pyrnad, Bad Neighbor Update

Real cute lisa! ..Just proves my point.

That might be the most truth regarding this whole situation than anything else we've heard.

Careful there Pete ..some of the 'clique' will use that against you and will accuse you of threatening pyrnad's ass!

...hmmmm? ..how do you know they didn't?

While I don't agree with most things that you have to say (as well as Qwispea....but hey, that's a gimme!), just for the sake of your argument....WHY shouldn't prynads' lawyer force the issue of having the "bad neighbors" remove the leachfield from her property? After all, it could be legally argued that she is getting little or no benefit from it being in operation, while the neighbors on the other hand, are getting all the benefit from it.....even if they "technically" have no legal ownership to it. What would be the legal ramifications if at the end of the 30 days, prynads' lawyer suggests that she either take out the leachfield or go to the point where it crosses onto her property and "seal" the pipe that goes out to the leachfield......either option will have the same outcome.....the neighbors' property will become uninhabitable. What recourse would the bad neighbors lawyer suggest to his/her clients? There is going to be a lawsuit either way sometime in the future.......and we didn't have to wait to hear Qwispea tell us that one either!!!

"prynads' lawyer suggests that she either take out the leachfield or go to the point where it crosses onto her property and "seal" the pipe that goes out to the leachfield"

My guess is all pyrnad can do is cut line and cap it. if she does then the neighbors will probably apply for a septic repair permit , or similar, and have to install one.

But they probably cant get a permit to build a new one, because for some reason pyrnad already knows that, as she posted earlier.

Probably cost them the same either way. Buy it, or repair it on their land.

That is all a guess.

If they septic cant be fixed, and pyrnad nixes it. The property value of the house will plumpet, they people wont be able to live there (legally), and the only person it woudl be valuable for is, pyrnad, she could cut the septic back into the house and resell it for 2 or 3 times what she just paid for it. (at an auction if she get some judgement against them)

Assuming that county/city sewer isnt available. Or that the neighbors cant somehow buy some adjacent land to put one on.

There is maybe 20+ grand to be made if pyrnad plays her cards right.
Plus the benefit of really giving it to her neighbors.

Not that she would do that. This is all just a guess, a very large guess.
This is all speculation, we can all wait and see how this works out, right ?

EDIT

you'll note , earlier she stated she might just end up with their property when all was said and done.

__________________
Happiness is directly proportional to the ratio that trees out number humans.

In some townships or counties they can allow you to put in a holding tank, plus require that it is pumped on a regular basis. They can still live there.

i believe pyrnad stated that that was not allowed there anymore, i guess she looked it up

__________________
Happiness is directly proportional to the ratio that trees out number humans.

pyrnad Here in NC the neighbor would be required to disconnect and stop using the drain field. Here you would have to prove the drain field was somehow hurting your property. Don't how it is where you are.

Keep updating and let us the finale outcome.

Kenneth

The way i see it they only have two option's.Buy the land or the law will make them remove it.Because they are the legal owners.They then would have to sue the seller to recoup there money if they wanted.Being mean and nasty maybe.I tend to think they may have earned what they get.But regardless what if she wanted to build something on that part of her property or the next owners down the road.That piece of property is useless to build on,or dig anywhere.If they dont remove it and refill with fresh earth the EPA may come down on who ever owns the property in the future should they dig into it.That wouldn't be far either now would it?
This is how i presum it would play out anyway.

how can they own a septic system that was on pyrnad's property when they bought theirs?

__________________
this message has probably been edited to correct typos, spelling errors and to improve grammar...

"All that is gold does not glitter..."

And that would be one way to recoup the money lost in the timber they cut down.Because even though she most likely will win that one in court.She still has to get the money from them.And i highly dought there going to pay up.

"And that would be one way to recoup the money lost in the timber they cut down.Because even though she most likely will win that one in court.She still has to get the money from them.And i highly dought there going to pay up."

pyrnad said her insurance will/did pay her for the trees and her insurance will go after them for it ..... hurm.

__________________
Happiness is directly proportional to the ratio that trees out number humans.

The neighbors do not own the leech field ..pyrnad does. Its on pyrnad's property.

The current neighbors did not put it there ..nor have they lived there for 15 and 1/2 years out of the 16 years the leech field has been there. Why are the neighbors responsibile for cleaning up pyrnad's property when they aren't the ones who 'soiled' it?

What if there were no previous problems that occurred between pyrnad and those neighbors? How would this all play out then? What if you were the neighbor in that situation?

Pyrnad, you may want to ask your lawyer if the neighbor could try to prove adverse possession. If so, I would settle before the neighbor's lawyer thinks of it. I am not entirely sure if the law applies in all states as I am not a lawyer, but it states:

"Traditional common law provided a method for someone to obtain title to land through use. The common law rules for adverse possession have been codified under both federal and state statutes. A typical statute allows a person to get title to land from the actual owner simply by using the land, out in the open for all to see. For example, your neighbor built a fence on your land with the intention of taking the property, paid property taxes, and you knew about it but did nothing. If this continued for a period of time set by state law, your neighbor may be able to claim this property as his/her own. The theory is that, by not disputing your neighbor’s use of your property through a lawsuit, you, as the actual owner have abandoned your rights to the property. There are several elements needed for adverse possession to result in title:

The length of time required for adverse possession in title varies - it could be as short as a few years or could run for twenty years or more. Typically public entities must establish a longer period of possession than individuals. Some states have adopted a rule which requires the adverse possessor to pay taxes each year on the land.

The possession must be open for all to see.

The possession must be exclusive to him or her (e.g., the fence in the above example, a driveway, road, etc.)

The possession must be hostile to the actual owner of the land.

To gain title to land through adverse possession requires strict compliance with the law, but can have dramatic impact upon land ownership rights.

An encroachment could result in title to your property being transferred to an adverse possessor. Under these circumstances, you might have to bring a lawsuit for trespass in order to prevent your neighbor from getting title to your land through adverse possession.

If you own land, it is important that you do not "sleep on your rights" since you could lose ownership of the land."

I hope things work out in your favor.

Meloc, I brought up quite a few questions and people shouted me down for it. Most were never answered. As Pyr alleges she worked for some high and mighty lawyer in Boston (which I still have my redbook nearby in case she ever lets us know who) I think she should know that just because her lawyer makes a demand does not mean they have to jump.

She should also know that because of the previous sales history of the properties it would be rather foolhardy to cap off/dig up/ damage their septic as they may have a good claim to leave it there. This is of course if she was more forthright with her claim with that previous job than in the original thread, imnsho anyway.



Now...

For all those people who are saying TFB and tough luck and it's the neighbor's problem and all that ignorant puckey with regard to the leach field, why is it that Pyr did not do the same things you insist they should have have done. Why is it not Pyr's fault for buying the property already encumbranced thusly? Why are they not both at fault for this?

We already did talk about this. The posession was neither exclusive nor hostile. It doesn't meet the time requirements.

I believe that pyrnad said its 20 years in maine..

KS, maine's adverse possesion laws are rather strict and this would not qualify under that. It's been discussed in an earlier thread.

Okay, I guess it has been a while since I read the other threads.