How Can I Access Landlocked Property in Texas?

[oosik]

Not really - it means that Mother Nature, unfortunately, has placed an unexpected financial burden upon your neighbor. And- yet another unfortunate circumstance - I fear each and every situation is so unique as to need its own legal decision.

The only constant in the case involving Harry or George is that resolution was a court decision.

And - - your neighbor had dam well better hope his homeowners insurance covers that bridge..........

 

[Oldoak]

Physically but not legally I would think. How would the bridge being washed away affect the legal easement? Was there a requirement that the owner maintain a ‘continuous access’ of some sort? Even so, wouldn’t the concept of force majure apply?

I know that. My comment was directed at a specific (quoted) comment made earlier and the reasoning behind it.

 

[two_bit_score]

Not really - it means that Mother Nature, unfortunately, has placed an unexpected financial burden upon your neighbor. And- yet another unfortunate circumstance - I fear each and every situation is so unique as to need its own legal decision.

The only constant in the case involving Harry or George is that resolution was a court decision.

And - - your neighbor had dam well better hope his homeowners insurance covers that bridge..........

I had a similar case on a bridge once. Wasn’t washed out but was destroyed when a propane truck crossed it and the bridge could not sustain the weight of the loaded truck.

The owner had a policy which applied some coverage to ‘structures’ on the property used in conjunction with the residence.

The coverage was enough to cover the cost of rebuilding the bridge but the question was if the bridge was actually located on the insured’s property.

The propane company was not eager to accept liability although they clearly were.

We represented the property owners insurance company.

I was able to determine through a local surveyor who had surveyed the adjoining property and ROW for the city that about 80% of the bridge was on the insureds property although the ingress portion was located in the city ROW. We advised the insurance company to pay the claim.

We did also represent them in their subrogation claim against the propane company who settled without suit being filed.

It was a very interesting case. Nice outcome. Nobody injured. Nice people all around. Unlike many cases.
TBS

 

[two_bit_score]

I know that. My comment was directed at a specific (quoted) comment made earlier and the reasoning behind it.

I knew you knew.

 

[oosik]

In my case - whether or not I had to pay back taxes must have hinged on the definition of landlocked. I can, very easily, see that the decision could have been - since I had a legal and recorded easement since 1957 - then from that point forward the property was not landlocked and should be taxed accordingly.

Considering that at that point in time I had no knowledge of the laws regarding access, easements, etc - and still do not - I consider my situation to have been most fortunate.

 

[two_bit_score]

In my case - whether or not I had to pay back taxes must have hinged on the definition of landlocked. I can, very easily, see that the decision could have been - since I had a legal and recorded easement since 1957 - then from that point forward the property was not landlocked and should be taxed accordingly.

Considering that at that point in time I had no knowledge of the laws regarding access, easements, etc - and still do not - I consider my situation to have been most fortunate.

I think you are exactly right! :thumbsup:

Sometimes a favorable outcome is more dependent on the parties involved and their approach to resolution than it does the fine point of a statute.
Having a good lawyer who understands that helps tremendously.

It's almost always better to resolve something 'amicably' than contentiously.

Of course there are times when the other side just needs to 'have some shine taken off'. Then if it's with the cost - do it.



TBS