UPDATE: Land ownership/deed question

[Swab]

Is there anywhere on the deeds that say "XXX people/ public/ HOA etc" has a legal right to be on the property?

No, it doesn't explicitly state anything like that. At this point, the covenants have expired (not that it said anything about the rec area) so it will now have to depend on whether or not there are any easements clearly laid out as apparently, easements may have no expiration.

To be honest, I'm glad I started this thread. After reading all the responses, I decided to dig a little further and enlighten myself in the process. I should have a conclusive (professional) update within a few days. Until then, I'm considering it private property, though not the property of the assholes.

 

[StuP]

I'm considering it private property, though not the property of the assholes.

I think you're on the right track there.

 

[gh1950]

It appears they were deeded a portion, but not all, the "recreation tract." Exhibit "A" to the deed is not in any of the material provided, and the plats do not show lot 42, which is part of the recreation tract, and part of the property deeded to the new neighbors.

There are all sorts of possibilities here that a local attorney or the zoning department may need to analyze. For example, it is not uncommon for a county to require that a certain amount of land be reserved for common use for the property owner to obtain a denser zoning category. In that case the developer may well retain title to the property and be responsible for the taxes, but the property would have an implied easement on it.

Same with the streets - the county has to affirmatively accept the ROW for the streets, and until it does, the developer owns the streets. He may own them forever if they are not accepted by the county, but he can't divide the streets up and sell them for lots.

 

[Swab]

It appears they were deeded a portion, but not all, the "recreation tract." Exhibit "A" to the deed is not in any of the material provided, and the plats do not show lot 42, which is part of the recreation tract, and part of the property deeded to the new neighbors.

No, they were deeded a portion of lot 42, which is a weird sliver (kind of a driveway) between their lot and the next door neighbor (lot 41). There have been no changes to the recreation lot (lot 4) deed since 1989.

 

[gh1950]

No, they were deeded a portion of lot 42, which is a weird sliver (kind of a driveway) between their lot and the next door neighbor (lot 41). There have been no changes to the recreation lot (lot 4) deed since 1989.

If it says that, you are looking at a different deed than I am.

The deed in deed book 14241, page 2545, Carter Investment Partners, LP, grantor to Wall and Carter, grantees, conveys all of Lot 42 and a portion of Lot 43 in Lake Pointe Subdivision.

The deed in deed book 811, page 645, from Bobby L. Carter, grantor to Carter Homes, Inc, conveys a one half undivided interest 6 lots in Lake Pointe Subdivision Unit 1, being lots 5, 8,14, 42, 43 and 44.

Nothing in either deed, or the plats, show anything about a "sliver" of Lot 42. But the deeds convey the entirety of lot 42 to the new people, where ever lot 42 is. There is a "sliver" of a lot designated "Lot 43A" .

You might want to look at this 2015 deed -
http://deeds.cherokeega.com/landmar...sessor&booktype=P&booknumber=34&pagenumber=78

I finally found Lots 42 and 43'

The new people don't have any part of the "recreation area." The eastern boundary of Lot 42 more or less follows the elevation line for the 100 year flood plain. Everything to the east of Lot 42 is in the 100 year floodplain, and it is not developable.

I have cut and pasted the owner's declaration for filing the plat, which as I suspected, includes the streets and utility ROW, and "public places." The public spaces are dedicated to "the use of the public forever." I don't want to render an opinion on who owns the "recreation area" but I can give an opinion on who doesn't and it is not the new neighbors.

Also, if they pushed trees down in the floodplain, or had heavy equipment operating there, they very well may have violated local and state laws about disturbing land and vegetation in the floodplain. Certainly worth a phone call to EPD at DNR. The locals can be pretty lackadaisical about floodplain issues, but I have found the state people to be very responsive.

 

[Swab]

If it says that, you are looking at a different deed than I am.

The deed in deed book 14241, page 2545, Carter Investment Partners, LP, grantor to Wall and Carter, grantees, conveys all of Lot 42 and a portion of Lot 43 in Lake Pointe Subdivision.

The deed in deed book 811, page 645, from Bobby L. Carter, grantor to Carter Homes, Inc, conveys a one half undivided interest 6 lots in Lake Pointe Subdivision Unit 1, being lots 5, 8,14, 42, 43 and 44.

Nothing in either deed, or the plats, show anything about a "sliver" of Lot 42. But the deeds convey the entirety of lot 42 to the new people, where ever lot 42 is. There is a "sliver" of a lot designated "Lot 43A" .

You might want to look at this 2015 deed -
http://deeds.cherokeega.com/landmar...sessor&booktype=P&booknumber=34&pagenumber=78

I finally found Lots 42 and 43'

The new people don't have any part of the "recreation area." The eastern boundary of Lot 42 more or less follows the elevation line for the 100 year flood plain. Everything to the east of Lot 42 is in the 100 year floodplain, and it is not developable.

I have cut and pasted the owner's declaration for filing the plat, which as I suspected, includes the streets and utility ROW, and "public places." The public spaces are dedicated to "the use of the public forever." I don't want to render an opinion on who owns the "recreation area" but I can give an opinion on who doesn't and it is not the new neighbors.

Also, if they pushed trees down in the floodplain, or had heavy equipment operating there, they very well may have violated local and state laws about disturbing land and vegetation in the floodplain. Certainly worth a phone call to EPD at DNR. The locals can be pretty lackadaisical about floodplain issues, but I have found the state people to be very responsive.

View attachment 1599415
View attachment 1599406

The ODT at work, freakin awesome

 

[Kman]

If it says that, you are looking at a different deed than I am.

The deed in deed book 14241, page 2545, Carter Investment Partners, LP, grantor to Wall and Carter, grantees, conveys all of Lot 42 and a portion of Lot 43 in Lake Pointe Subdivision.

The deed in deed book 811, page 645, from Bobby L. Carter, grantor to Carter Homes, Inc, conveys a one half undivided interest 6 lots in Lake Pointe Subdivision Unit 1, being lots 5, 8,14, 42, 43 and 44.

Nothing in either deed, or the plats, show anything about a "sliver" of Lot 42. But the deeds convey the entirety of lot 42 to the new people, where ever lot 42 is. There is a "sliver" of a lot designated "Lot 43A" .

You might want to look at this 2015 deed -
http://deeds.cherokeega.com/landmar...sessor&booktype=P&booknumber=34&pagenumber=78

I finally found Lots 42 and 43'

The new people don't have any part of the "recreation area." The eastern boundary of Lot 42 more or less follows the elevation line for the 100 year flood plain. Everything to the east of Lot 42 is in the 100 year floodplain, and it is not developable.

I have cut and pasted the owner's declaration for filing the plat, which as I suspected, includes the streets and utility ROW, and "public places." The public spaces are dedicated to "the use of the public forever." I don't want to render an opinion on who owns the "recreation area" but I can give an opinion on who doesn't and it is not the new neighbors.

Also, if they pushed trees down in the floodplain, or had heavy equipment operating there, they very well may have violated local and state laws about disturbing land and vegetation in the floodplain. Certainly worth a phone call to EPD at DNR. The locals can be pretty lackadaisical about floodplain issues, but I have found the state people to be very responsive.

View attachment 1599415
View attachment 1599406

There is a minimal state wide buffer of 25’ off any stream. Local authorities can push that buffer to any distance they want. No machines of any kind can work in that buffer without a variance from the state. If vegetation or trees were destroyed, a plan to revegitate the disturbed area with native vegetation must be submitted and executed.

 

[ADAduckhuntr]

EPD to the rescue!
Tree hugging, engage!

 

[Realstudent368]

Oh yeah..


Almost time to go fishing...

May a thousand ticks occupy the owner of lot 42's bunghole...

 

[Swab]

Oh yeah..


Almost time to go fishing...

May a thousand ticks occupy the owner of lot 42's bunghole...

Lol. I actually just had a discussion with a professional not 10 minutes ago. He recommends going to talk to them and (kindly) showing them the plat and letting them know that if it was conveyed to them that this property is theirs or solely for their use, they may want to go back to said person for clarification. With the understanding that the legal documents leave a lot to be desired, it is his opinion that all lot owners of the subdivision have an easement over the recreation area.