Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
A federally owned, remote 10 acre site, supporting multiple, commercial, federal, and state telecommunications activities, has civilian and Federal, County, and State radio assets, and is serviced by private contracting entities.
Sole access to the site is through a very old, unimproved, dirt road built, using Federal funding, during the depression using CCC workers. In old times, the road was the only North South Road/Trail in the region, going back to stagecoach times. The road transits a patchwork quilt of 15 private parcels, and approximately 10 Federal and State Park, entities, including the US Forest Service, which manages the multiple users at the communications site, using permittee agreements. It is close to declared wilderness areas. One communications tenant occupying a 1 acre sub parcel in the 10 acre parcel wishes to transfer the communications functions that it managed, to another tenant/management entity. This seemingly minor modification of a permittee agreement, has triggered a response by a self described leader of the surrounding parcel owners (An informal association) over which the access road travels. This property owner, whose psuedoname for this note, shall be called Contrary, who lives beyond the Communications site on the dirt road asserts an alleged right prohibit any further access to that single tenant, for the continued tenant operation of the 1 acre subparcel of the USFS 10 acre site. All other ongoing Permittee agreement-managed activities at the 10 acre site, including access over the only road access, continue.
Mr Contrary, wrote and recorded a document, described as an easement deed, at county records, Titled �Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for a Road and Trail� The deed was between the US Forest Service, and the multiple parcel owners over whose property the federally built road travels. The federally built, and maintained road is the only access to the privately owned parcels. It is also the only access to the Communications site, and multiple other federal lands. It is used by hikers. The 16 year old document has (only) six duly notarized signatures of the 30 owners. Mr Contrary never signed the (his) filed easement.
Mr Contrary wrote from scratch, his restrictions and conditions of use of the Federally built road, to his favor, limiting traffic, and nature of use of the communications site, and terms and conditions for any future successors not on permittee agreements at the time of the written deed.
Mr Contrary asserted that the deed which he created was necessary because no prior deeds of record existed setting terms of use, and access of the privately constructed and maintained road.
Mr Contrary, and the rest of the property owners asserted in writing, their intention to not maintain the road. Any use by Federal or other entities were required to maintain the road, making the road for decades federally maintained; (millions of dollars), during which time enabled the parcel owners to access their properties. Very few of the parcel owners have as primary residences, or live on their properties. I.E. the properties and homes on some of the properties are mostly vacant.
The recorded deed has typewritten lists of 30 owner-entities, including Family Trusts, and family members with proportional ownerships of the privately owned parcels. Of the 30, only six ever signed the deed. Mr Contrary was NOT a signee. Investigations at the County Recorder�s office, have revealed several filed documents, including easements, filed beginning in the 1930s. One of which declares the road as a public road. In spite of the declaration the landowners have placed private gates, limiting vehicle access to the road from the public, for decades. The Permitteed users of the Communications site, travel to the site, (today) approximately 1-2 times monthly, from a former traffic level related to the comm site of approximately 100 trips monthly. (Due to automation and reliability upgrades of the site equipment.)
THE QUESTION:
Can Mr Contrary assert and enforce a right to refuse vehicle passage over his and others property by users of the Federal Communications site, over the federally built and maintained road, based on the deed filed 16 years ago? Do the 1930s deeds which declare the road public, hold sway over the more recent deed?
All deeds, and related docs are accessible on line
3 Answers from Attorneys
Speaking from my experience litigating issues of easements, it is not sufficient to read your posting to be able to give you an answer carved in stone. I would need to examine the history of the property and all relevant documents to understand your position. Even then, it is difficult to know whether the case can be resolved by presenting the facts to the other side, or whether their lawyer will advise them to oppose you or litigate, right or wrong. If you are interested in a detailed look at your case, please send an email to my office.
Best,
Daniel Bakondi, Esq.
415-450-0424
The Law Office of Daniel Bakondi, APLC
870 Market Street, Suite 1161
San Francisco CA 94102
http://www.danielbakondi.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential information, privileged information, or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient or received this message in error, any use or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited and unlawful. Please notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. No attorney-client nor confidential relationship is created through this communication. Nothing communicated or provided constitutes legal advice nor a legal opinion unless it so specifies and written agreement for attorney services has been entered into. Attorney licensed in California only. Your issue may be time sensitive and may result in loss of rights if you do not act in time. Thank you.
I would guess that Mr. Contrary and his coalition is likely on the losing side if, or when, this goes to litigation. First, it's very difficult to remove a govermental use from private property against the will of the governmental entity, and that's what it seems is being attempted here. Further, one cannot restrict easement rights merely by unilaterally re-issuing the easement agreement with more restrictive terms.
It would be interesting to know the position of the Federal agency that is the "landlord" at the communications site......it certainly has an interest in this dispute. Forest Service? BLM?
I have an easement case in El Dorado County and other land-related cases in Plumas and Nevada Counties; I'd be pleased to discuss possible representation in this matter, if and when it becomes necessary.
The only way to answer your question would be with a review of the chain of title to the various parcels. I can tell you that unless the Forest Service accepted the deed, it is invalid. It also sounds like the 16 year old deed is not valid at all, if it was not signed by all the grantors. Lastly, once a deed is granted, it cannot be modified or withdrawn by a subsequent deed from the grantor. So if there was a public dedication thirty years ago, it supersedes a subsequent deed from the same grantor(s). So I think I have answered your direct questions, but it really doesn't resolve the issue of access over the road. Only a full review of all title and possibly a quiet title lawsuit would conclusively establish the various rights in this road. I have over twenty years of real estate litigation experience, including over six years as a vice president and regional litigation counsel for the parent company of Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, and a handful of smaller title companies. So this kind of case is right up my alley. If you would like to consult further at no obligation, please let me know.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
