I hope I'm posting this in the correct spot. I have a friend that lives out on a private road and the road is in terrible condition and the owner of the road will not fix it. The owner flies up and down the road trying to tear it up to force everyone that lives out there to move and sell there property to him. The road is so bad that the post office has moved all the mail boxes all the way down at the end of the road because they don't want to destroy the vehicles. Is there anything they can do to get the owner to repair the road to make it safe to drive on? This is in Illinois, thank you.

I'm not a legal expert, but I have a question.

Is there another road that the homeowners can use to access their homes? If it's a private road then I'm more surprised that the owner of the road is allowing everyone to use it. If it's his property than I would think that he can legally deny people access to said property.

Hopefully the legal experts will come along and explain what can be done.

All of the trailers sit around the lake that the owner bought a few years ago so when he bought the lake he also got the road. He has since drained the lake. There is only one way in and out. He sued everyone out there trying to take there property away saying the only own air and the judge said he had no right to anyone's property and he has tried to stop UPS, the post office and people from going down the road but the judge said he can't do that. The people that live out there have been there 30+ years and they all say there is only one way there going to leave and that's in a body bag.

I have another question, and again, I'm not a legal expert, just trying to make sense of this.

Does the owner of the road also own the property the houses are on or do the homeowners own the property?

If the home owners own the property than the city (who collects the property taxes) is required to give them access to the property. It would not be the responsibility of the owner of the road to provided that access.

If however the road owner also owns the property then I do believe he has a legal requirement to provide safe access to the property.

I hope the legal experts come along soon to give their take on this because I've never heard of a person privately owning a road where there are other homes that need that road to get to their homes.

The homeowner own there own properties. If I recall right the city told them that the owner is responsible for the road not them. Here's a link that shows the road around the lake. clay city il - Google Maps
You now can't drive all the way around the lake because he has since blocked the road once you get to his house. He owns Water Lily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coltonjared

All of the trailers sit around the lake that the owner bought a few years ago so when he bought the lake he also got the road. He has since drained the lake. There is only one way in and out. He sued everyone out there trying to take there property away saying the only own air and the judge said he had no right to anyone's property and he has tried to stop UPS, the post office and people from going down the road but the judge said he can't do that. The people that live out there have been there 30+ years and they all say there is only one way there going to leave and thats in a body bag.

---

So he owns the lake but not the property that the trailers are on?

Who owns the property? Who do the residents pay property taxes to?

I would think that the person collecting the property tax is the one responsible for providing a road to access that property.

Again, that's just a guess.

All of our legal experts must be offline right now. I'm sorry you seem to be stuck with me on this. I'm just really baffled by this. I can understand the residents being upset, but, if the owner of the only road doesn't own the property that the trailers are on, I don't think he's responsible to fix it. I think that the owners of the property are responsible for putting in a road that all the residents on that property can use.

I'm confessed about the whole thing too, I'm just trying to help them out because most of them out there do have major health problems and a ambulance would have trouble getting to the because road is so bad. They do keep the mechanic in business that for sure.

If I recall right on the deeds for the properties it says they own up to the water front but since he has drained the lake almost out from my understanding all he did was just extend everyone's properties lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coltonjared

The homeowner own there own properties. If I recall right the city told them that the owner is responsible for the road not them. Heres a link that shows the road around the lake. clay city il - Google Maps
You now can't drive all the way around the lake because he has since blocked the road once you get to his house. He owns Water Lily

---

Wow. This is nuts.

I just don't see how they can force him to fix the road unless he wants to. If he doesn't own their land he's not responsible for maintaining the road because they're not his tenants. Also, I can't imagine that it would be cheap to repair an entire road.

How does someone come into ownership of a road that needs to service so many other people? It makes no sense. It also doesn't make sense to make one person responsible for maintaining the road that so many people use.

I really think that it's the cities responsibility to provide access to these peoples homes. I completely understand why the other residents are upset, and the person that owns the road is being a jerk, but he does own the road, and he doesn't get paid any money for allowing anyone else to use it, wear it down, any of the expenses from normal wear and tear.

I would liken this to replacing my driveway. If my driveway is crumbling I can choose to fix it, replace it, or just tear it out and put grass in instead. It doesn't matter if other people use my driveway, they don't have a say in what I do to it because it's on my property.

Of course my driveway doesn't provide other people access to their homes, but even if it did, it's my driveway, therefore it's my choice what I do with it, unless the city forces me to keep it paved I don't have to have it paved. Also, if the city did force me to keep it paved I could put a gate in front of it to prevent anyone else from using it, damaging it, or parking on it.

That's the way I see it, but once again, I'm not a legal expert.

I feel really bad for these people, but I really think the city needs to step up and provide these people with a road to access their homes.

Check back often, hopefully one of our legal pros will come along and shed some light on this.

The road is all gravel, he has threatened everyone out there if they try to fix the road that would be the last thing they will ever do. I thought about coming out and blading the road myself because the guy doesn't scare me but they keep telling he'll just come out and re destroy the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coltonjared

The road is all gravel, he has threatened everyone out there if they try to fix the road that would be the last thing they will ever do. I thought about coming out and blading the road myself because the guy doesn't scare me but they keep telling he'll just come out and re destroy the road.

---

And I think that's the major issue. He owns the road. It would be the same as someone coming onto your property and trying to repave your driveway. Unless you give them permission they aren't allowed to tamper with property you own. Even if they use that property. I'm trying to see this logically. Say that my neighbor needs to drive onto my driveway in order to access his. If my driveway becomes old, crumbled, nothing but pebbles, my neighbor doesn't have the right to demand that I fix it, nor does he have the right to repair it without my permission. It's on my property. In fact, I don't even have to allow him to use it in order to gain access to his driveway. I could put a fence around my entire property denying him use of my driveway. Not very neighborly, but well within my rights.

He's being a bad neighbor, and a jerk, but I think that from a legal standpoint he doesn't have to repair the road.

I think the city is responsible. If these residents are paying property taxes than some of that money should be going towards maintaining a road that accesses their property. Admittedly I live in the burbs, in a cul-de-sac to be exact. Some of my property taxes go towards maintaining the cities trees (that are in front of my house) the road, and for snow removal on that road when needed. I would take a look at your friends property taxes and see what it covers. If it covers road maintenance than I would question why they're paying for a road that doesn't exist.

Have any of them talked to a lawyer about this?

Has anyone checked to make sure that the road really does belong to this jerk of a neighbor? That's the part that's really baffling me. How can someone have ownership of a road? Especially a road that provides the only access to so many other homes?

What I would recommend is that all the homeowners affected hire an attorney. The key here is whether an easement exists that requires that the road be maintained. How recently did this guy purchase the property? Did the previous owner maintain the road?

It would appear the court recognizes that there is an obligation to maintain the road, so I don't understand why the county hasn't ordered him to do so. But I think the only way is a suit by the other homeowners. When the properties were first developed an easement had to have been setup.

Another possibility would be for the county to lay claim to the road under eminent domain, then either sell it to a homeowner's association or maintain it under a tax surcharge. Another idea is to contact the county legislator for the district. The homeowner's many votes vs the road owner's one vote may also get some action.

A road is only fully private if it gives access to the owner's property. Once the road gives access to other properties then there is an obligation to maintain it. The only problem is what is the minimum level of maintenance required.

It appears that it has went to court and the judge has ruled that he can not close the road ( thus they are given the right to access the property) or have the right to use that road to enter and leave their own land.

But he has no obligation to fix it or keep it in any repair. He merey is required to not block it and to allow the other property owners use of it. Example, I own ( or owned in the past) a large section of land in Alabama, there was some property that was blocked with no access in or out, the courts required that I give them access, so I said "fine" put stakes in the ground where they could drive and they had the obligation to put in a drive or road if they wanted one. I could not be forced to pay for or keep up a road across my property.

Also I may note that the owners need to also check their deeds to see if use or right to access the lake was included in any of the deeds when they bought the property ( lake front property) Often while a person may "own" property around them, if they don't own all the land, the lake becomes a community property at times, depends on how the land was sold and what is recorded in the deeds.

**** I have bought lake front property several times, and that was a requirement in my deeds before I would buy, that I would have access to the lake.

As for the road, all of the property owners need to form a home or land owners association. They then pay dues into that association and all of them together fix up the road.

If that other person makes threats, report them to the police, record them making those threats if possible.

Up keep of a private road is very costly, and they need to work together to do it.


The other thought, since it is governed by the easement given it though the courts, now go to the county and ask them to take over the private road to make it a county road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coltonjared

I'm confessed about the whole thing too, I'm just trying to help them out ...

---

The first thing you should do is check the court record and read what the judge has ruled about it.

It appears to me that the man who "owns the road" has title too much of the land, with the exception of some small portions of land owned by the his neighbors. This situation could have happened in one of many different ways. I have it seen most typically by illegal sales of land in the distant past, with no regulatory enforcement by the government. My guess would be that he owns the land, including the road, subject to easements by necessity belonging to the individual homeowners.

Again, the best way to figure out what the situation is would be to read the court decision. The litigation appears to be incomplete. Perhaps the parties simply got tired of litigation and gave up.

Draining of the lake may be an additional instance of ignoring the law on the part of this character. It looks like the road may be privately owned, with easements to the individuals. In that case, the city would have no duty to maintain it. If the individuals have a right of access along the road, they have the right to maintain it. They could seek an injunction prohibiting him from tearing it up. But, as I say, it could be that they simply got tired of fighting this bully.

*Vision of OP playing the Gary Cooper role in High Noon.*

The typical scenario here is follows: Original owner owned a single large piece of property, including the lake, and built a private road for himself. At some point, the owner subdivided his land into smaller parcels and sold them off. The new parcels should include what is called an EASEMENT, allowing the owners to access their land by using the private road belonging to the original owner. Note: The easement is part of the deed/title and should must be registered with the county. If there is no easement, then they may not use the private road without trespassing. If there is no other way to access their parcels, then they must make arrangements with the original owner. If he won't cooperate, then they may have to sue. As for the draining of the lake, the property line has nothing to do with the current location of the lake. Property lines are defined by the original position of landmarks at the time the subdivision took place. The property line stays put even if the lake moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikfriend

The typical scenario here is follows: Original owner owned a single large piece of property, including the lake, and built a private road for himself. At some point, the owner subdivided his land into smaller parcels and sold them off. The new parcels should include what is called an EASEMENT, allowing the owners to access their land by using the private road belonging to the original owner. Note: The easement is part of the deed/title and should must be registered with the county. If there is no easement, then they may not use the private road without trespassing. If there is no other way to access their parcels, then they must make arrangements with the original owner. If he wont cooperate, then they may have to sue. As for the draining of the lake, the property line has nothing to do with the current location of the lake. Property lines are defined by the original position of landmarks at the time the subdivision took place. The property line stays put even if the lake moves.

---

Generally correct, with the following qualifications:

1. In many places, the original owner would have violated the law if he sold them off without local governmental approval. This approval process, which often requires that the lots and the road be shown on a plat, and that the road be dedicated (in other words, given to the public), is designed to prevent the kind of problems that are experienced in the O.P.'s case. The plat would be required to meet certain design criteria, including lot sizes and roadway allignment. Improvements (curbs, gutters, pavement, utilities, etc.) are often also required.
2. If there is no other means of access, the lot owners have a legal right to an easement by necessity.
3. The lot lines are not necessarily limited to the original landmarks and can sometimes be to the shore of the lake, even if the lakeshore changes. This issue determines on a number of factual and legal variables.