Contract to buy land

[GeauxLSU]

Nope, not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that it is possible to landlock a piece of land and not have the right to a way of necessity. It occurs in exactly the scenario set out by the OP - when the landlocked condition can be traced back to a common grantor, it is presumed that the grantor knew he was landlocking himself, and neither he nor his successors in interest can claim a way of necessity over the properties of the grantor deeded away.

My comment is based on the fact that every time someone discusses landlocked property, most will say that you can't have landlocked property in Georgia, and that you are always entitled to an easement for a way of necessity. That's simply not true, and you can't determine if the current owner is entitled to such an easement without a full examination of the title, and a qualified opinion. Course that usually costs some money, and that's just not the ODT way. Anonymous advice on the internet is always my prime source for legal and medical advice.

Usually the discussion comes up "I'm looking at piece of landlocked property, should I buy it" and the peanut gallery says "Sure go ahead, you're entitled to an easement." Maybe, maybe not.

There is another thread on here somewhere where the poster insisted that there was no such thing as landlocked property in Georgia, until he finally did the research and admitted I was correct.

I can show you sizeable piece of property right now in Oconee County that is totally landlocked with no right to access. I knew this already, but the timber company that owns our hunting lease (adjacent land) bought the timber on the landlocked parcel, and had to "rent" an easement to haul it out. When the term ran out, the easement ended. The owner of the easement got a free road as part of the deal, but the landlocked parcel is still landlocked.

Perhaps we are parsing words. Would you contend it is correct to say that while any individual parcel may be landlocked in Georgia in it's current state, there is legal remedy to cure that flaw which WILL result in legal access, but to your point.... it will cost money and may not be the access you desire.

 

[gh1950]

Perhaps we are parsing words. Would you contend it is correct to say that while any individual parcel may be landlocked in Georgia in it's current state, there is legal remedy to cure that flaw which WILL result in legal access, but to your point.... it will cost money and may not be the access you desire.

There is no legal remedy for the situation described by the OP, other than merging ownership with one of the parcels that has access.

To use the Latin phrase, the common grantor who landlocks himself is SOL.

 

[Realstudent368]

 

[Realstudent368]

I believe if there is a need for an easement.

It can be challenged and remedied by necessity..


Not without.cost.

Disclaimer:
I would not like to find out by purchasing a property without access..

 

[TapcoFan]

yep easement by necessity, but that's going to cost a lot more than $250 and you won't have title to the land even if you win

 

[gh1950]

I believe if there is a need for an easement.

It can be challenged and remedied by necessity.. Wrong, bucko.


Not without.cost.

Disclaimer:
I would not like to find out by purchasing a property without access..

Georgia Supreme Court sort of trumps online commentary.

2. Many states recognize the doctrine of implied reservation of easement by a grantor; 5 Georgia does not. 6 Therefore, Mersac is not entitled to an easement simply because it sold the land that provided the only access to the landlocked parcel.

MERSAC, INC.
v.
NATIONAL HILLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.

No. S96A1312.

Mersac, Inc. v. National Hills Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 16, 267 Ga. 493 (Ga., 1997)

267 Ga. 493, 97 FCDR 211

No easement across lot 3 has been created by implication. Unlike many other jurisdictions, Georgia has not adopted the doctrine of implied reservation of an easement in favor of a grantor of land. Srochi v. Postell, 206 Ga. 59, 62(2), 55 S.E.2d 603(2) (1949); Farris Constr. Co., Inc. v. Briarcliff Road Assoc. Ltd., 247 Ga. 578, 277 S.E.2d 673 (1981); 1 Pindar & Pindar, Ga. Real Est. Law § 8-16 (4th ed. 1993). Where this doctrine has no application, the law may often be extremely harsh in its operation. Pindar, supra. Nevertheless, any apparent harshness of the disposition of the instant case is mandated by Georgia's long-standing rejection of the doctrine of implied reservation of easement, in conjunction with Crumley's failure expressly to have reserved an easement across lot 3.

DEAS, et al.
v.
HUGHES, et al. No. S93A1335.
264 Ga. 9
Supreme Court of Georgia.

I've got a lot more where those come from going back to the 1850's.

FWIW, Pindar & Pindar, Ga. Real Est. Law, is the definitive treatise on Georgia Real Estate law.

So y'all just keep on saying about how you can always get an easement to a landlocked piece of property. I'm probably too simple minded for the high level analysis here, but generally I go with what the Supreme Court says.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Georgia Supreme Court sort of trumps online commentary.



MERSAC, INC.
v.
NATIONAL HILLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.

No. S96A1312.

Mersac, Inc. v. National Hills Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 16, 267 Ga. 493 (Ga., 1997)

267 Ga. 493, 97 FCDR 211




DEAS, et al.
v.
HUGHES, et al. No. S93A1335.
264 Ga. 9
Supreme Court of Georgia.

I've got a lot more where those come from going back to the 1850's.

FWIW, Pindar & Pindar, Ga. Real Est. Law, is the definitive treatise on Georgia Real Estate law.

So y'all just keep on saying about how you can always get an easement to a landlocked piece of property. I'm probably too simple minded for the high level analysis here, but generally I go with what the Supreme Court says.

Aren't all of the situations you've mentioned created by the plaintiff in the first place?

 

[Realstudent368]

Aren't all of the situations you've mentioned created by the plaintiff in the first place?

You're saying they did it.to themselves?

 

[Realstudent368]

How about eminent domain?

 

[gh1950]

Aren't all of the situations you've mentioned created by the plaintiff in the first place?

Not necessarily. Sometimes (in fact probably most commonly) the plaintiff is a successor in interest to the original grantor. Typically the original grantor lived with the situation (usually with an "understanding" with an adjoining landowner), and the problem only arises when some one buys the landlocked property, assuming as do most of the poster's here, that the purchaser is entitled to an easement. That's the situation in Deas v. Hughes, where the original grantor used a driveway across an adjoining lot, and the purchaser "assumed" that he could keep on using the driveway. The Supremes thought otherwise.

In fact, the plat of the lots in Deas showed the driveway to the landlocked lot, and the purchaser relied in part on that "fact" on the ground to assume that there was a deeded easement. I mean, he could stand there and see the driveway, so he must have the right to use it. Again he was wrong. But heh, he saved all those attorney fees by not having a title search done.

This all happened before the advent of internet, so the Hughes probably saved a lot more money using the deed form they can buy at the local stationery store instead of having one prepared by an attorney.

Paying for a title search doesn't look like so much compared to taking a case all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court and then losing.

It would be interesting to find out what eventually happened to the landlocked lot. The lots are on Lake Rabun, and even in 1994, they weren't giving those away.

Interesting footnote, unlike say stolen property, the Hughes (purchasers of the landlocked lot) have no recourse against the seller - i.e. they are stuck. Even if the seller had made representations to them about the easement, Georgia law says there is no fraud about matters of record which you could discover on your own.