Just had a strange conversation with PG&E about an illegal pole on my property
Mel Knight
lines (yes, a power pole, with telephone lines) on my property that cross
the property but do not serve my home.
The title company report shows nothing of the sort.
After a week on the phone (off and on) with PG&E, they just now told me
to write a letter stating the 'conflict' (their words, not mine) and what
I'd like the resolution to be.
When I asked what are the available 'resolutions' they wouldn't tell me.
Do you have any experience in this area?
RBM
"Mel Knight" <Mel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:iglhuo$okb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I'd first want to know who owns the pole. Does the power company own it or
the telephone company? If it's located on your property, there should be an
easement. It's also possible that if it's been there long enough, the owner
has a right of way
RicodJour
> "Mel Knight" <Melb...@aol.com> wrote in message
An old girlfriend's father had a similar situation where there was no
easement, the pole had been there for years, and he still managed to
get them to move the line. Unfortunately he's no longer around so I
can't ask him how he managed to do it.
R
aemeijers
Standard disclaimer- IANAL.
Having said that- sometimes easements for utility right-of-ways are
recorded against the subdivision when it is first platted out, and do
not get spelled out in detail on all the individual land deeds,
especially when the deed is a 'lot number' deed rather than a complete
traditional description. Title company reports are often incomplete,
since they are mainly looking for open liens and competing ownership
claims and such. Too bad most areas are no longer offering abstracts
(and in fact buying up and destroying old abstracts) when property
changes hands these days. There is a reason mortgage companies require
title insurance, in case something like this crawls out of the woodwork.
You or an expert you hire needs to go down to whatever unit of
government (usually the county, but sometimes the township) keeps the
property books for your area. If there was an easement, it will be
recorded somewhere. Unless you live in an older urban area, odds are you
won't have to go back too far. Walk up and down the run of wire, and
look for data plates on the poles. In this part of country, they often
include a year on them. That will give you a place to start backward from.
Unless the pole is causing you problems and/or there is no recorded
easement, what they will probably do is offer you a token sum to sign an
easement and waive the right to sue to make them remove the pole. It is
possible that some installation crew just dropped a pole there because
that is the route they needed to take, and assumed an easement was in
place, because the route was on the work order. If there is no easement,
you could force them to reroute the line (or try to), but whoever lives
at the end of it may then want to get involved, and try to claim an
easement by open and notorious usage or something.
So how mad are you? Is it worth hiring lawyers over? And how long has
the pole been there?
--
aem sends...
Mel Knight
> So how mad are you? Is it worth hiring lawyers over? And how long has
> the pole been there?
I'm not mad. I just don't want poles and wires crossing my property if I
don't have to have it so.
My first inclination is to just tell them to remove it.
My second inclination is to see what they offer (but unless it's on the
order of tens of thousands of dollars, I'll default to my first
inclination).
I don't know how long the pole and wires have been there. The creosote
looks still wet, so I'd say about a year or two (compared to other
poles).
I gave the PG&E guys the pole number but there is no date or other
identifying information in this part of the country (California) on the
poles out here.
hr(bob) hofmann@att.net
How long have you lived there???
Larry Fishel
(or anything else) on the report. What matters is whether there is an
easement on the property. In many residential areas EVERY property has
an easement, in which case, they can pretty much put a pole there if
they feel like it...
You don't say specifically, but do I gather from your wording that you
bought this property recently without noticing the pole?
Smitty Two
Mel Knight <Mel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know how long the pole and wires have been there. The creosote
> looks still wet, so I'd say about a year or two (compared to other
> poles).
>
I'm just curious, how much land do you have, that a pole could go
unnoticed for a year or two? I'm inclined to say a man shouldn't have
any more dirt than he can keep an eye on.
RicodJour
> Mel Knight <Melb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how long the pole and wires have been there. The creosote
> > looks still wet, so I'd say about a year or two (compared to other
> > poles).
>
> I'm just curious, how much land do you have, that a pole could go
> unnoticed for a year or two? I'm inclined to say a man shouldn't have
> any more dirt than he can keep an eye on.
Maybe he didn't notice the pole going up because he was looking down
at his dirt.
R
hal...@aol.com
if they are phone wires try calling the phone company with pole number
dadiOH
Dear PG&E,
You have a pole on my property and wires from it that cross my property.
Remove the pole and wires.
If you prefer to purchase an easement, make me an offer.
If you prefer to rent the space, make me an offer.
Yours truly,
Harried Homeowner
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Mel Knight
> You don't say specifically, but do I gather from your wording that you
> bought this property recently without noticing the pole?
Yes. I bought the property within the year. It's rural. There's not
another home within hundreds of yards, and it's all wooded. The pole is
near the main street (within the easement of the main road) but the wires
cut over my property.
There are other poles, but their wires go along the street, and I assume
the main street easement covers the poles. My property goes to the center
of each of the streets but the street easements go side to side some
thirty feet.
The pole is within the street easements (but I don't know if the street
easements allow for poles) but the wires go over my property where there
is no easement.
Mel Knight
> I'm just curious, how much land do you have, that a pole could go
> unnoticed for a year or two? I'm inclined to say a man shouldn't have
> any more dirt than he can keep an eye on.
It's rural. And hilly. And very forested. Lots of acres.
BTW, I didn't "think" to notice the pole. The pole is near the street.
The wires cross the property near the border. The recent survey clued me
in to the fact that the wires were actually on my property.
It's more I didn't think about it than I didn't "see" it.
Mel Knight
> if they are phone wires try calling the phone company with pole number
I did. The phone company says they "rent" the poles from the power
company. It's the power company I've been talking to for all this time.
I could go back and tell the phone company to remove "their rent" from
the pole, I guess.
That's an option. Thanks. I didn't really think of that. Maybe they can
put pressure on the power company then to remove their pole.
That's a good idea. That's the kind of ideas I was looking for.
Mel Knight
> How long have you lived there???
six months
dpb
What's it hurting, first?
Second, what did the attorney that handled the property purchase have to
say as far as what are the local/state ordinances in effect regarding
easements (you _did_ have an attorney, didn't you)?
--
Reno
The problem may be serious for you in that if or when you ever want to
sell the property you will have to disclose the existence of the wires
across the property to prospective buyers. Some buyers may make removal
of the wires a condition of sale and you will then need to correct it
under pressure of sale and time. So get it fixed now or settle the issue
while there is no rush.
The best first step is to write a letter to the power company telling
them of the wires and requiring them to relocate the poles in such a way
that the wires do not cross your property. It is most likely that they
will make you a cash offer for the right to leave the wires in place. You
then decide whether it is a small enough issue that it is worth it to
accept the cash. Best to consult with a lawyer about the ramifications of
leaving the wires in place. If you take the cash you will be stuck with
the wires forever and so will future buyers of the property.
Maybe even ask the lawyer if you have recourse on the people who sold you
the property with the wires and did not disclose it to you. Whether they
knew about them or not, they probably signed something to the effect that
there were no encumberances or some such things. Maybe it is their
responsibility to get the wires removed.
Tony Miklos
One time the phone company ran poles and wires across quite a large part
of a farmers field. After it was there for a while and in service, the
farmer went out late at night with a shotgun where the wires hung the
lowest and blasted it to bits. News reported thousands and thousands of
phones stopped working. The repair crew found the fault and in a day or
two or three ran a new cable along the road on existing poles about 5
extra miles around the farmers field.
I suppose you would probably get caught using that solution unless there
is no one within a mile or so of your property.
Smitty Two
Mel Knight <Mel...@aol.com> wrote:
I guess your assumption that the pole is "illegal" is rather bold, then.
You bought a rural, hilly, forested, many-acre plot of land 6 months
ago, and you just now noticed a power pole out by the street, whose
attached wires transgress your airspace in one corner of your kingdom.
Hmm. Next you'll be finding illegal gopher holes, I'm sure.
Mel Knight
> I guess your assumption that the pole is "illegal" is rather bold
My assumption is based on the fact that there is no underlying easement
that allows that pole and it's overhanging wires.
I just got off the phone with the title company who said I can submit a
claim to them if PG&E refuses to move the pole and if I have a use for
the land under the wires.
I spoke earlier with PG&E who said only that if the pole has no easement
then they will ask me what I want to do to correct the situation (they
were extremely vague).
I was just looking for ideas of how best to handle this from you guys.
And, if anyone knows the value of a "power line easement", that they
would tell me their experience (I have no idea if it's worth one dollar
or one hundred thousand dollars, for example).
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: Just had a strange conversation with PG&E about an
illegal pole on my property:
>I was just looking for ideas of how best to handle this from you guys.
>And, if anyone knows the value of a "power line easement", that they
>would tell me their experience (I have no idea if it's worth one dollar
>or one hundred thousand dollars, for example).
The value of the easement is determined by what "enjoyment" of your
land is lost by the presence of the pole & lines. IOW, how are you
inconvenienced by their presence? The more "enjoyment" you forgo, the
more costly the easement.
Since you didn't really notice (any negative impact) for several
months, be prepared for PGE to argue that it doesn't have much of an
impact on you.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
aemeijers
contracts are all take-it-or-leave-it pre-printed boilerplate, so an
attorney is pointless. They will NOT make changes. It's a regional thing.
--
aem sends...
Pat
"Mel Knight" <Mel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ignlo6$g9b$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Easement cost can very widely. As a rule of thumb you might use one fourth
of the value of the land. The pole is in the street and okay. Moving the
wires is not going to cost much so the power co. is unlikely to want to pay
for an easement. You can ask nicely that they move them and they probably
will. Might mean that they will add a anchor to that pole you don't like.
Mel Knight
> Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.
In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
your life????
aemeijers
Because in most states, unless it is a private person-to-person sale,
you have a Realtor (c) or two involved. They have boilerplate contracts
they have to use, or lose their membership or something. And the title
transfer houses (which seem to be a bastard cross between a lawyer and a
bank) are in on the racket. I showed the paperwork to a lawyer buddy of
mine, and he said just go with the flow. Beyond getting their massive
cut for a few hours work, they aren't interested in screwing the buyers.
Given that the canned contract is written in stone, a lawyer simply adds
no value. Not like a commercial real estate deal, where you are starting
with a blank piece of paper, and everything is negotiable. All the
realtors use exactly the same forms, and they all act like they were
handed down from God.
Now, the house I bought in Louisiana did involve a lawyer, but he didn't
do anything more than the title company here in Michigan did. His clerk
made up the canned paperwork (at least not a pre-printed form), he
signed his name a few times, and made a couple hundred bucks. And in
both states, of course, they tacked on all sorts of meaningless junk
fees just because they could. I think I ran through half a pad of checks
that day, and I'm pretty sure one was for the pizza that was getting
delivered as I left.
Next time, I think I'm gonna try paying with a briefcase full of cash.
Of course, the feds would be after me within hours if I did that. Or a
FSBO sale, with the exchange taking place at a bank.
--
aem sends...
George
Thats one of the problems. Simple things became intentionally way too
complicated because of powerful lobbies. Just consider most legislators
are lawyers.
It gets really tiring hearing government folks asking "are you a lawyer"
as a roadblock when you are researching properties etc at the local
courthouse.
Same exact deal with taxes. Get rid of all of the tax forms and
accounting procedures, exemptions, credits whatever and replace it with
a flat tax based on consumption with exemption for basic stuff such as
food much the same way sales taxes are applied.
George
> On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:12:40 +0000 (UTC), Mel Knight<Mel...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:42:36 -0500, aemeijers wrote:
>>>> Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.
>>>
>>> In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
>>> you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
>> Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
>> a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
>> your life????
>
> Because in most states, unless it is a private person-to-person sale,
> you have a Realtor (c) or two involved. They have boilerplate contracts
> they have to use, or lose their membership or something. And the title
> transfer houses (which seem to be a bastard cross between a lawyer and a
> bank) are in on the racket. I showed the paperwork to a lawyer buddy of
> mine, and he said just go with the flow. Beyond getting their massive
> cut for a few hours work, they aren't interested in screwing the buyers.
Same for person to person. I bought a property directly from the owner.
We had to go to a title company where they use the same standardized
forms that everyone must use.
Harry K
Not clear here but it "sounds" like the pole is on the public ROW and
only the wires cross the property. That would complicate the
'easement' problem as you have lost no useable land and the wires
probably do not affect your use of the property in any reasonable way.
We recently had a case here where the local power company wanted to
replace a power line crossing a field with a "High Line". Original
easement was in the 40s for the usual type construction (wood pole,
not all that higher, etc.). Power co thought they could just replace
the line with huge steel towers, very tall and multiple conductors
for very high voltage feed to a substation. Nope. That prevented the
land owner from using aerial application of pesticides and
fertilyzers. End result was they had to repurchas the ROW at a very
high cost.
Harry K
Later down thread people are talking about 'moving the wires'. That
will obviously mean moving the pole no matter where it is located.
Reno
> then they will ask me what I want to do to correct the situation (they
> were extremely vague).
>
> I was just looking for ideas of how best to handle this from you guys.
> And, if anyone knows the value of a "power line easement", that they
> would tell me their experience (I have no idea if it's worth one dollar
> or one hundred thousand dollars, for example).
>
The way to 'handle' the situation is to first determine that there is
indeed no easement. If there isn't then ask/require them to move the wires.
That's what they want you to do. The hassle and cost of determining that
there is no easement is all your's. If you don't do that they have no
problem at all, just some complaining from you, so why should they do
anything?
Moving the wires would require at least relocating one pole, maybe adding
one pole. Estimate $1,000 for materials and 4 hours of equipment at
$100/hr, 2 men for 4 hours = 8 manhours at $50/hour and it may cost them
about $1800 to move the wires. They could offer you half that, $900, to
save themselves the trouble. They would have additional expense of legal
and title fees to ensure any easement that buys them is properly done. So
they would not be any money ahead if they offered you $900. To make it
better from their standpoint they may offer much less. I doubt you'd get
much over the $500 to $1,000 range. If I was them I'd just move the wires
and have it done with - a lot less office time and bother. They won't do
anything at all though if you don't start the process.
JIMMIE
You said the poles are on an easement its just the wire thats a
problem.. lots of luck on this
Jimmie
Mel Knight
> They won't do anything at all though if you don't start the
> process.
I loved your analysis. Since it's not in the tens of thousands range,
I'll stick with the "please remove it".
The title company and I have determined there is no underlying easement
(although the pole itself is covered by the roadway easement).
So, I'll write them a letter, telling them the pole and wires have no
underlying easement and that we need to "discuss" the matter. They will
probably counter with the pole having an easement but the wires not
having an easement - and then we'll see what happens.
Thanks for all the ideas. This is wholly new stuff to me!
Mel Knight
> it "sounds" like the pole is on the public ROW and
> only the wires cross the property.
Yup. Most likely (according to the title company).
> you have lost no useable land and the wires probably do not
> affect your use of the property in any reasonable way.
According to the title company, that's not an issue (of course, that's up
to the courts to decide). The title company said that I could put in a
"claim" to them if it costs me money to relocate the wires, if they
"missed" an easement, or if I have costs associated with an easement that
they missed.
Since there is no easement (that we know of), then I'm expecting the
power company to relocate the wires. Where or how they relocate them
isn't my issue as long as it's not over my property.
I didn't see this reply until now, but, the title company didn't say
anything about losing "use of the land", so, I hope that's not a factor.
Thanks for the ideas!
Evan
>
> I'm not mad. I just don't want poles and wires crossing my property if I
> don't have to have it so.
>
> My first inclination is to just tell them to remove it.
>
> My second inclination is to see what they offer (but unless it's on the
> order of tens of thousands of dollars, I'll default to my first
> inclination).
>
> I don't know how long the pole and wires have been there. The creosote
> looks still wet, so I'd say about a year or two (compared to other
> poles).
>
> identifying information in this part of the country (California) on the
> poles out here.
Sadly what you want and what the law allows are two totally
separate things...
1. Did you purchase this house with the wires already routed
over/across/through the back yard?
(If you did and you are complaining about it now, rather than
at the time of sale when you should have asked about it, is
like complaining that there is an increase of traffic on a rail
spur line that abuts your property... The rail line [in your
case a pole and wires] existed before you owned the property
and the appropriate time for your objection has come and
gone and if you want it moved at this point you would have
to pay for all of the costs involved with that because you
failed to do your bona fides and properly determine that the
wire in dispute had no specific easement prior to purchase...)
2. How long have you owned the property in question?
3. How far into your property do the wires extend?
(Zoning law usually prohibits zero-lot line construction, so
you will own land that you can not build on, if the wires
cross an un-buildable portion of your site because of the
setback requirements, then you have no loss or damage
that you can claim...)
Are you really willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars
filing a lawsuit in land court over this with a lawyer who
specializes in such cases over a wire which slightly crosses
over your "land" near a utility/roadway ROW? If you lose
the case you will have to pay the legal costs of the utility
companies and that can be much more than you will
spend on your lawyers...
You should have brought up this objection at the time you
purchased the property prior to the close of the sale...
You bought into it knowing that the wires were there without
obtaining any actual proof that no easement existed...
Like Harry K. mentioned above you have no reasonable
impact or hindrance on your use of the lot... The "preference"
to not have wires crossing over your land is something that
if you want to realize is something that you will have to
pay for... $10,000 for a crew to relocate the poles and wires
needed to move them from over your lot to fully exercise
what may be non-existant "air rights" (how tall are structures
allowed to be on your lot by zoning law) is something
which you would need to pay the full cost for...
$10,000 to relocate the pole and wires is a sure thing...
Or you could pay that as a retainer for a lawyer to take
on your case and see ballooning legal fees and endure
a two year wait before your land court case goes to trial...
Remember the title insurance will cover you for actual
costs to deal with this issue AFTER THE FACT... Do
you really want to be paying commercial interest rates
on a loan you took to pay off your legal costs and wait
MORE months while you deal with the title insurance
claim before you are reimbursed?
Good Luck...
My advice is to just "lump it" and deal with the wires
where they are... You could be opening a Pandora's
Box where you quickly lose control over what you
have put into motion... All because you would rather
not have a wire intrude into your yard...
~~ Evan
tra...@optonline.net
> On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:42:36 -0500, aemeijers wrote:
> >>> Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.
>
> >> In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
> >> you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
> > Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
> > a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
> > your life????
>
> Because in most states, unless it is a private person-to-person sale,
> you have a Realtor (c) or two involved. They have boilerplate contracts
> they have to use, or lose their membership or something. And the title
> transfer houses (which seem to be a bastard cross between a lawyer and a
> bank) are in on the racket. I showed the paperwork to a lawyer buddy of
> mine, and he said just go with the flow. Beyond getting their massive
> cut for a few hours work, they aren't interested in screwing the buyers.
They may not be interested in screwing the buyer, but in many cases
they
are working for the SELLER and have interests more closely tied to
the
SELLER, than the buyer. Principle among those interests is getting
paid and that only occurs if the sale is made. So, I would not
expect
them to be raising legal issues for the buyer. And last time I
checked,
in most states you have to be licensed as an attorney to give actual
legal
advice and opinions.
>
> Given that the canned contract is written in stone, a lawyer simply adds
> no value.
A real estate contract is never writtten in stone. I've made changes
to them
and so has my attorney. If there is something there you don't like,
you change
it and send it back. It doesn't get signed until both parties are
satisfied.
A good example is the home inspection section. What that says as to
the options
for the buyer depending on the inspection, is critical. I've made
changes to that
to protect myself.
>Not like a commercial real estate deal, where you are starting
> with a blank piece of paper, and everything is negotiable. All the
> realtors use exactly the same forms, and they all act like they were
> handed down from God.
I've never seen realtors act that way in my experience. The realtor
representing
the seller offers them a standard contract, but they or their attorney
are free to
make any changes they feel appropriate. And as a buyer, the realtor
can
go crap in their hat. I'm surely not going to leave something in a
contract I don't
like because the seller's real estate agent says so. Especially in
this market.
Either negotiate it to something acceptable to me and my lawyer or
find another
buyer.
>
> Now, the house I bought in Louisiana did involve a lawyer, but he didn't
> do anything more than the title company here in Michigan did. His clerk
> made up the canned paperwork (at least not a pre-printed form), he
> signed his name a few times, and made a couple hundred bucks. And in
> both states, of course, they tacked on all sorts of meaningless junk
> fees just because they could. I think I ran through half a pad of checks
> that day, and I'm pretty sure one was for the pizza that was getting
> delivered as I left.
>
> Next time, I think I'm gonna try paying with a briefcase full of cash.
> Of course, the feds would be after me within hours if I did that.
Why? Nothing illegal about that.
tra...@optonline.net
Yeah, the story has changed a bit hasn't it? On top of the pole
being on a
legal easement, he also says the wires cross his property near the
border.
I wonder exactly how far beyond the easement they extend onto his
property?
Wouldn't surprise me if it's 2 ft. He wants tens of thousands of
dollars for
whatever the encroachment is. If everyone got that, imagine how
much
electricity would cost.
tra...@optonline.net
Good idea. Start of the process with a letter that is a lie. I'm
having less
and less empathy for you the more I learn....
Mr...@totally.invalid
Does the utility have a right of way easement for their wires that
come to your buildings?
Where is this right of way easement recorded and what is the exact
language it uses?
Where does this public easement for the road begin and end and what
does it specifically allow/disallow?
Where does the "meets and bounds" survey you bought the land with show
this easement? If no "meets and bounds" where is the subdivision plat
recorded and what is in the recorded covenants?
The above checks may provide you with an answer to some of your
uncertainties.
--
Mr.E
niel...@hotmail.com
property. Therefore, I must ask if the lines go over your property.
Since it sounds like you have a large piece of rural land, you know
the title company is involved, and have been there only a year, the
property survey markers may still be in place or you can find them
again with the survey that came with your closing papers. Determine
if the lines are actually over your property.
If the lines are over your property and no easement was in your
closing papers or is on your title, you have a suit for trespass and
to eject the lines from your property. Had you your own lawyer at
closing (which everyone should do even if the custom is to not), they
would have either caught this or would continue to represent you now.
Since you didn't, contact your realtor (not the seller's realtor) for
information on how to proceed.
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has said it is in a remote area of a large acrage, the pole is not
even on his property and only the wires cross a small area.
Bottom line.
1. He will be laughed out of court on any legal filing he makes.
2. The pole/wire owners is not going to spend any time over the
matter, the pole/wires are not going to be moved
3. Even if not recorded if the wires have been there enough years, a
"presumptive easement" exists, i.e., the owners did not object to it
therefore the easement is there by "squatters rights"
4. The pole/wire owners may pay a pittance to get rid of a nuisance
although that is dubious as it establishes a legal acknowledgement of
'harm'.
Harry K
tra...@optonline.net
wrote:
> First, I see you changed your question to say the pole is not on your
> property. Therefore, I must ask if the lines go over your property.
> Since it sounds like you have a large piece of rural land, you know
> the title company is involved, and have been there only a year, the
> property survey markers may still be in place or you can find them
> again with the survey that came with your closing papers. Determine
> if the lines are actually over your property.
> If the lines are over your property and no easement was in your
> closing papers or is on your title, you have a suit for trespass and
> to eject the lines from your property. Had you your own lawyer at
> closing (which everyone should do even if the custom is to not), they
> would have either caught this
How in the world would a lawyer involved in a routine closing know
about overhead utility wires that slightly overhang a property from
a pole that is on an easement? The OP himself didn't notice them
for 6+ months.
> or would continue to represent you now.
Sure, for additional money. It wasn't the responsibility of the
lawyer
to go out and do a visual inspection or survey to determine what is
encroaching on the property. If the overhead wires position was
shown clearly on a survey, then MAYBE you could get the lawyer to
own up to it. It could be the title
company's headache, if the wires actually do go over the property
without an easement. Also possible they've been there for 50 years
and then, depending on state law, who knows.....
> Since you didn't, contact your realtor (not the seller's realtor) for
> information on how to proceed.
What makes you think he even has a realtor? And why would you go
to a realtor, who isn't licensed to practice law, for legal advice?
HeyBub
> I just found what appears to be an illegal power pole with telephone
> lines (yes, a power pole, with telephone lines) on my property that
> cross the property but do not serve my home.
>
> The title company report shows nothing of the sort.
>
> After a week on the phone (off and on) with PG&E, they just now told
> me to write a letter stating the 'conflict' (their words, not mine)
> and what I'd like the resolution to be.
>
> When I asked what are the available 'resolutions' they wouldn't tell
> me.
>
> Do you have any experience in this area?
We need more information. Will the pole burn (i.e., creosoted timber) or is
it metal?
Mel Knight
> Start of the process with a letter that is a lie.
There is no easement for the pole that I know of. The only possible
(maybe even probable) easement is the road ROW which I don't have so I
don't know what the road ROW is. The pole is definitely on my property.
As for the wires, there is no underlying easement for it either. That the
title company is certain of because, unlike the pole, there is no
easement whatsoever under the area where the wires to the neighbor's
house are routed.
Where, may I ask, is the lie you speak of?
Mel Knight
> We need more information. Will the pole burn (i.e., creosoted timber) or
> is it metal?
Creosoted timber.
Why do you ask?
tra...@optonline.net
> On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
That might sound like a good idea to you, but I assure you, if
implemented
and you saw the tax rate required, you'd have a different opinion.
The
simple fact is the top 5 percent of income earners are paying a huge
portion of the tax burden. And they don't spend anywhere near enough
of that income to generate the equivalent revenue using your idea.
The
result would be a huge shift from a progressive tax system to one
that is
regressive, putting way more of the burden on those with lower
incomes.
HeyBub
You should take it upon yourself to dig a fire-break around the pole
(wink-wink) to prevent it from catching fire by spontaneous compubstion
(nudge-nudge), lightning strike (know-what-I mean, know-what-I-mean), or
(God forbid!) arson (giggle, giggle), the wire won't tumble down on your
property.
tra...@optonline.net
If you read the thread, he said he doesn't know, because he only
noticed the wire issue recently. And he never said it's through
the back yard.
>
> (If you did and you are complaining about it now, rather than
> at the time of sale when you should have asked about it, is
> like complaining that there is an increase of traffic on a rail
> spur line that abuts your property... The rail line [in your
> case a pole and wires] existed before you owned the property
> and the appropriate time for your objection has come and
> gone and if you want it moved at this point you would have
> to pay for all of the costs involved with that because you
> failed to do your bona fides and properly determine that the
> wire in dispute had no specific easement prior to purchase...)
>
> 2. How long have you owned the property in question?
He stated he's owned it less than a year.
>
> 3. How far into your property do the wires extend?
That is a good question indeed.
>
> (Zoning law usually prohibits zero-lot line construction, so
> you will own land that you can not build on, if the wires
> cross an un-buildable portion of your site because of the
> setback requirements, then you have no loss or damage
> that you can claim...)
That's not true. Just because a portion of a lot is unbuildable
doesn't mean someone can put up wires across that portion
without an easement. And if an easement is needed, the
economics of the easement are based on how it affects the
rest of the property, not soley on whether he can build on it.
Someone in this thread gave a good example, where there
was a property zoned for agriculture and the electric company
wanted to use an existing easement, replacing low wood poles
with high tension wires. They wound up having to pay a
substantial amount, because it changed the property in a
significant way, including that aerial spraying of crops would
no longer be possible.
>
> Are you really willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars
> filing a lawsuit in land court over this with a lawyer who
> specializes in such cases over a wire which slightly crosses
> over your "land" near a utility/roadway ROW? If you lose
> the case you will have to pay the legal costs of the utility
> companies and that can be much more than you will
> spend on your lawyers...
You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is? He even stated that the electric company,
after looking into it a bit, asked him to do that. It's not like
they told him to kiss offf.
>
> You should have brought up this objection at the time you
> purchased the property prior to the close of the sale...
> You bought into it knowing that the wires were there without
> obtaining any actual proof that no easement existed...
> Like Harry K. mentioned above you have no reasonable
> impact or hindrance on your use of the lot... The "preference"
> to not have wires crossing over your land is something that
> if you want to realize is something that you will have to
> pay for... $10,000 for a crew to relocate the poles and wires
> needed to move them from over your lot to fully exercise
> what may be non-existant "air rights" (how tall are structures
> allowed to be on your lot by zoning law) is something
> which you would need to pay the full cost for...
You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?
>
> $10,000 to relocate the pole and wires is a sure thing...
Clairvoyant?
> Or you could pay that as a retainer for a lawyer to take
> on your case and see ballooning legal fees and endure
> a two year wait before your land court case goes to trial...
You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?
>
> Remember the title insurance will cover you for actual
> costs to deal with this issue AFTER THE FACT... Do
> you really want to be paying commercial interest rates
> on a loan you took to pay off your legal costs and wait
> MORE months while you deal with the title insurance
> claim before you are reimbursed?
So now you know his financial position too. You are
clairvoyant.
It's also not clear to me that the title company
will only deal with this after the fact. That's like saying
an auto insurance policy will only pay or get involved
after the party I've hit has sued me and won. In fact,
just like with auto insurance it's in the interest of the
title company to get involved and figure out what is
going on from the beginning, so they don't wind up with
an even bigger claim.
>
> Good Luck...
>
> My advice is to just "lump it" and deal with the wires
> where they are... You could be opening a Pandora's
> Box where you quickly lose control over what you
> have put into motion... All because you would rather
> not have a wire intrude into your yard...
>
You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?
tra...@optonline.net
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:07:22 -0800, trader4 wrote:
> > Start of the process with a letter that is a lie.
>
> Where is the lie?
>
> There is no easement for the pole that I know of.
This is what you stated:
"Yes. I bought the property within the year. It's rural. There's not
another home within hundreds of yards, and it's all wooded. The pole
is
near the main street (within the easement of the main road) but the
wires
cut over my property. "
"The title company and I have determined there is no underlying
easement
(although the pole itself is covered by the roadway easement). "
Then you said:
"So, I'll write them a letter, telling them the pole and wires have
no
underlying easement and that we need to "discuss" the matter. "
That looks like a lie to me, especially since you stated that the pole
was
covered by the roadway easement, but given all the apparent confusion
here,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently what you wrote is
not
what you meant.
>The only possible
> (maybe even probable) easement is the road ROW which I don't have so I
> don't know what the road ROW is. The pole is definitely on my property.
That was kind of my point. You're preparing to write a letter stating
that there
is no easement for the pole, when in fact, you don't know what the
existing
easement for the road allows for. And I'd agree with the assessment
that it
is in fact probable that the 30ft road easement provides for
utilities.
>
> As for the wires, there is no underlying easement for it either. That the
> title company is certain of because, unlike the pole, there is no
> easement whatsoever under the area where the wires to the neighbor's
> house are routed.
>
I think a few people have asked this now:
Exactly how far over into your property do these wires extend and how
far
do they then run?
I'm kind of picturing a situation where they they cut a
few feet into a corner of your property as they go from the street
over to
the neighbors house. If that's what it is and
A - it's a large buildable lot
B- it would have no material impact on what you can do with the
property
C - it isn't a big eyesore that diminishes the value of the lot
D - there are similar wires/poles in the rest of the neighborhood so
it
doesn't stand out as an ugly wart
then maybe if you're nice to them, you can get them to move it. But
if it goes
beyond that, IMO you're in a losing battle. If it turns out that
they do have the
right to use the road easement, I'd start drawing mental images of how
the
"problem" could be fixed by the electric company putting an even
bigger
and uglier pole within their allowed easement area.
As for tens of thousands in payment to leave it where it is, IMO, you
can forget
about that. If utilities handed out money like that, we'd be paying
2X for electric.
And I suspect, that's how a court would view this as well. We all
need electricity
and one day, if you build there, you will need it too. A service
wire encroaching
a few feet over a corner of a lot might get you a few hundred
bucks. Even
when they put up high tension towers over a portion of a property,
you'd be
surprised how little the utilites are willing to pay.
hal...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
rate would be 23% and everyone would get a kickback to pay basic
expenses.
this would get revenue from those living here illegally, encourage
saving, elminate tons of government and private sector workers who
produce nothing but paper. and easier to enforce the laws. taxes would
only be paid for by business.
you paycheck would be totally yours no fed tax, no SS tax everything
paid for by sales tax......
far easier to understand
tra...@optonline.net
Sorry, but your math doesn't come close to adding up. Let's take a
person
making $80K, with a house, 2 kids. They are probably paying around
20%
in income tax, or $16K. Somewhere around 6% of the $80K
goes to SS tax. That leaves around $59K. Many states have their own
unemployment or income taxes that further reduce that, but let's leave
that
out. Let's say he saves $4k of it, and another $8K goes for local
property
taxes, mortgage interest,credit card interest, etc. You aren't
proposing to tax
mortgage interest as a purchase, are you? That leaves around $47K
that he
can actuall spend on goods and services in the economy. Taxing that
at
your 23% rate, yields $11K. And then you want to give everyone money
back
to offset the impact, so give him $3K, and now you're down to $8K net
that
he's sending the FEDS instead of $16K. Where's the difference coming
from?
Somehow I don't believe there's enough to come from spending by
illegal
immigrants working at $8/hr off the books to make up for it.
Additionally, it gets much, much worse when you move up the income
scale.
Those taxpayers are today carrying the heavy load and paying the vast
majority
of income tax. Unless you think the guy making $1mil is going to go
out and spend
it all, your system just gets worse. At today's income tax rate,
he's paying probably
over 30%, or $300K in income tax. At 23% of spending, he'd have to
spend more
than he makes to generate the same revenue.
If you have some credible economic analysis that shows a 23% sales tax
would work, I'd love to see it.
>
> this would get revenue from those living here illegally, encourage
> saving, elminate tons of government and private sector workers who
> produce nothing but paper. and easier to enforce the laws. taxes would
> only be paid for by business.
>
> you paycheck would be totally yours no fed tax, no SS tax everything
> paid for by sales tax......
You can't even offset income tax with a sales tax rate of anyhwhere
near 23%
and you want it to pay SS tax too?
>
> far easier to understand- Hide quoted text -
>
It's simpler, that's for sure. But like I said, if you do the math
and figure
out the rate required, you may think otherwise.