Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not sure if condemnation is the govt actually taking the portion of land away from you to build the road, but I think it is.
In other words, if the original lot was 3 acres and the govt condemnded 1 acre for a road, the end result is your property is only 2 acres.
What is the land acreage that was advertised for the property in the MLS and then in the deed. Is it smaller in one versus the other? Maybe you simply bought a smaller lot from the onset and maybe it was already advertised as such? Just a guess and another thing for you to check. See what your contract to purchase says as well, and everything else as far as lot size. Also check the county records for land/lot size.
not sure if condemnation is the govt actually taking the portion of land away from you to build the road, but I think it is.
In other words, if the original lot was 3 acres and the govt condemnded 1 acre for a road, the end result is your property is only 2 acres.
What is the land acreage that was advertised for the property in the MLS and then in the deed. Is it smaller in one versus the other? Maybe you simply bought a smaller lot from the onset and maybe it was already advertised as such? Just a guess and another thing for you to check. See what your contract to purchase says as well, and everything else as far as lot size. Also check the county records for land/lot size.
I just researched condemnation..and they actually take/purchase the land and pay fair market value. It is defintely not an easement. We no longer own that part of the property. Wow..this spins a whole new light. I have a map from about 10 yrs ago and it is identical to to the one on file with the exception of the roads. Acreage is the same..3 acres. Which was in the listing..as well as on our deed. It is not in the legal description either. Something is very wrong here.
The Op make contact with the listing agent instead of using a buyer's agent. No telling if the outcome would have been different had she used a buyer's agent.
I am not getting ther sense the OP was pushed into anything by anyone. They likely thought they were getting a good deal on a foreclosed property. No clue why you believe it is a corrupt agency. There is not enough information to draw any conclusions.
You are speculating that these agents knew anything about the easments.
As has been previously suggested , this is real estate attorney time.
The OP said that the listing agent ended up being her buying agent. She said that she was working with another agent in the office but they kept referring her to the other agent who listed it.
I didn't speculate anything, if you are the listing agent then you SHOULD know about the easements. Also, she was being pushed towards the other agent. That's why I said what I said. Go back, re-read, then tell me about speculations.
Here is the thing..we didn't know that easements would be in the title report. How are we supposed to know that? We were dependent upon the people hired to protect us from things like this. That's a big FAIL. We don't know everything there is to know about buying a home.
I know you didn't know that's why you hired people. I was merely suggesting that you should have read everything.
We are always quick to sign on the dotted line without reading just to turn around and get mad when we're screwed over.
We bought a foreclosure in a subdivision in January. The listing agent ended up being our buyers agent. We were using another agent in the same office but once we submitted the offer..she started deferring us to the listing agent.
.
@ MIDDLE AGED MOM This is what I was referring too.
A condemnation means that the government entity took legal ownership of that land. So if that land now owned by the city/town/state through condemnation reduces your 3 acres, then there was clearly some negligence going on if what is left over does not equal the 3 acres your deed claims you own. On the other hand, I don't know of any deed involving an easement that doesn't make reference by "subject to an easement of record". Maybe it's different in other areas of the country.
Additionally, you said that you hired the lawyer - then that lawyer cannot be representing BOTH parties because of a conflict of interest and a fiduciary duty to the one paying the bill.
OP, I totally disagree with your husband. At the least get a consultation with a different lawyer for advice even if you don't hire him/her to represent you.
BTW, when we bought our house, I had to sit in OUR lawyer's office and tell them that the description they first handed me was for only 1 acre. Then I insisted on them handing me the 2nd description where, on reading, I told them it didn't "close"; and it went on through FOUR deeds. If I hadn't known how to read a deed and description, we would have been in trouble. It seems the new paralegal was left to draft the deed and the lawyer did no oversight or proofing. It was when I mentioned that I had been a title examiner that the attorney became a little more involved. I no longer trusted her. Some attorneys these days do not do their job but leave it to the paralegal. It is sad that I had to do our attorney's job for her.
Additionally, you said that you hired the lawyer - then that lawyer cannot be representing BOTH parties because of a conflict of interest and a fiduciary duty to the one paying the bill.
Hmmm..well..we paid the bill. But I know she also represented the seller as she had us sign a letter that notified us of that.
OP, I totally disagree with your husband. At the least get a consultation with a different lawyer for advice even if you don't hire him/her to represent you.
Loooove CD! I have been dicussing posters responses with him. We are going with the concensus and meeting with an independent attorney.
BTW, when we bought our house, I had to sit in OUR lawyer's office and tell them that the description they first handed me was for only 1 acre. Then I insisted on them handing me the 2nd description where, on reading, I told them it didn't "close"; and it went on through FOUR deeds. If I hadn't known how to read a deed and description, we would have been in trouble. It seems the new paralegal was left to draft the deed and the lawyer did no oversight or proofing. It was when I mentioned that I had been a title examiner that the attorney became a little more involved. I no longer trusted her. Some attorneys these days do not do their job but leave it to the paralegal. It is sad that I had to do our attorney's job for her.
It is great you knew what you were looking at. What if you wouldn't have caught it..what could happen down the road?
I wish you luck.
I want thank everyone who has given input and advice..I have repped ya! You triggered exploring some avenues I would never have thought of had some of you not mentioned it. Thanks to y'all I know that it was a "fee title" condemnation after researching the filings and not an easement. Per the recordings..they own part of our property. That's important to know. I feel much more prepared to discuss things with the new attorney..things that could definately be in our favor. There is enough blame to go around for everyone in this deal. Starting with the township. I think the deed/legal description was never filed to reflect the change of the condemnation. Therefore leaving the only way to catch it would be the title report. Enter my attorney for missing them. Then there is the bank who knew all of this took place..sold us property they didn't own..and didn't disclose. All of this went on while it was listed so I do think our realtor has some blame as well. Alot of folks failed at some level. Amazing...
A condemnation means that the government entity took legal ownership of that land.
That's not necessarily true. Sure, a governmental entity can go through condemnation proceedings to obtain fee title, but they can also secure an easement through condemnation. I was involved in a case where a road easement was taken in that manner.
So...it appears that the facts are still not clearly established in this case. If the fee title was taken through condemnation, then the acreage should have been reduced on the legal description (did your attorney check that?). If the full acreage was indicated in your contracts, then you have a clear case of not getting what you bargained for.
If, however, it was in fact an easement, you received the full acreage but without the benefit of disclosure about the easement. The negative effect to you is the same, but you might have a better chance of getting something resolved if you actually purchased less acreage than you agreed to purchase.
JackM, you're absolutely right about a condemnation for an easement. And the easement - of record - should have been provided to the OP before the closing. In any case, I'm glad the OP is getting independent counsel in this mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
