Legal rights of ways question

[BFE]

Have them build a new fence at their expense on the surveyed line and be done with it. Ten feet ain't worth the fight. Do what's right, even if it hurts. Sometimes you have to go above and beyond to be the bigger person.

Back in the 70's my dad and grandpa were baling straw on a 2/3-1/3 share rent farm. The landowner came down to the field accusing grandpa of stealing "his" straw. So grandpa and dad picked up the whole field, stacked it in the owners barn, and were done with it, farm and all. That story taught me a lesson, some people are assholes, and not worth dealing with. Sometimes best to wash your hands and walk away.

 

[sstterry]

From the way I read this, it is not the 10' that was ever the issue, it was the question of the use of their land as access which he cannot do now. If he presses the fence issue, split the cost of a new fence and be done with it or see if he will sell the 10' so that everything stays the same. In the end, he can't cross your property.

 

[Lisagrantb]

I'm not trying to steal anything. I would buy the land at fair market price or let him move the fence. Our issue is not with the land owner, it's his tenant who is the problem. As the owner goes he hasn't said a word and we've kept him informed and he is still welcome to pass on our land. It's the farmer that is the issue, he is the one that tore the fence down and continued to cross our property with heavy equipment tearing up the land until we locked him out. The farmer not the owner is the one trying to use the fence issue to force us to give him access

 

[Caustic Burno]

No your issues are with the land owner not the tenants over property line and use of property.
You admitted that in the post above the owner has granted access through land to the property. There are other remedies you might not like.
Texas gave these landlocked owners and tenants a way in a few years back.

Tex. Prop. Code § 23.006 – Access Easement for Partitioned Property

Unless waived by the parties in an action to partition property under this chapter, the commissioners appointed to partition property shall grant…

texas.public.law

 

[Brute 23]

Lock the tenant out and then tell him to get bent. You dont have to speak to the tenant about any of it. If the tenant has an issue with the boundaries or access to his lease property he needs to take it up with the lessor, not you.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Lock the tenant out and then tell him to get bent. You dont have to speak to the tenant about any of it. If the tenant has an issue with the boundaries or access to his lease property he needs to take it up with the lessor, not you.

Tenants have the same rights as the landowners in Texas on access if the landlord took payment from the tenant.
Look it up , tenants rights are stout.
Cheapest way out here is to fence your property down the line or pay lawyer and still have to build a fence.

 

[Lisagrantb]

First Louisiana Napoleanic law is different second they are not landlocked , they have their own road into their property third the owner hasn't demanded anything it's only the farmer

 

[Caustic Burno]

First Louisiana Napoleanic law is different second they are not landlocked , they have their own road into their property third the owner hasn't demanded anything it's only the farmer

We agree it's still not your land and was sold by a family member?

 

[sstterry]

We agree it's still not your land and was sold by a family member?

Then any disagreement needs to be addressed by the owner of the property and not the tenant.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Then any disagreement needs to be addressed by the owner of the property and not the tenant.

I saw my lawyer neighbor get an education on tenant lease..
Lady had a 99 year lease or death for a dollar a year from Louisiana Pacific. LP sold the lawyer the land and he found out right quick it was unbreakable. She lived and controlled that 40 acres till she died just here recently.
This part of Texas was covered in those 99 year leases.

 

[Brute 23]

This farmer obviously thinks he can do what ever he wants. He tore up fence, sprayed across the fence, and tore up the road through the OP pasture. With out going after him for those damages he will not change the way he operates. You cant let him slide on 2 out of the 3 and try to enforce 1. That's not how it works with people like that... or any one. He either knows you mean business or he knows you are a push over. It's one of the two.

It's time to drop the hammer on this tenant and deal with the land owner going further on any boundary issues.

Tenants have the same rights as the landowners in Texas on access if the landlord took payment from the tenant.
Look it up , tenants rights are stout.
Cheapest way out here is to fence your property down the line or pay lawyer and still have to build a fence.

Based off what the OP said the access debate is a done deal. They do not have an easement.

Now the only debate is over the property line. If both land owners don't have a problem with where the fence is, I dont think the tenant can do any thing. In fact, he would be destroying property he does not own. A tenant can not just start removing fences and things like that with out the permission of the land owner, and in this case both land owners since the fence is jointly owned, even if it is not on their property.

 

[sstterry]

I saw my lawyer neighbor get an education on tenant lease..
Lady had a 99 year lease or death for a dollar a year from Louisiana Pacific. LP sold the lawyer the land and he found out right quick it was unbreakable. She lived and controlled that 40 acres till she died just here recently.
This part of Texas was covered in those 99 year leases.

I do not know what the lease says and neither do you. I seriously doubt the Tennant in this case has a 99-year lease.

 

[Caustic Burno]

This farmer obviously thinks he can do what ever he wants. He tore up fence, sprayed across the fence, and tore up the road through the OP pasture. With out going after him for those damages he will not change the way he operates. You cant let him slide on 2 out of the 3 and try to enforce 1. That's not how it works with people like that... or any one. He either knows you mean business or he knows you are a push over. It's one of the two.

It's time to drop the hammer on this tenant and deal with the land owner going further on any boundary issues.


Based off what the OP said the access debate is a done deal. They do not have an easement.

Now the only debate is over the property line. If both land owners don't have a problem with where the fence is, I dont think the tenant can do any thing. In fact, he would be destroying property he does not own. A tenant can not just start removing fences and things like that with out the permission of the land owner, and in this case both land owners since the fence is jointly owned, even if it is not on their property.

Sstterry that is one of the few things we agree on!
Brute what is not known here is what the lease contract says.
I have leases and the contracts spell out all rights of ownership are granted the lessors for the term of the contract. I have one that spells out stipulations as well.
What I don't get is everyone trying to defend sold land.
The point here is the land is not theirs.

 

[sstterry]

Sstterry that is one of the few things we agree on!
Brute what is not known here is what the lease contract says.
I have leases and the contracts spell out all rights of ownership are granted the lessors for the term of the contract. I have one that spells out stipulations as well.
What I don't get is everyone trying to defend sold land.
The point here is the land is not theirs.

The problem is that it was a mutual mistake that even the owner of the land was not aware of. The Tenant obviously leased the land with the impression that the fence is a line fence so he has nothing to complain about. He is not getting any less than he bargained for. The owner now knows and has not said anything about the fence. It is between @Lisagrantb and the owner. No one is defending "sold land". Why are we debating a problem that does not exist? This is much ado about nothing since everyone now knows and is good.

 

[chaded]

The problem is that it was a mutual mistake that even the owner of the land was not aware of. The Tenant obviously leased the land with the impression that the fence is a line fence so he has nothing to complain about. He is not getting any less than he bargained for. The owner now knows and has not said anything about the fence. It is between @Lisagrantb and the owner. No one is defending "sold land". Why are we debating a problem that does not exist? This is much ado about nothing since everyone now knows and is good.

Yeah this seems to have started out as one problem and turned into another. If im following correctly and i may not be lol, the main or first issue was the access road.

The guy leasing the place was using a road through the OP's property when he is no longer allowed. He tried saying it was public but the op checked it out and its not. The guy has no right to access the property now through that way.

In checking it out, the op discovers the fence is on the neighbors by about 10 feet. At this point i don't understand why the guy leasing the place is even in the discussion anymore. The big deal with him was the access road and he doesnt have permission to use it anymore. I dont see what the fence has to do with him. Seems to be a matter between the land owner and op. Unless im missing something here..

 

[sstterry]

Yeah this seems to have started out as one problem and turned into another. If im following correctly and i may not be lol, the main or first issue was the access road.

The guy leasing the place was using a road through the OP's property when he is no longer allowed. He tried saying it was public but the op checked it out and its not. The guy has no right to access the property now through that way.

In checking it out, the op discovers the fence is on the neighbors by about 10 feet. At this point i don't understand why the guy leasing the place is even in the discussion anymore. The big deal with him was the access road and he doesnt have permission to use it anymore. I dont see what the fence has to do with him. Seems to be a matter between the land owner and op. Unless im missing something here..

It is just us on Cattle Today arguing over things that really don't matter as we normally do.........

 

[Brute 23]

Sstterry that is one of the few things we agree on!
Brute what is not known here is what the lease contract says.
I have leases and the contracts spell out all rights of ownership are granted the lessors for the term of the contract. I have one that spells out stipulations as well.
What I don't get is everyone trying to defend sold land.
The point here is the land is not theirs.

There is no lease, ever, that can give a tenant the right to tear down a fence that the land owner (lessor) does not even own 100% of. At best they can grant you their 50%. If that is the case the tenant needs to provide that documentation to the OP showing he has the power to negotiate that.

I am not defending sold land. It's none of my business no do I care. That is between the two land owners to decide how to go forward.

For all we know the other land owner wants the fence to stay where it is to stay in the OP good graces so he/she can continue to use that access point.

There are way too many variables here to "take sides". Ultimately the two land owners have to decide how to proceed.

Any way you cut it the tenant is not helping the situation and needs to be squashed.