[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by EdV

NJ, you are correct but that denial was one that occurred a couple of years before the 1998 was accepted if I'm not mistaken.

Let me know if you concur.

Ed

i do agree with you. it was a good read!

[graciegirl]

So ...this is even more puzzling and difficult.

First there was anger because the gate was closed.

Now there is anger about the gate being open and allowing outsiders in.

I still think I accept the wisdom of the folks behind the curtain.

Before I exit stage right or he does, I want to shake Gary Morse's hand.

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

So ...this is even more puzzling and difficult.

First there was anger because the gate was closed.

Now there is anger about the gate being open and allowing outsiders in.

I still think I accept the wisdom of the folks behind the curtain.

Before I exit stage right or he does, I want to shake Gary Morse's hand.

Gracie, I agree with you. What many people fail to realize is there are very complicated legal and business aspects, contracts and ordinances involved that most of us will never know of or even understand. Unless someone has legal training and has access to ALL of the facts and circumstances, they cannot truly understand or comment on the exact nature of the circumstances or even what is right or fair for all involved. Since they have many sides looking into it for all involved, I think we need to all trust that a fair and equitable solution according to law will be forthcoming. I just hope that a metal detector is not needed at the meeting tommorrow considering some of the very angry posts about this subject by some very upset people.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

Gracie, I agree with you. What many people fail to realize is there are very complicated legal and business aspects, contracts and ordinances involved that most of us will never know of or even understand. Unless someone has legal training and has access to ALL of the facts and circumstances, they cannot truly understand or comment on the exact nature of the circumstances or even what is right or fair for all involved. Since they have many sides looking into it for all involved, I think we need to all trust that a fair and equitable solution according to law will be forthcoming. I just hope that a metal detector is not needed at the meeting tommorrow considering some of the very angry posts about this subject by some very upset people.

Your CCW does not allow you to carry into a public meeting but you may want to hurry to your car and leave the area depending on the out come of the meeting. I'm sure the Lady Lake PD will be there in force.

[Advogado]

Since I have never used the path in question, I don't have a dog in this fight and since I am up north for the summer don't have all the facts. This being said, I haven't noticed, in the posts on this subject, a mention of the possibility that residents, if they have used the path for more than 20 years (I don't know if this is the case), may have already acquired what is called a prescriptive easement. For an explanation: FE108/FE108: Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Easements and Rights of Way

It is something that the folks who are addressing this issue may want to consider. The fear of residents' acquiring, or maybe already having acquired, such an easement may have been one of the motivating factors causing the Developer to erect the wall.

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Since I have never used the path in question, I don't have a dog in this fight and since I am up north for the summer don't have all the facts. This being said, I haven't noticed, in the posts on this subject, a mention of the possibility that residents, if they have used the path for more than 20 years (I don't know if this is the case), may have already acquired what is called a prescriptive easement. For an explanation: FE108/FE108: Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Easements and Rights of Way

It is something that the folks who are addressing this issue may want to consider. The fear of residents' acquiring, or maybe already having acquired, such an easement may have been one of the motivating factors causing the Developer to erect the wall.

I don't believe that would apply at all since the owner would have to specifically grant a "permanent easement", not just allow temporary access, for anyone to have any continuing rights to access a person's property.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I'm no lawyer, but what I see is that resolution 98-106 is simply the town giving clearance to build a cart path on that property. This kind of document is issued when someone wants to build something on their own land. It says that the town has no use for the land. It will never be needed for a roadway nor to round utility lines or water or sewage pipes through. I don't believe that the town will have anything to say about who the owner of that property can allow or not allow to transverse his property.

Iy does stipulate that the land cannot be used to build a road to be used by automobiles.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

I don't believe that would apply at all since the owner would have to specifically grant a "permanent easement", not just allow temporary access, for anyone to have any continuing rights to access a person's property.

On the contrary, as is the case with acquiring title to property by adverse possession, for someone to obtain a prescriptive easement, the owner doesn't grant him anything. Instead, the owner just doesn't stop that person (who claims the right to use the easement) from using the easement for at least 20 years. But, as I indicated in my earlier post, I don't know how long people have been using the path and it may be less than 20 years. It does seem, however, that it was being used in 1998--which gets you 15 years right there.

Here is how the link that I included in my post describes a prescriptive easement:
"A prescriptive easement, similar to adverse possession, is designed to obtain rights less than full ownership to land based on long-term use or enjoyment rather than agreement or statutory methods. In order for a prescriptive easement to exist, a party must show all of the following:

Actual, continuous and uninterrupted use (not possession) for twenty years
Use, under a claim of right, in conflict with the landowner's use
Knowledge of the landowner or use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge is imputed to the landowner (Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 [Fla. 1958]; 2 Florida Jurisprudence 2d Adverse Possession section 60)"

Its like your next door neighbor's putting part of his driveway on your property. After it's there for 20 years, you are out of luck if you want him to move it.

Food for thought anyway.

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I'm no lawyer, but what I see is that resolution 98-106 is simply the town giving clearance to build a cart path on that property. This kind of document is issued when someone wants to build something on their own land. It says that the town has no use for the land. It will never be needed for a roadway nor to round utility lines or water or sewage pipes through. I don't believe that the town will have anything to say about who the owner of that property can allow or not allow to transverse his property.

I agree, Winston. After reading it, I also said there are no restrictions other than to have the golf cart path approved, which was done long ago. The lawyers to be will know better, but I don't see how they can prevent a gate or wall either as it is not restricted in the deed.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

I agree, Winston. After reading it, I also said there are no restrictions other than to have the golf cart path approved, which was done long ago. The lawyers to be will know better, but I don't see how they can prevent a gate or wall either as it is not restricted in the deed.

what deed, spicycajunpugs - and where can that be found? thanx

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by Advogado

On the contrary, as is the case with acquiring title to property by adverse possession, for someone to obtain a prescriptive easement, the owner doesn't grant him anything. Instead, the owner just doesn't stop that person (who claims the right to use the easement) from using the easement for at least 20 years. But, as I indicated in my earlier post, I don't know how long people have been using the path and it may be less than 20 years. It does seem, however, that it was being used in 1998--which gets you 15 years right there.

Here is how the link that I included in my post describes a prescriptive easement:
"A prescriptive easement, similar to adverse possession, is designed to obtain rights less than full ownership to land based on long-term use or enjoyment rather than agreement or statutory methods. In order for a prescriptive easement to exist, a party must show all of the following:

Actual, continuous and uninterrupted use (not possession) for twenty years
Use, under a claim of right, in conflict with the landowner's use
Knowledge of the landowner or use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge is imputed to the landowner (Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 [Fla. 1958]; 2 Florida Jurisprudence 2d Adverse Possession section 60)"

Its like your next door neighbor's putting part of his driveway on your property. After it's there for 20 years, you are out of luck if you want him to move it.

Food for thought anyway.

I apologize, but I failed to state that because it hasn't been 20 years since the deed was granted, it wouldn't apply unless specific written permission were granted. I have been accused of being long winded when I write so I guess I didn't make myself clear...sorry

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

what deed, spicycajunpugs - and where can that be found? thanx

Resolution 98-106 which was just attached earlier in this thread is a form of quit claim deed.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Advogado

snipped
Here is how the link that I included in my post describes a prescriptive easement:
"A prescriptive easement, similar to adverse possession, is designed to obtain rights less than full ownership to land based on long-term use or enjoyment rather than agreement or statutory methods. In order for a prescriptive easement to exist, a party must show all of the following:

Actual, continuous and uninterrupted use (not possession) for twenty years
Use, under a claim of right, in conflict with the landowner's use
Knowledge of the landowner or use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge is imputed to the landowner (Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 [Fla. 1958]; 2 Florida Jurisprudence 2d Adverse Possession section 60)"
snipped

advogado - i don't believe that it has been shown that use has been continuous [not to mention used for 20 years] - there was one post indicating that the access has been closed for one day per year for all of these years - however many they are!

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by SpicyCajunPugs

Resolution 98-106 which was just attached earlier in this thread is a form of quit claim deed.

oh, my, my, spicy! i always thought that a quit claim deed did nothing more than indicate that the grantor is freely and willingly transferring any and all rights they have in the real estate being transferred...and that a quit claim did not specify any kind of restriction...that it is merely giving up one's interest in said property.

in all of my days in municipal govt and city planning and vacating streets and wierd pieces of property like unbuildable triangular lots, i cannot recall one instance where there was any kind of restriction or requirement attached.

do you have an example from your days as a paralegal? thanx

[SpicyCajunPugs]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

oh, my, my, spicy! i always thogtht that a quit claim deed did nothing more than indicate that the grantor is freely and willingly transferring any and all rights they have in the real estate being transferred...and that a quit claim did not specify any kind of restriction...that it is merely giving up one's interest in said property.

in all of my days in municipal govt and city planning and vacating streets and wierd pieces of property like unbuildable triangular lots, i cannot recall one instance where there was any kind of restriction or requirement attached.

do you have an example from your days as a paralegal? thanx

Did you look at the copy of the resolution? And maybe you misunderstood my posts. I did not say there were any restrictions...just the opposite. Please read the resolution where it says the county quit claims all rights to the property, just like I said. Winston and I have said in this thread that it does not appear that the owner has any restrictions on putting a wall, fence, etc., but the powers to be (mainly the attorney's) have control.