"no landlocked property in Texas"

[CleverNickname 1308]

My father in law bought the adjacent 43 acres to my ranch (the old "la casita" thread on the other forum). My FIL had some money burning a hole in his pocket, and the nice lady neighbor was looking to sell (we bought our original ranch from her and get along great). She get the money she needed and we got to control the use, rather then ending up with the next door property being some junkyard or whatever. She sold off to my FIL 43 acres, but really we just want about 18ac of it (the pretty wooded part on both sides of the creek so we don't need water gates and such). But it was one of those deals where my FIL had to buy the whole 43 acres right then, and figure out the rest later. It has a nice 25 acre field that is good for a couple cuttings of hay each year. But a denuded field is not great for use for us. We just want to putter around and drink beer, not be worries about fertilizing a field and working out deals to have someone with a tractor cut hay. 

Other neighbor could use it for his hobby cattle raising - he can finish off non-weaned calves and check up on them daily. That's fine with us, and he'd be a good steward for the land as well. He suggested a land swap, FILs 25 acres for a similar amount from his proverbial back forty. Seems a fair deal and a win-win; our 25 acres is more useful to him for honest agricultural production, and his ~25 is nicely wooded and would fit in well with the hunting property we have (we do wildlife ag exemption).

The issue is that freshly broken off a piece of neighbor's property would be "landlocked" (it would not have frontage or a deeded easement to the country road). Technically FILs new 43 acres, once you cut off that 25 acre field, would become landlocked as well. Not actually a problem, since I intend to buy the remaining 18 acres (and I guess that 25ac as well) and unify the whole tract. But that's probably can't happen the same day the land swap closing would happen. 

Would this kind of deal run into the TX common law principle against landlocked property? To be clear: we have no interest in any implied easement or whatever, I just don't want this vaguely recalled legal precept to screw up what would otherwise be a pretty straightforward deal. 

(I'll try to whip up a MS paint diagram tomorrow)

Edited July 27, 2018 by CleverNickname

[TwiceHorn 31440]

There isn't a proscription against "landlocked property" in Texas.  But if a piece of property has no access to a public roadway except across another's land, and the property owners cannot agree on an easement, one might be created in court.  Also, there are issues as to whether any access easement passes to a purchaser of the property or "runs with the land."

 

So, nothing is going to completely queer the deal, but title insurance may be a iittle tricky if an easement isn't carved out by agreement and put in the deed or recorded.

 

https://assets.recenter.tamu.edu/documents/articles/947.pdf

Edited July 27, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Atxracer 797]

Good God you just gave me a flashback to property law.  It’s still painful.  Please stop. 

[4th and 5 4914]

How about a lease of the land by each party, the consideration being a lease of the land to the other party? Does that make sense? I’ve  had a few pops 

[Both Tacos 1806]

I would think an easement can be done and recorded when the survey is prepared for the sale/purchase.

[Eastwood 4394]

Why not an easement if you are merging the properties in the future? When the serviant and dominant estates of an easement are merged, the easement terminates.

[Upgrayedd 5810]

54 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Why not an easement if you are merging the properties in the future? When the serviant and dominant estates of an easement are merged, the easement terminates.

I can fap to this

[RDCanecutter 26394]

Dig a canal.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

11 hours ago, Atxracer said:

Good God you just gave me a flashback to property law.  It’s still painful.  Please stop. 

Enfeoffment of seisin, motherfucker!  Goddamn Michael Sturley and reform of equitable servitudes.

Edited July 27, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31440]

2 hours ago, Eastwood said:

Why not an easement if you are merging the properties in the future? When the serviant and dominant estates of an easement are merged, the easement terminates.

Yeah, this too, if applicable.  I didn't precisely follow the geography of it all.

[HouTex 1866]

Breaking of twigs, throwing of clods, and boxing of ears.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

Just now, HouTex said:

Breaking of twigs, throwing of clods, and boxing of ears.

Made me think of that old Steve Martin routine about Czech? divorces.  You say "I break with thee" three times and throw dog poopy on their shoes.

[troph 24781]

13 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

How about a lease of the land by each party, the consideration being a lease of the land to the other party? Does that make sense? I’ve  had a few pops 

you have the best avatar on this site.

[elfenix 34223]

assuming the back 25 isn't in any way adjoining your tract (your ranch plus the 18), you want an express easement for the back 25 out to the road.  and farmer bob won't want the maintenance obligation.

[Jhawk 1075]

Contact your local land trust.  You might be able to get a very nice tax deduction for the area you don't want and is unusable to you.  It would also designate the area for conservation so no one could come around and do a bunch of bullshit to the ground.  If you don't have a big tax burden then you could potentially put the land in a LLC, then sell shares in the the LLC to people with large tax burdens.  Then you have effectively sold the deduction for cash.

I'm not sure how the new tax bill has changed this scenario, but this could be a way to get your money out of the excess ground, and preserve it so you don't have a junkyard neighbor.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Jhawk

[CleverNickname 1308]

in writing this up its apparent the solution is to run an easement along the east fence of Neighbor A from the north county road. I guess? So long as the parcel that is new to my FIL touches his remaining acreage, I dont think an easement by necessity would have cause to be created. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by CleverNickname

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4975]

Why not turn the hayfield into more pretty wooded acreage to putter around on when y'all feel like holding each other's dicks?

[Dutchrudder 11135]

Are you familiar with the Berlin Airlift solution?

[FartingMonk 3606]

attack neighbor B with your army stationed at FIL's land so you have wooded back of neighbor B surrounded.  Then advance your army from all three sides and finish off neighbor B.  B careful though, I think Neighbor A and Neighbor B have a secret alliance.

[deadshank 24652]

Your flowchart sucks

[Whitman 694]

Not sure a full legal opinion can be given without pics of Neighbor B's wife.

[jofus 2266]

On 7/27/2018 at 5:48 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Why not turn the hayfield into more pretty wooded acreage to putter around on when y'all feel like holding each other's dicks?

With the swap they are getting woods now instead of 10-30 years from now. 

[Guest]

Just build a tollway from the 43 to the County road.

[dcbc 14465]

On 7/27/2018 at 1:45 PM, CleverNickname said:

in writing this up its apparent the solution is to run an easement along the east fence of Neighbor A from the north county road. I guess? So long as the parcel that is new to my FIL touches his remaining acreage, I dont think an easement by necessity would have cause to be created. 

If you do the swap, I'd think you'd definitely want to write up a written easement for the landlocked properties.  Better that you write up the terms than a court after a bunch of litigation. 

[Jerry Callo 8699]

Why not trade the hayfield with the exception of a large enough sliver for a road along neighbor A's property?  That way there is no land locking and no easements.  Your FIL would be better off owning property to the road than with an easement.  If the wooded back of neighbor B's property is adjacent to the property your FIL is keeping, then it wouldn't be land locked due to common ownership.

[BottleRocket 644]

What Jerry said.

 

[Lazarus Bocanegra 304]

perpetuities are bad

they're prohibited

 

[Eastwood 4394]

Would you go so far as to say that there is a rule against them?

[Reagan1k 3024]

Helicopter.

[Armybrat 40822]

Employ the 1938 Anschluss strategy.

PM Phlegm for further info.

[El Diablo 4232]

Has annexation fallen out of favor?

[MrPhlegm 3413]

Employ the 1938 Anschluss strategy.
PM Phlegm for further info.

Which parcel is The Sutedenland?

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

If you were a Mexican drug cartel, I would suggest a tunnel. 

Otherwise just see what happens.  Report back.  

[Your Mom 4805]

I am talking about land—swapping! 

[CoTex 1160]

Do you even usufruct, bro?

[BabaYaga 15288]

High game fence that bitch!  

[markstanco 12571]

Because nothing says challenge like hunting at a large zoo.