Assuming he relies on you for access to the world. Isnt that spelled out as an easement? I'm not a smart man, but that is what it sounds like it SHOULD be.I actually just bought land and have this situation. I own 10 acres on the east side of the road and also about 10 feet on the other side of the road which is my neighbors yard and driveway. His property is completely land locked.
So . . . let's imagine that someone owns a house and property, but they're not there for some reason for 10 years. If some a-hole breaks in and squats in there during that time, at some point the a-hole can assert that he owns the place?
If you really cared about it, wouldnt you check on it more than once a decade?
So . . . let's imagine that someone owns a house and property, but they're not there for some reason for 10 years. If some a-hole breaks in and squats in there during that time, at some point the a-hole can assert that he owns the place?
Assuming he relies on you for access to the world. Isnt that spelled out as an easement? I'm not a smart man, but that is what it sounds like it SHOULD be.
Interesting new case on the easement/inverse condemnation angle to this whole thing.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12201701ggs.pdf
And, a bit of a peek behind the curtain at the ISC's attempt to get a set of regulations incorporated by reference into an administrative regulation. Difficult for me to imagine a state agency getting a call from the Indiana Supreme Court's staff and giving the usual "we don't do that" song and dance.
So if I read this right, homeowner A granted 50' wide easement (random amounts for discussion). He sells it to homeowner B who understands 50' wide easement is there. Later power company upgrades standards and decides 50' is not wide enough anymore and tries to claim they can arbitrarily make it 75' wide now simply because they were granted the first 50, and that an easement is an easement and size is irrelevant and subject to change at their whim. Is that what I am reading?
So its the homeowners fault for not following an industry that they have no reasonable reason to pay attention to in order to understand that something changed? Nice. Real nice.
Sorry, if you suddenly decide what you took the first time isnt sufficient, you are obligated to tell me things changed and you are taking more. Unless maybe suddenly they started maintaining a wider path by cutting trees, the landowner would have no reason to know it had changed. But I'm still not sold that they should get away with it without proactive notifications. "Hey, thanks for that land, but its not enough anymore. We need more."