
Originally Posted by
AK lawyer
Huh? Will you please rephase your question?
If they do have some sort of easement or license, do that at your peril.
Not unless that "something" is of record and the title company failed to find it.
I suggest that you ask your lawyer these questions. And another thing to consider is to have your lawyer do pre-suit discovery to force your neighbors to show what, if anything they have in the way of a legal right to use the water.
Restated...
My lawyer is recommending that I do a quiet title. First, why would I need to do that if it is not listed on the title? If it is not listed with the county how much legal bearing can it have. Lets say they have a piece of paper written 20 years ago scribbled on the back of a piece of paper saying. "Go ahead and use the water from my well." I have purchased the property and no documentation is stated about the well easement. To my understand a quiet title is if there is a confusion about who has the right to the title not what is listed on the title.
I guess what I am asking what will the quiet title bring to the surface that has any legal standing that isn't recorded with the county when I bought the property? The title company is claiming nothing, our search of the county records of all the properties is showing nothing. What could they have that would stand up in a court of law? This is not about who owns the rights to the title. It's about who has easements on the title.
For example: Property A that owned the property 25 years ago said they could use the water but never filed the document and property B has that piece of paper (neither filed the paper). Would that be enough for them to have rights to the water even though I now own the property?
I see them being on my well as a liability and why should I continue to allow them to use it for free? My lawyer is recommending I allow them to sign a contract that says I don't have any responsibility for the water and not charge them. I said "you know if anything ever does happen that I will be dragged into the situation, even if I have a document saying I'm not responsible. Then I will be paying for this well again." That is why I want to charge them a flat fee for gaining access to the well on my property.
I would be more than happy if they are not on my well! That is what I am trying to do but if they do want to continue to use it I want something that will make it worth my time for accepting the risks involved. I'm not trying to get rich off the water.
To me the pre-suit discovery sounds like a more appropriate thing to be doing at this point. I just don't want to take the time and money to do a quiet title if it really doesn't have anything to do with my case. I know my lawyer is a litigator for a real estate law firm and I'm not sure her experience in what is best in this situation. That is why I am asking, because she didn't seem to be able to answer my questions about why do quiet title. She just said it will make sure no one has rights to the land.