How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ray Your Own Question
Ray
Ray, Lawyer
Category: Real Estate Law
Satisfied Customers: 37026
Experience:  Texas Attorney for 30 years dealing in real estate
8534270
Type Your Real Estate Law Question Here...
Ray is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Someone recently purchased a 27 acre parcel of vacant land near me with at least 100'

Customer Question

Someone recently purchased a 27 acre parcel of vacant land near me with at least 100' of public road frontage. Since their road frontage is steep, they are sueing for driveway access through my property. They are not landlocked. I say they should have found out how much a steep driveway was going to cost when they bought the land. They don't have the right to just select an adjoining property owner (out of 10 btw) and sue so they can obtain the easiest & cheapest access, do they?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Real Estate Law
Expert:  Ray replied 1 year ago.
Hi and welcome to JA. I am Ray and will be the expert helping you tonight. In Colorado they have to show their property is landlocked.I am assuming they are trying to claim the frontage does not give them access somehow.This seems like a real weak argument and you may challenge this suit under the Colorado law. What you are referring to is called an Easement of Necessity, or Private Way of Necessity as it is called in your state, which is part of the laws of Eminent Domain. They must prove that there is no other way to access your land other than by way of the property in question, and read under 38-1-102 of your state statutes under the Annotations,II. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EMINENT DOMAIN.B. Way of Necessity.paying special attention to the information on PRIVATE, not public, ways of necessity.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Private and public ways of necessity distinguished. Private ways of necessity differ from public ways of necessity only in the fact that they are private; private ways of necessity refer particularly to, and include, passageways or roadways which are indispensable to the practical use of the property for which they are claimed. Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915).Private ways of necessity are not limited to ways desired for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic, or sanitary purposes, as are those for reservoirs, drains, flumes, and ditches. Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915); Childers v. Quartz Creek Land Co., 946 P.2d 534 (Colo. App. 1997), cert. dismissed, 964 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1998).When private corporation may condemn land for private way of necessity. A private corporation may condemn land for a private way of necessity where the nature of its business and the situation of its property require the way, and where, under like conditions, other persons not corporate may condemn. Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915).Courts may determine what constitutes private way of necessity in any particular case, unless restrained by the General Assembly. Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915).Private way of necessity may be condemned when the need is reasonably necessary and the common law or other legal remedy does not provide a present enforceable legal right to an alternate mode of access that is reasonable and practical. Minto v. Lambert, 870 P.2d 572 (Colo. App. 1993).State highway department cannot condemn property for a private way of necessity. Although state highway department has express statutory authority to condemn property for local service roads and for highway construction, the department has no statutory authority to "stand in the shoes" of a private landowner and condemn a private way of necessity which the landowner has the right to assert under this section. Dept. of Hwys. v. Denver & Rio Grande W.R., 789 P.2d 1088 (Colo. 1990).If the defendant pleads the existence of an alternate route of private access across property not owned by the defendant, defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of an acceptable alternate route and of proving that plaintiffs have the present enforceable legal right to use it. West v. Hinksmon, 857 P.2d 483 (Colo. App. 1992). I think you can argue against this that they have other access and do not need your property here. I appreciate the chance to help you tonight.Please let me know if you have more follow up.Thanks again.
Expert:  Ray replied 1 year ago.
Recent case law, again I think you can differentiate from a lack of a road here, as they have public access.
http://coloradolawletter.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-to-do-if-your-property-is.html
Thanks again.
Sample answer forms to file your answer, you will need to modify it to your facts here.
http://pro-paralegal.blogspot.com/2010/02/example-answer-to-complaint.html