I would contact your lawyer. He can read the easment agreement and let you know what your rights are.

In most states, the sale of a property that is an "island" or a rear section split off a larger property comes with an implied easement for anything it takes to make the property usable, and the owner of where the easement is can't make it economically unfeasible to use the property for its intended purpose.

Common easement items:
Driveway
Water
Sewer
Power

Who owned the front part where the "you can't have power" guy lives no when you actually bought the property?

Who owns it now?

You need a real estate attorney. There are many on here who can tell you the law in their state, the common law, etc., but that is not a replacement for you having your own attorney. The neighbor is uncooperative and may continue to be so. You need someone to tell you what you can and cannot to, and to be available to write a letter to uncooperative neighbors if need be.

You need an attorney- it's worth the money and may nip the issue in the bud. There should be precise language spelling out what's included in the easement. There has to be more than "perpetual, non-exclusive agreement." What does your deed say?

We had a very similar issue with a neighbor. Common drive with language that includes access for power, cable, telephone, spur driveway and cutting for "light and view." It's in the deed. In spite of all that, they blocked the drive every day at 7:15 and 3:30 to drop their kids off at the bus (kids don't walk down the driveway to the bus!). They wouldn't move to let the workers in or out of the common drive. We also received an email telling us we should put up 5 utility poles and pull power from the road (and across a wetland) rather than pull from the electric pole on the common drive. Oh yeah, and they tried to charge us triple for plowing and mowing the common portion of the drive. Leaves were raked around the drive in the fall and I received a call telling me the bill was $500- how much did we want to contribute?

It's amazing what a little thing like a driveway can do to some people. People become very territorial. We continue to be cordial- wave every time we see them, etc- but we are also keenly aware we may need our attorney at any moment. You can't let it wear you down and make you negative.

Good luck- let us know how it works out.

I spent 40min on the phone with the guy from the equalization dept (after he went through deeds, etc. for over a half hour) and he told us that in his opinion (whatever that is worth) that when the original property was divided (20 acres split into 4 parcels of 5 acres each) it was for the purpose of development, and that means that as long as we stay within the 33' of the easement, the neighbor can't prevent us from running power back, and that should fall into the vauge wording we have right now.) However, he did also add that he could take us to court for a stop-work order, and knowing that family, he thinks that is a very likely situation....it's a county where everyone knows everyone.

Our deed (both of them actually, as we bought 5 acres and then another 5) only say "non-exclusive, perpetual easement" There is nothing else there for wording.

DH is meeting with the power co's engineer on Thursday am, and has called to let grumpy neighbor know so he can be there if he wants. We have 2 other people we can check with if this ends up not working out (one is quite a bit further away, and the other is on the other side of the easement, so we'll have to see what all pans out.

Being on the other side of right-of-way issues, I have to wonder why you didn't find out before buying whether or not the utility companies have easements in writing?

Your easement language is vague, which is odd for a modern writing and a red flag. Normally, the type of easement is specified. By itself, it may well apply only to your right to pass and repass. You may have bought a woodlot or an expensive playground for yuor kids. How broadly encompassing the term is accepted beyond that may depend on local legal practice rather than statute--which may mean going to court to hash it out, a pretty costly proposition.

If no one gave the utility companies easements, it is hard to understand, too, why your town issued building permits. IMO, it shouldn't have until this issue was cleared up and established in writing.

Look, I know I will be in the minority, but the fact is that your neighbor may well have a valid beef. No matter how broadly it is interpreted locally, just because your easement is in your deed doesn't automatically make it valid or enforceable unless an owner of the servient property granted it at some time. Your deed should include language to that effect: "subject to (type of easement) granted by (owner of record of other property)...." The former owner of your property can't just write something into a deed and grant you whatever rights you want to somebody else's property.

The word "exclusive" also makes my ears pick up. "Exclusive" to whom? Any current holder of the deed or "exclusively" to the first holder? If to any holder, why not then also to "heirs and assigns"? If not to assigns, then not to others (like the utility company)?

I have to wonder: What did your attorney say about all this when you bought? Frankly, the neighbor should go to court to get a stop-work order. He has not much to lose/risk by doing so and much to lose by failing to do so until things are worked out to his satisfaction. Once he lets you or the power company put physical structures on his property, it will be much harder to get them off. As it is, if you locate things on his property, he may be able to sue you for the cost of removal or simply appropriate whatever you or the power company has "abandoned" there.

You have a choice--bull through and at the least have a hardened enemy on your doorstep for the next 20 years or stop what you're doing and work things out in good faith.

Understand that an "easement" by itself is not carte blanche to do whatever what you like on somebody else's property. In some areas, landlocked properties may or may not be granted extra-legal rights for residential use. There are plenty of landlocked lots around here that are good for nothing but "recreational use" for just these reasons--only the right to pass and repass is implicit. At that, other neighbors own a partially landlocked woodlot and always ask for incidental permission to allow logging trucks through our property into theirs--the trucks can't get through where their right of way through someone else's property is located.

Even where residential use is established, though, you still can't do whatever you think makes life easier/better if it's not actually necessary. For example, our neighbors who do have a right of way (which only allows them, heirs and assigns to pass and repass; the utility companies have their own easements) thought having a right of way meant they could pave the drive! NO, absolutely not, they can't; it's an improvement, not maintenance and they only have the right to maintain a passable path, not improve it. Paving has not been necessary for access for the last 75 years, so how in the world can they justify such an improvement now? They can't. Paving might make their access easier and nicer, but it is not necessary for them to make use of their property as a residence.

All this is to say that if I were you and the utilities don't have easements (or even if they do), I would be going to this guy with hat in hand to work something out. Think about: his family sold out on the family property. That's hard enough. If you were him, wouldn't having utility poles and lord knows what else crossing through your yard make it all the worse? Of course it would. And if the lot behind him was divided off without him or a former owner of his property granting power company access, then you simply may not have any right to it, anyway, so best to make nice even if you don't really care whether or not you get along. Show a little empathy--sorry your family sold out on you, since somebody will be living there, though, we hope to be the best neighbors possible, etc., and make it as easy for you as we can.

Where we have bought we will be on the other side in a situation similar to yours--family property sold off with other family members left behind hosting an unwanted right of way and unwanted new uses. We've been very, very careful to be respectful of the history of the property throughout all dealings. It's the smart thing and the right thing to do. Your attitude right now--putting him down for not being able to buy his family property at residential market rates--comes through as arrogant and callous; you also seem to feel entitled, which probably also doesn't go over well with someone who may be very emotional and looking for reasons to pick a fight with you to continue the one he lost with his brother. Show some sympathy for his situation and respect for the fact that he owns what he owns, it will go a long way, believe me.

I agree with the above. I don't know how or why you started building without this worked out and the original purchase vetted by an experienced real estate lawyer. No one on any discussion board can help you now. Only a lawyere can help you. And be prepared to actually be in the wrong on this and lose everything you've spent. Because it certainly could go that way.

Sorry, I don't see the doom and gloom the others do.

I reach my property by a couple of easements as do most of my neighbors. All our power and phone is by easements.

I agree you should consult an attorney to verify your rights.

I do however think that as long as you do not obstruct the use of his property, you will be able to have your utilities in the easement.

Underground versus overground may be the sticking point though. If the power poles cause him loss of use of his property he may be able to cause you some problems.

Actually, I stated the situation re deed language backwards: the op's neighbor's deed should say something along the lines of "subject to...granted by...." That is, his property must be burdened (encumbered). Anyway, what his deed says is more important than what the op's says.

jmagill--not doom and gloom per se, but an established use such as yours with specific and accepted easements in place over a number of years is quite different from what the ground zero situation op describes. At this point, unless there is something in the neighbor's deed, there is nothing that clearly compels the neighbor to allow power lines through his property.

Actually my situation is exactly the same.

All the homes built around us have been built in the last 10 or twelve years at a rate of one a year. The property was subdivided just before the first home was started and each build has dealt with the easements and all that goes into it from utilities to fence lines because of the easements. All the roads are private and out of about 20 properties ranging from 2 to 25 acres, we all but one cross someones property to get to our land. The property beyond me is just starting their road and I saw the phone guy walking the property and ours just two days ago.

I have first hand ongoing experience.

but jmagill, do the deeds just say you've got an unspecified "easement," or do they specify the type? Do the utilities or benefited property owners have written easements from the original grantor that state they can run power lines or other utilities or other specific things or anything they like through the other properties? Do the deeds to the burdened properties or other written records of the former owners include the encumbrances? Does your deed state, for example, that your property is subject to your neighbor's easement for ingress/egress, certain utilities, etc? Finally, have any of the established or new neighbors challenged each other or is everyone content? From what you describe, everyone is content and no issues have been tested. The longer that continues, the safer all uses, whether granted properly or not, are.

In the op's case, it sounds as if nothing is specified in writing, there may be nothing actually legally burdening the op's neighbor's property, there is no history of burden and benefit, and he is definitely not content. I don't know for sure, but just on the basis of that last fact, it does not sound as if the situations are anything at all alike. I am bewildered as to why you think that they are.

I am not saying that all easements are problematic. Not at all. I am saying that they should be established correctly and clearly and the relationships among the burdened and benefited property owners are best managed in a way that encourages cooperation and agreement.

Bottom line is that he is not content, he is the property owner, and it doesn't sound as if the op has anything clearly showing a right to bring power lines across his property. Until she does (and she may find something in the county registry or in his deed), I think she and her dh should tread lightly. Even if she does find documentation of the rights she wants, if she wants to have neighborhood harmony, she still needs to find a way to gain back her neighbor's goodwill.

It doesn't sound like there ever was any goodwill to begin with, and easements and goodwill don't appear to be natural bedfellows, unfortunately.

They need a lawyer, stat. Telling someone on this board who is looking for advice that they've bought an "expensive playground for yuor kids" is obviously anxiety provoking and not going to solve the problem.

They really, really need someone who is going to pull both deeds, give them some counseling and then lead interference with the other property owner. As we all know, this can become a hot issue very quickly...

There are shades of grey all over easement documents, regardless of how well someone tries to lock-up the language.

As I said before, I believe the OP needs to see a lawyer. Their rights of use on the easement will most likely be limited as to not burden the owner.

Yes, we have had challenges to the easement. My neighbors in fact, who thought they could use my property as a parking area instead of just for ingress and egress. Fences and gates in the easement are another big problem

The deed is also not the only document they should be looking at. The plat filed with the county is where all the easements details are usually recorded in my State in the newer subdivisions. They will be on the plat of the property that has the easement encumbers, not on the plat of the unencumbered property. This is how it is for our property. We has to look at our neighbors plat to get the easement language in full.

If planning board approval was required to subdivide the lots there may be additional information in those records.

Well, I didn't mean to provoke anxiety so much as highlight that vaguery and assumptions in the beginning can really bite in the end. I may be a bit strong in presentation as I've had first-hand experience with people who assume that just because they want something or think it is logical that they should have it, that that entitles them to my property, when it doesn't. People should know what they're buying and what they're not buying. If they don't actually have anything in hand to know something for sure, then they need to find out before asserting rights they may not have.

So--Agreed with all, review all the relevant documents possible, get a lawyer to explain things as best as possible, and try to get along. I also mentioned registry docs--jmagill, subdivision plats are a good one--other than the deed, all of which the op should be able to find although an experienced RE attorney in her area may know where and how to look more thoroughly.

A word about lawyers, though. If there is no clear answer in the property histories, a lawyer may well be agreeable to pursuing strategies designed to get the op what she wants regardless of the merits. If she asks a lawyer for advice, she needs to be clear on whether she is asking "what is ethical and reasonable" or "what is legally justified here" or "how can I get what I want"--the answers may not be the same at all.

Yes, you need a good real estate attorney.

As far as the guy being emotional over family land being sold, that does NOT excuse his behavior. It was family land, belonging to another family member. It wasn't his land...ever. Period. He could have bought the land if he didn't want anyone else there. It's not like he didn't know it was for sale.

The easement is across the adjacent property owner's land. He gets to be upset and and a nasty so and so about a power easement if he wants to -- if the law is on his side. It's his land.

We have an ingress/egress easement across our property benefiting an adjacent landowner. It doesn't grant power rights.

We also secured a power easement across a small strip of another adjacent land owner's property to bring power in to our property. Additionally, we had to grant an easement ourselves to the power company to bring our own power in. Unlike adjacent power providers, ours does not require a carte blanche easement to service any adjacent property. We are thankful for that.

I point all this out as a way of emphasizing how different the rules can be. As others have stated, you absolutely need the services of an experienced local real estate attorney.

And for those reading this thread in anticipation of building, never, ever build on a piece of property until all access issues have been taken care of, including utility easements. There are plenty of other things that can go wrong. You don't need "no way to get power" on top of the mix.

He already indicated that he is ok with digging up his property to install underground utilities, which is more expensive than you can/want afford.

I think that he already gave you a good option - underground utilities! Maybe he is like me and absolutely hates utility poles? I would only agree to utility poles on my property if I would get LOTS of money and even then I'm not sure...

Get ready to pay a backhoe operator and have him dig a trench for power lines. Why would this be soooo expensive ?! I mean, it is digging a trench, not plastic surgery.

A vibratory plow can do the utilities for much less cost and mess than a backhoe. Or use a trencher.

gladahmae--
We just had our underground power utilities put in (a little more than 500') for a just over $1000. I didn't think it was high. With that being said, the natural gas company wanted to charge us $12 per foot (that's $6000+ YIKES!!). We opted to go with propane instead-$1400 for buried tank & regulator. Phone, TV & Internet through satellite or cable--both typically run discount or free install specials. So basically, there are ways you can get the underground utility costs down to the minimum. If they haven't already, have the utility company engineers come out & evaluate the site in person.

"A vibratory plow can do the utilities for much less cost and mess than a backhoe. Or use a trencher."

Depends on the voltage and who owns and maintains the lines.

7.2kV lines owned by a POCO are NOT covered by the NEC.
The coverage requirements are often 6-8 feet below the finished grade.

You can use larger trenching machinery do create the trench, but it is LARGE (the trench wheel needs to be over 16 feet in diameter).

A backhoe trench is often about the most cost effective method.
Shoring is not normally required since nobody needs to enter the4 trench during the installation.
Dig the trench and lay the cable in the bottom.
Cover with some sand, then finish the cover.

If the plot is 'landlocked' by another owners holdings, and especially if the locked area is a result of division of a larger plot, you WILL be able to get an easement.

Depending on how power is commonly distributed in the area you may be able to get overhead wiring.

Lots of folks have tried to sell locked lots, pocketed the n money, then refused needed easements for utilities making the sold land worthless.

They always lose in court.

Hire the best real estate attorney in the area.
It WILL be cheaper in the long run.

power co has said that it is $9 per foot to go underground. That makes it almost 6k to get power from the road to the back of the property, and that's a LOT of money for us.

Will be meeting with the power co's engineer tomorrow morning, and hopefully the other prop. owner to discuss everything.

Before you discount the underground utilities I would price overhead with poles. Where we are the power co. charges an arm and a leg for poles. Also, get an estimate from someone other than the power co. to do the underground utilities for you. We dig our own digging and set out own conduit based on guidelines provided by the power co. (electric at the bottom in, I think, a 4" conduit, phone and cable above that in a smaller conduit, warning tape over that in case someone every digs it up accidentally). Also, personally, I would not direct bury anything, especially where there is a dispute. It is much easier to repair a fried line that is in conduit.

sue makes a good point. It is not the price of underground that matters, it is the difference in price between underground and overhead, which may not be as much as you think.

Our overhead is a bit less than 750 pole line feet, plus we have about 130 feet underground. It cost about $4,500 out-of-pocket. That was after we cleared the right of way for them. The utility maintains it all. Their underground prices were three or four times the overhead charges.

Every electric utility around here has a different methodology for pricing new installations. Our is one of the more expensive. A neighboring utility charges much less, but abandons you entirely if you go underground. They do not maintain any underground service, except in large subdivisions.

It pays to gather as much information as possible before deciding which way to proceed. As they say, your prior experience may not be indicative of what you can expect at your new location.

Our experience is similar to creek side.
We received a quote of $4000 to 4500 to bury 225 feet of primary cable. The line services two homes so there would be two transformer boxes on the ground.
If it had been a secondary cable, it would have only been about $3-5 a foot.
We chose to go with overhead as the poles were already there and we were not charged a fee to bury from the transformer to the house which was about 75 feet.