wait for them to break the lock or bypass the gate. He needs to call the police every single time they set foot (or tire) on his property.

                                  [–]SoMuchMoreEagle 23 points24 points  (4 children)

                                  I would put up cameras.

                                  [–]taterbizkit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                  And tigers.

                                  [–]ydnab2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                  ...as well.

                                  [–]CUNexTuesday 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                                  I would put up cameras and several no trespassing signs, and the first time I catch them, I would press charges.

                                  [–]MidwestMemories 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                  Even more specifically a "This is not an easement" sign

                                  [–]couldabeen 21 points22 points  (1 child)

                                  He should preemptively put up NO-TRESPASSING signs on his gate right now. Make it very clear.

                                  [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                                  Should he also put up a No-trespassing sign on the portion of his road nearest to the blue neighbor's property line? So the neighbors are clearly trespassing if they go from blue to pink. Near the shed, for instance.

                                  [–]taterbizkit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                  I wonder if Maginot, France still has some of that tank barrier stuff lying around. OP could probably get a good deal on it. Never been used.

                                  [–]libre-m 40 points41 points  (1 child)

                                  OP, if you have kids, make sure they know not to let the neighbours use the gate. Kids can be easily persuaded and all of a sudden, the neighbours have been using it for a week.

                                  [–]mattolol[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

                                  Our kids hate them about as much as we do. :)

                                  [–]JohnnyMnemo 35 points36 points  (0 children)

                                  you will have to start leaving your gate unlocked until you can get some extra gate keys for us.

                                  The gall here is flat out appalling. I wonder why they didn't ask for keys for your front door while they were at it. On top of the refusal of maintenance.

                                  GL in court, OP. I don't think this is going to be resolved in court before purple has blocked access, so you are going to have some ugly scenes. In fact I might even mosey on down the sheriff ahead of time and apprise them of the situation, so when they are inevitably called about trespassers or gate-crashers they know wtf is going on and have some context.

                                  [–]GlenCocosCandyCane 31 points32 points  (1 child)

                                  They're presumptuous bastards, aren't they? No wonder you hate them. I can't imagine them getting much sympathy from a judge or a jury.

                                  [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

                                  Just hope they represent themselves in court. It will be awesome.

                                  [–]NDaveT 15 points16 points  (3 children)

                                  Minnesotan but not a lawyer. Is your property posted "No Trespassing"?

                                  [–]mattolol[S] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

                                  It will be now.

                                  [–]hertzsae 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                                  Make sure you post signs in accordance with the rules laid out in the state law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

                                  [–]mattolol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  Will do. Thanks.

                                  [–]sirspidermonkey 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                                  You may want to get a camera (sporting good stores sell ones that can easily be strapped to trees. If your neighbors are so arrogant as to assume they could use your gate and road and not even pay for maintenance I wouldn't put it past them to use bolt cutters.

                                  [–]mattolol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                  We already have cameras so I am going to move one directly to the gate per suggestions here. Thanks.

                                  [–]MiaFeyEsq 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                                  I just want to point out that if a judge orders it, you should do what the judge orders. Unless you want to be held in contempt.

                                  But whether that will actually happen... Not very likely, in my humble opinion. In the meantime, keep that gate locked tight! And if you catch them driving on your property, call a lawyer.

                                  load more comments (2 replies)

                                    [–]DammitMiriam 10 points11 points  (6 children)

                                    That state would be Colorado.

                                    I'm on mobile and having trouble pulling up the articles. OP should absolutely google 'kirlin mclean boulder colorado easement' for a full understanding of why letting their neighbor use their road is a really bad idea. If OP is lucky judges in MN won't be so stupid (or politically influenced).

                                    [–]Nessie 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                                    kirlin mclean boulder colorado easement

                                    http://boingboing.net/2007/11/21/land-grab-case-in-bo.html

                                    [–]illuminutcase 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                                    They're currently using purple's driveway, and purple wants to put up a fence. The law might actually prevent them from doing that, leaving OP in the clear.

                                    [–]taterbizkit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                    That's true, but only if they start using it without your permission. It also takes years of use (in MN, it takes 15 years of continuous use) to establish what's called a 'prescriptive easement'.

                                    Explicitly giving permission to use the road completely defeats the claim of right. It's odd to think of it that way, but proving that you gave them permission shows the court that you weren't "sleeping on your rights" (which is a way for you to lose your rights in property law matters).

                                    load more comments (1 reply)

                                      [–]demystQuality Contributor 64 points65 points  (21 children)

                                      Somewhere, my 1L property professor is laughing at me and my class . . . This seems like a straight up Hypo from an exam.

                                      Everyone else seems to have covered it very well. I came to discuss easements and property transfers, but they have it. Please keep us updated! This is very interesting, though I am sorry you are having to go through it!

                                      [–]TominatorXX 3 points4 points  (11 children)

                                      Quick: State the Rule in Shelley's Case....

                                      No interest in a property can vest....

                                      [–]Christopher808 17 points18 points  (3 children)

                                      Additionally I would stop referring to it as a road. It is your driveway

                                      [–]mattolol[S] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

                                      That is a fair point. We have always called it "the road" because it is a long two-lane-sized road, and the driveway to my garage comes off of it. So we call that one the road and the road off it to the garage the driveway, to differentiate But you're right, I could call it a driveway just the same.

                                      [–]kecker 22 points23 points  (0 children)

                                      I think it's a pretty important distinction, and moreover it forces assumptions in the heads of parties involved in the conversation.

                                      "Road" usually means public...everyone can use it. "Driveway" usually means private....only owners can use it.

                                      By using wordsmithing like this, you force certain assumptions/biases into the mind of anyone listening (read: police, sheriff, judge, etc).

                                      From now on that's your driveway, I don't care if you could land a 747 on it....it's your driveway.

                                      load more comments (1 reply)

                                        [–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (16 children)

                                        What reason do they give for not using the gravel road across purple that they used to use?

                                        seems like that would be where the implied easement would lie. Rather than just selecting the route you like best and claiming an easement.

                                        [–]mattolol[S] 55 points56 points  (12 children)

                                        The new owner is planning on fencing in that area for livestock.

                                        The new owners warned my neighbor of that when they made the sale. My neighbor told them they'd just use our road, assuming that was okay. So there's no easement or anything.

                                        [–][deleted] 60 points61 points  (10 children)

                                        so they F'd up. Just keep calmly saying no. they're going to have to sue someone. either buyer or you. wait to negotiate with their lawyer once they get one.

                                        but I see many options besides letting them use your drive like running a new road along the purple/pink boundary.

                                        [–]mattolol[S] 45 points46 points  (9 children)

                                        They said they can't run a new road there because the new purple owner is fencing it in at the property line to use for livestock. They have already started putting the fence up. They explicitly told my neighbors that and my neighbors just didn't care.

                                        [–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (7 children)

                                        right. but you know who double doesn't care? the judge who can order the easement on purple in spite of his fence and his good faith purchase of the property. hopefully that's what will happen, and then purple will sue blue.

                                        I was also thinking maybe judge would order/you could negotiate the easement on the PINK side of the pink/purple line. then you wouldn't have to share your driveway. you'd still have to be paid, of course, and blue would have to pay to install the road. and you could demand that blue pay its upkeep as well.

                                        [–]UlyssesSKrunk 12 points13 points  (6 children)

                                        That sucks. I hope the judge doesn't force purple to let blue use the gravel road. With livestock in the way that just sounds like a nightmare to unfairly impose on purple.

                                        I guess that's likely what will happen though.

                                        [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (4 children)

                                        But purple may have options. If blue promised purple that the easement thing was taken care of and that he guaranteed an easement free parcel, purple could recover from blue. On the other hand if purple ignored the issue and bought an encumbered parcel without doing his research, then he's to blame.

                                        [–]UlyssesSKrunk 12 points13 points  (3 children)

                                        On the other hand if purple ignored the issue and bought an encumbered parcel without doing his research, then he's to blame.

                                        How do you figure? I don't see how it's anyone's fault but blue's in that situation. I just don't think purple should be punished for what is truly blule 's own fault.

                                        [–]stubbornkindafellow 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                        Purple purchases property with obvious access road running through, doesn't determine conclusively whether an easement is implied there, acts to obstruct access to road by neighbour.

                                        There's an argument to be made there, but in the circumstances it sounds like the dumb neighbour gave umpteen assurances that he wouldn't need to use the road. I agree that purple shouldn't be responsible here - purple shouldn't have to do due diligence on his neighbours' properties when buying his own.

                                        [–]YouShallKnow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                        If they knew or should have known that was Blue's only access, there might be an implied easement across Purple.

                                        And if there was a formally recorded easement obviously that would stand despite the sale.

                                        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                        All of that's on the public record, which everyone has access to. If the easement exists, then it's in the record. It's incumbent upon Purple to know what they are signing. Now, if Blue warranted that no such easement existed, then Blue is fully liable. But if Blue only indicated this verbally, but it's in the actual deed, then it is Purple's liability for failing to verify what they were signing.

                                        load more comments (1 reply)

                                          [–]webchimp32 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                                          Their best bet seems to be asking purple very nicely to sell them back the thin strip along the edge with the gravel road.

                                          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 84 points85 points  (0 children)

                                          Just want to reiterate this point:

                                          Just keep calmly saying no.

                                          Because it'll complicate matters if you let them use your road even once. Don't be nice - that can backfire spectacularly.

                                          [–]illuminutcase 18 points19 points  (2 children)

                                          Or even just sell everything except a strip along the property line and make a new road. Who the hell thought "eh.. our neighbor will just let us build a road on his lawn and give us remotes to his front gate."

                                          [–]mattolol[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

                                          They have already sold the land as-is.

                                          [–]MediocreResponse 14 points15 points  (9 children)

                                          The top answer here is the correct one (the neighbor likely screwed himself and has no claim against you), but I just wanted to add, you could always CHARGE the neighbor for a driveway easement, kinda like a limited-time lease on the road (random example, $1,000 per year for the next 5 years). That same license agreement should include an indemnity clause that says if he ever injures his person or property on the easement, he can't hold you (the property owner) liable. Hire a lawyer if the neighbor takes action or trespasses on your property. Best of luck!

                                          [–]mattolol[S] 69 points70 points  (8 children)

                                          It's not about money...we just don't want them using it for various reasons.

                                          We would have to give them gate openers, a gate bell for their house, etc.

                                          We'd worry about our kids and animals - they play and run around in that area. It's safe now because we have to explicitly open the gate for a car to get in, and we know to check for kids and animals. But I don't trust our neighbors to be as cautious, and if they have guests over, they won't be checking for our kids before they open the gate up. I should mention here that both the husband and wife have a history of drinking and driving.

                                          They get deliveries pretty often during the day when no one is around to open the gate. Personally we don't get any deliveries to the house unless it's something major in which case we make sure to be there, but I don't want to deal with having to be around for THEIR deliveries, too. They told us they want us to just leave the gate unlocked at all times.

                                          And there's the issue of who maintains it. They don't plan to help with stuff like snow removal or maintenance costs of the road/gate...and even if a judge ordered them to I doubt they'd follow through. They don't keep up their own property, let alone trusting them to keep up ours.

                                          And we like our privacy. They would drive through the middle of our space, the entire length of our yard, to get to theirs. We put up a fence and had trees planted for a reason, we wanted privacy. I don't want the neighbors and their guests going through whenever.

                                          [–]MediocreResponse 57 points58 points  (4 children)

                                          Understood, and the good news is that American judges and jurisprudence are incredibly sympathetic to property owners' rights (in this case, YOU!), as opposed to the government forcing an easement onto an innocent party. Your story actually reads like a real-life law school hypothetical, in which students learn how the neighbor has BY LAW screwed himself. That's why so many of us want an update - to confirm what we learned as a basic tenant of property law! Cheers.

                                          [–]YourKindGrammarian 20 points21 points  (2 children)

                                          to confirm what we learned as a basic tenant of property law

                                          Tenet - a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.

                                          Tenant - a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

                                          [–]loopsdefruit 23 points24 points  (0 children)

                                          Tennant - a sexy time lord

                                          [–]MediocreResponse 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                          Good catch! I don't use that phrase often. Cheers.

                                          load more comments (1 reply)

                                            [–]Ferrisprost 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                                            If they drive a heavy truck or take a heavy delivery it could royally screw up your road too.

                                            [–]stubbornkindafellow 34 points35 points  (3 children)

                                            Bearing in mind I'm not from the US and am talking straight from my lower colon...

                                            It was said elsewhere that you don't need a lawyer until you hear from the neighbours' lawyer, but I think you need to see one straight away.

                                            It's fairly accepted in this thread that any easement should go on the purple property and not on yours. The only instance a judge should order otherwise is if it's too costly to establish an easement once the purples have started erecting fences, tearing up the road and housing animals there. If that starts happening you have less and less chance that a judge will let you keep your road to yourself.

                                            I think you need a lawyer to get an injunction against the purples from starting any construction on the road, and you need to commence interpleader proceedings between your neighbour and the purples to force them to figure out the easement issue. I have no idea if you'll be able to do that, a smart lawyer in your jurisdiction will.

                                            At the moment your neighbours are avoiding fighting each other and are dragging you in. They need to be fighting each other. An easement should go in, the purples should be entitled to damages or rescission of their real estate contract for the vendors idiocy, and your neighbour should be suing his conveyancers as was stated elsewhere.

                                            But I would try everything possible to nip this in the bud before it's too late.

                                            [–]OrionSong 13 points14 points  (2 children)

                                            I also speak from my lower colon, but I'm guessing the Purple is building quickly for this reason. Whoever suffers the least hassle might find themselves with neighbors driving through their yard...

                                            [–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

                                            He landlocked himself in order to enrich himself. This should not be your burden nor should you be required to remedy it.

                                            Your lawyer is good at explaining this to the judge who'll understand it.

                                            That's how I'd explain it to him.

                                            [–]taterbizkit 21 points22 points  (1 child)

                                            OK, to add a thing that is nagging at me:

                                            If you or one of your predecessors in ownership sold blue the smaller parcel prior to blue's ownership of the purple, it's conceivable that an easement was created giving blue access to your road. But if that's the case, you would have known about it when you bought your parcel.

                                            There are other oddball scenarios like this, but in order for them to affect you, you either had to have knowledge of their creation or they had to be on record at the county courthouse when you bought yours.

                                            [–]mattolol[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

                                            We explicitly looked into the easement issue with a lawyer's help when we bought the land because of the weird shape They said there is absolutely no easement.

                                            A long time ago it was 6 parcels of land (3 tall, 2 wide). Eventually one farmer owned all of purple and blue, and another farmer owned all of pink. We bought all the pink and someone else bought all the purple/blue. Then he sold it to my neighbors. Then they now sold purple. Along the way there was never an easement.

                                            [–]hypotyposis 10 points11 points  (2 children)

                                            My 1L Property prof JUST covered this as a hypo today. According to him, the Blue Neighbor would get an Easement by Necessity across Purple Neighbor's land.

                                            This situation is complicated by the fact that Purple informed Blue of fencing in the gravel road area, but it seems to me that a judge will require the easement across Purple's land, and for Blue to compensate Purple for it.

                                            [–]JohnnyMnemo 12 points13 points  (1 child)

                                            My 1L Property prof JUST covered this as a hypo today.

                                            You've said that, as well as a few others. I gather that law school finals are happening soon.

                                            Based on that, as well as the clearly and well-stated problem surprisingly lacking of emotion , I wonder if we aren't helping someone with their homework.

                                            [–]GlenCocosCandyCane 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                                            Law school exam hypotheticals are rarely this completely one-sided, because professors want to give you enough facts to be able to argue both sides. Under all the rules of property and equitable remedies that I'm aware of, this question has a pretty clear-cut answer (there's no easement on OP's land). If this were a law school hypothetical, there would be at least a few facts that pointed toward the easement ending up on OP's land, and I don't see any here.

                                            tl; dr--this question is too easy for a law school exam.

                                            [–]snarflea 7 points8 points  (7 children)

                                            Not legal advice but could you offer to sell him a strip of land between pink and purple then it's up to him to build and maintain a driveway?

                                            [–]mattolol[S] 26 points27 points  (6 children)

                                            If we absolutely had to I guess I'd rather do that than share the gated road. But that would mean cutting down 20 or so trees that are planted there. We spent a fortune on them two years ago so that they would grow bigger and give us some added privacy.

                                            [–]webchimp32 53 points54 points  (0 children)

                                            Sounds like potentially a really expensive thin strip of land.

                                            [–]libre-m 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                            I'd consider that your Plan B. Plan A is that their easement is not on your land Plan B is that a gravel driveway is put in on the boarder of your property so that you don't have to worry about your kids, animals or upkeep. To be honest, I'd prefer to sell that strip to them so that there's no upkeep costs - they want your nice, expensive, gated driveway, right in the middle of your property, but that's not the only path to their house.

                                            load more comments (4 replies)

                                              [–]atouk_zug 13 points14 points  (0 children)

                                              If there is a suit, couldn't you countersue for creating an undue burden?

                                              The seller specifically used you in their contract negotiations without your consent or knowledge by asserting to the buyer that he could use your property, and by doing so, he made you an uninvolved third party.

                                              Is it possible to sue for a share of the selling price of the land based on an equivalent portion that your driveway/road uses, plus whatever the easement is because his contract negotiations caused you the loss of free and unmolested use of that area.

                                              What if you had planned to put in a pool or other out building?

                                              [–]Impudentinquisitor 9 points10 points  (8 children)

                                              Lawyer in CA (not MN), but as a general matter what you need to be on the lookout for is an easement by necessity. However, given that the sale was recent and the P effectively created his own lack of access, I think you have one of two legal recourses in court:

                                              1) Provide the easement, but receive fair compensation for maintenance and the reduction of title.

                                              2) Join the other landowner in the suit and demonstrate that continuing use of the prior road makes the most sense.

                                              Realistically, however, consider the limits of litigation. It will be costly to secure a small victory in court. A settlement whereby you come to a mutual agreement will be faster, cheaper, and avoid the thorny problem of a neighbor who hates you.

                                              [–]mattolol[S] 42 points43 points  (5 children)

                                              Regarding the last point, I don't much care if they hate me - I already hate them. They are loud, rude people who don't respect others. They treat their own land like shit and I don't want them treating mine the same way. I'd rather pay money to avoid sharing my space with them, than share my space with them.

                                              load more comments (2 replies)

                                                [–]madapiaristswife 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                                What sort of idiotic municipality allowed that subdivision without requiring an easement across purple as a condition of subdivision? That completely baffles me.

                                                [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                                HEY OP, WTF BRO? UPDATE ME!

                                                [–]BobSacramanto 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                                                No real advice other than to tell you that I love your picture. Simple yet effective. I would have no idea what you were talking about without that picture.

                                                They say that by not giving them access to our private road we are infringing the rights of their property ownership.

                                                By demanding the use of your property THEY are infringing on YOUR rights as property owners. What is wrong with people?

                                                [–]mattyoclock 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                                So have you considered talking to a Professional Land Surveyor in your state? A 5 minute consultation should sort this out and give you an idea as to what your next step should be. I'm a Surveyor in PA, and I deal with this kind of thing a lot. The laws are state specific though.

                                                [–]Onward_Bulldogs 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                                                Firstly, follow what everyone else is saying. Secondly, a lot of people may not say this is good legal advice, but I would put up some kind of t-post and wire section of fence right by the property line between you and crappy neighbor. If the judge would ask about ease of building another road to connect to yours, then you can show how you already have a fence there and have no desire to tear it down.

                                                [–]mrrp[🍰] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                                                If OP now throws up a fence, I don't think the judge would treat that the same as if the fence had been there for 10 years.

                                                [–]Onward_Bulldogs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                                Yes but I think it could be seen as another reason to not make OP responsible for crappy neighbors problem. Plus, isn't new land-owner neighbor throwing a fence up quick too, even though he knows it may have to come down? At this point I would do anything to make it a pain/expensive for the crappy neighbor(C.N.) to enter OP's property. Maybe even consider installing more trees/bushes. It's fairly safe to say the judge would AT LEAST force C.N. to pay some form of reimbursement for using OP road, if it was seen as the only solution.

                                                [–]EyeHamKnotYew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                                Please come back and post an [UPDATE] for us.

                                                [–]stpauly 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                                                From what I remember from my business law classes, common law regarding right-of-way, is based mostly on historical use of the land. For instance, if you buy property which includes a path normally used to get somewhere, you must give right of way. So if your neighbors have never used your land before, they should have no claim of right of way. They do however, have right of way on the old property they sold. Don't be a good neighbor on this, because if you allow them right of way now, then they will always have a claim of use for that portion of your property.

                                                [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                                HEY OP, WTF BRO? UPDATE ME!

                                                [–]jmm_halpert 17 points18 points  (5 children)

                                                RemindMe! 6 months

                                                [–]justfuq_it 13 points14 points  (0 children)

                                                That's fucking cool.

                                                load more comments (4 replies)

                                                  [–]salliek76 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                                                  The gravel road that's on the purple piece, does it run through the middle of the purple or directly along the border between your land and the purple piece? Maybe a lawyer here could answer whether that's relevant, but I'd think it might affect Blue's odds of "forcing" Purple to keep the road intact.

                                                  Also just out of curiosity, is the entire blue-green-purple area bordered by a single landowner or multiple parcels? (Does all of the green belong to one person, in other words?) Could Blue potentially go around both your and Purple's land, maybe exiting near the yellow shed? Obviously this may not be feasible depending on the topography.

                                                  [–]mattolol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                                  Not through the exact middle of purple, but there is probably at least a hundred feet between the edge of purple's road and the land.

                                                  Sorry my picture doesn't really show the scale very well. I wanted it small enough so you could see it on one screen, but that you could see stuff like my house etc. easily to understand the situation. My house and shed and garage are a lot smaller than the picture makes them look.

                                                  [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

                                                  The county should never have allowed the lot split without verifying legal access to residue. You're fine. Buyers of the new lots will have to deal with him.

                                                  [–]mattolol[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                                                  That's what I thought. I was sure the county would have required them to write use of the road on the purple land. But for some reason they didn't...

                                                  [–]TominatorXX 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                                                  Could you show where their current or old driveway was? I'm assuming it was along the purple border?

                                                  I assume the new owner could put the fence on the other side of that driveway? Or am I missing something?

                                                  [–]trackerjakker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                                  You should put up a fence along the remainder of your land to effectively keep them out.

                                                  [–]chaostheory101 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                                  Fence off your property and the access to his from your road. Hell spend the money and place those round hay bales on your property blocking any access from his to yours. Keep your gate closed and locked, place a no trespassing sign up, Private property. If they cut your lock call police, Charge them. Better yet lock gate install spike belt set up security camera with motion.

                                                  load more comments (90 replies)