Couple discovers they are barred by law from building home on new property

[@mikeyjr6615]

This is literally what Title Insurance is for. They need to file a claim with the Title Company, get their money and they can move on.

[@EnlistedBombin]

If its not financed might not have happened at 17k high chance they did not. Think it was honestly a Omission by the previous owners, if it was not a heirs property.

[@mariegumpel4955]

The title company is at fault for this and the attorneys representing them and the realtor too. for not doing their jobs... I really feel for them.

[@RenoGerry]

If the utility did not properly record the easement with the county they could be held partially liable.

[@4dogsgaming]

Nope, title searchs only go back 50 years, up to the buyer to research further.

[@cindee1794]

@@Shellm-r3e diligence

[@NYCHFAN]

If the neighbors knew, the sellers knew.

[@anonanon1982]

100%

[@dennishannerty1745]

Reduced for quick sale what else.

[@SirPatrickBossington]

Title Company should have certainly known.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Yup. That’s likely fraud.

[@blackstrat02]

And the realtor knew

[@steveparker8723]

This easment restriction should have been disclosed by the seller. Id be getting my money back.

[@danielemerson6833]

The local government said go ahead. So this is no problem. We need to trust our government employees.

[@steveparker8723]

@danielemerson6833 I agree that we should be able to trust what we are told by government. Still, things like this should be known and disclosed by the seller.

[@danielemerson6833]

@steveparker8723 if the government can't enforce and know the law, then who can you trust for the truth.

[@steveparker8723]

@danielemerson6833 agreed. I've wondered how many other parcels of land have sold within this easement. I found it amazing that the neighbors knew about the easement and the government officials didnt.

[@mrcryptozoic817]

Every SINGLE dime of it.

[@Rick-np9vz]

Sounds like a lawsuit against the former owner! And the realtors!

[@sundayhinojosa8114]

Snake oil sellers just like Trump.

[@dennisdragomir7572]

didn't use a rEal estate atty? Just stupid title ince? They told me a real estate attorney would check mine included in the title ince

[@tombosanko3085]

The low price should throw up red flags.

[@theresamc8515]

The seller is liable for not disclosing pertinent details.

[@bobmazzi7435]

And the realtor. this was advertised as being a building lot for a house.

[@teresawilson3893]

The realtor should be sued!

[@allenpierce4575]

this is why you hire a good real estate attorney to do a "Title check" and new "Land Survey" then you hire a Independent home inspector, NEVER rely on either side of the real estate agents Inspectors they will lie just to get the house sold

[@stevenchadderdon9061]

the buyer is stupid for not asking

[@Yeah-i2f]

​@@stevenchadderdon9061 Realtor is liable for disclosure of legal status such as liens or easements

[@Lordoftheapes79]

If this easement restricts the land this much, the power company should be required to buy it.

[@thedronescene7474]

Two tier system, only the poor and middle class gets screwed.

[@Doubie.]

They did in the 50s that’s what the easement is someone probably subdivided it after that

[@TheEagle12901]

When the utility acquired this easement i guarantee this was a larger lot. They should have gotten a full title search not the states minimum. If they got the minimum title work, title insurance will not cover this.

[@orchunter8388]

Duke can’t afford it

[@dldave1978]

The county is a bunch of jerks just to drop the property value 50%. It’s basically worthless to anyone but the power company, and they know that. Unless it’s in the power companies name they ought to appraise it at zero dollars. It’s insane Anyone that isn’t the power company is expected to pay taxes on this.

[@davidvincent1093]

TITLE INSURANCE CLAIM

[@jtpalooki7757]

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS BUY TITLE INSURANCE!

[@BillandLinda7]

TITLE INSURANCE IS FOR CLEAR TITLE. THE PROPERTY HAS CLEAR TITLE. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@jtpalooki7757]

@ i purchased a home with a supposedly “clear title”… when I went to sell, there was a lien belonging to previous owner.. title insurance = no headaches

[@UncleDavesKitchen]

title insurance goes back 50 years. this deal was set 69 years ago

[@jtpalooki7757]

@@UncleDavesKitchen but the misrepresentation of the property occurred at time of purchase..

[@FF5754]

So, a few things here.... they need to contact title insurance company and get a refund on the policy. They need to take the previous seller and crooked realtor that had to disclose the easements by law to the new buyers. Take the seller and realtor, not the realtors company, to civil court and sue them personally. The real-estate company can just weasel out of it and blame the realtor. Also, don't bother sueing Duke in this case. If they have papers from 1955, they are covered. Their best bet, if not wanting to sue and courts and if title insurance wasn't purchased, would be sell to the neighbors they talked to and they can add farm use land to their property. Any land touching neighbors can buy it and not need an easement or land locked issues because their property boundary already touches this land. Then just merge the 2 together as 1 homestead. Sounds complicated but it's not. $30 fee to merge and then go to property appraiser office off forest oaks in springhill and get it done. Always do your homework on buying land, stay away from any utilities power water sewer and buy larger for a cheaper overall price. Most people want a couple acres and over pay. Find 20.1 or more acres, put down 40% and go to farm credit office on state road 50 near 75. Great rates, its a member credit union type of deal with stocks. Then use the USDA or forestry management plan for huge tax savings. Oh yes, and lets bot forget the grinder pump septic scam going everywhere right now too. Lots and lots of money in that mess. If over 1.10 acres, you're exempted from that stupid septic games. A cheaper long lasting normal septic tank and drain field is what you get. I've done it and doing again now as well for my homestead. Trust me, hope this info helps others in getting the dream of a mini ranch too. 🇺🇸 i know a long comment but more info to help the little guys from getting screwed over by big companies or crooked realtors you don't really need anyways.

[@schex9]

Neighbors probably don't want the extra tax burden

[@swamprat2]

When we buy $40K+ vehicles we're satisfied with whatever lame title search our state does, and for small real estate transactions like this, I'd be shocked if they even did a $300 title search, especially since the online ones make you pay $200 extra to search for easements.

[@TheEagle12901]

For those that dont know, here is likely what occured and this is not that uncommon. When the utility aquired the easement is was probably a much larger parcel and then was subdivided. This was probably aquired many years ago. Most states/counties require only so many years of title (maybe 25, 30, 50) and that is what the abstractor did. They were not asked or paid for a full abstract so it wasnt found. Title insurance wont cover this as its not a title fault, it is the landowner cheaping out. Always pay for a full abstract. These folks are lucky they found out before they built cause they would have torn a new house down at their expense. They will have an uphill battle to prove the seller knew as he/she didnt have a structure from the sounds of it. It also is not the counties/towns responsibility to inform you of this (though they often do when they are aware of it) it is the responsibility of the landowner or future landowner to know. Best insurance you can buy before you buy real estate is a full abstract AND a full survey. Im also willing to bet their deed says something like "parcel blah on subdivision map # blah"

[@joshuahudson2170]

Bring the title claim before the jury and I bet it goes the other way.

[@lazaruslazuli6130]

acquired

[@tarbaby315]

Thank you for being the voice of reason amongst the emotional hyperbole, that most of these comments represent Seller could have inherited the property and lived in another state, which would mean they had no clue and therefore have plausible deniability, for which they have no legal obligation to disclose, because they truly did not know.

[@menow7851]

If you advertise a homesite for sale that is not a homesite, Triple damages for false advertising should apply to the land promoter. The State and County should prosecute the scammers.

[@I_Am_Your_Problem]

I always take legal advice from clowns that struggle with capitalization and punctuation.

[@mattschehr163]

@@I_Am_Your_Problem so what we have te right ti not speaa

[@casketdriver1]

Keyboard warrior. Keep pushing those buttons! ​@@I_Am_Your_Problem

[@uh8myzen]

Definitely shouldn't be advertised as a home site, but I might be ignorant as I'm from another country, but here, when we buy a house the buyer typically does their own research on the property before buying it, like checking the property for things like easements since they limit how you can use the property. Here, this information is public record and provides the entire history of the property back to its first establishment and includes information like the history of past and present easements. The most you'd pay is a few bucks in administration fees, and you don't require any lawyers or third parties to access it, though it helps to have experts evaluate it. Unless this is a record keeping issue on the part of the county, I don't understand how someone buys property without doing thorough research regarding things like easements on their own. Property is a massive investment, and I wouldn't buy one that I haven't personally researched. Again, I'm not American, so I don't know about the record keeping practices stateside, but if this happened here, I would put a good heap of the blame on the buyer for not doing the bare minimum.

[@edg8535]

In watching this video, one wonders if the previous owners knew this was coming and that was the reason they sold.

[@superdave8248]

I was thinking the same thing. They likely received a notice in the mail from Duke Energy about the pole change and knew that this property was about to become useless. On a side note, if they knew this and didn't endulge that information, they would be held liable in a court of law I suspect.

[@Salmagundiii]

Of course they did 🤣

[@apollo5751]

What probably happened is a division of existing property leaving the easement empty. Someone thought they could sell just the easement to any idiot.

[@Seriously-m1p]

@@apollo5751 Bingo, truth.

[@jdmather5755]

@@superdave8248The easement existed before the pole change.

[@Ariadne626]

Falls on the sellers, if a company owns an easement over your property, the seller is legally required to disclose this information to you when you sign a purchase agreement, as easements are considered a material fact that can affect the value of the property and must be disclosed to potential buyers.

[@MrWombatty]

If it's advertised like this property was, saying you can build on it, then the buyer has grounds to sue the vendor and their agent (& possibly the council), on the grounds that it was falsely represented in the ad and legal documents!

[@Realdog5986]

Correct. However it does fall on the county as well for zoning this property as residential when it absolutely isn't

[@MrWombatty]

@@Realdog5986 If the county has been asked whether there's easements, then answers no without checking a property-owner has grounds to sue, especially if they've also approved a Development Application!

[@tamaraspencer4024]

Falls on the government. If a company has an easement on a property they should be required to own that property. If the government wasn't beholden to the corporations and were beholden to the people like they are supposed to be, this wouldn't be an issue. You're missing the point.

[@richardjacques1731]

It is public record, no disclosure required. The only basis I see to sue is the RE ad that says "Canvas for your dream home." That is implying you can build there.

[@danielconverse1079]

County an state owe the family, utilities must pay to use private property an taxes ,the has over head right of space, utilities company back were to build under ground not overhead

[@leenorthrop3860]

This should have been disclosed!! Sue the realtor!!

[@user-BigDog68]

The utility should be forced to buy the property instead of a "free pass" easement. My two cents!

[@steveurbach3093]

Back in 1955 Duke may have bought the Easement rights from the property owner (they just cant say WE WANT. ) 2 things stand out that smell. 1)The previous owners have been paying way more property tax (because of the Residential valuation). 2) The seller had to know about this easement,

[@mariegumpel4955]

@@user-BigDog68 good luck with that

[@UncleDavesKitchen]

it could have been pasture land back then so not a problem.

[@steveperry3572]

I wish they could. But thanks to greedy companies and politicians.

[@user-BigDog68]

@steveperry3572 Damn Straight!

[@Boraxo]

So much for having an expert walk you thru this buying process.

[@zippymcfearson2776]

Expert? Real estate agents know nothing about anything. You can know absolutely nothing and take a multiple choice test with your state to be one.

[@swamprat2]

$17K lot - probably did not want to spend $6K on lawyers, title searches, realtors, etc. Which I totally understand, but then, this is what happens.

[@score3q]

Realtors are worthless middleman

[@klew5988]

Whoever lied to them needs to be sued.

[@jo2lovid]

$17000 for a plot of land. What, was this property out in the sticks in the backside of Timbuktu? A plot of sufficient size to build a house would be worth more than $17K. It sounds like the buyer falls fully into the "Caveat Emptor" category. At least now the previous owner wouldn't have the responsibility to ensure no trees grew under the lines, and they no longer need to mow the grass. The seller would see a Win / Win!!

[@KahlessTheUnforgettable]

Hahahaha! The schadenfreude is delicious! 😂

[@vickijohnson9367]

@@klew5988 Every one and entity on the other side of the transaction. Undisclosed easement, title violation, That is why real estate brokers (agents must work with brokers) must be insured, or anyone with a real estate contract (contract real estate law) must be insured, the TITLE COMPANY (closing agent) must be insured, plus of course the shady seller, plus always have a survey (dah, the easement would be part of a survey), all and any on the other side or middle of the transaction are/should be part of a law suit. The businesses in the middle (usually required by lender), requires transaction insurance for fraudulent transactions. I would suspect this was for sale by owner, cash, without any kind of professiona, so remember, always close with a title company and with title insurance, get a stake survey, do a lot of due diligence with real estate transactions.

[@Deerhunter2024]

​@@jo2lovid you must live in a HCOL area because in a lot of the US you can get a lot for under $20k. Where I live a half acre lot can be as low as $5k. I just sold a half acre lot for $20k in the most desirable school district in the area. There are many places you can get a lot cheap.

[@kaboomwinn4026]

The previous owner noticed the writing on the wall before the wood utility pole replace with High Voltage Power Line Pole, and the deal was too good to pass up, so the new owner bought it.

[@terry_willis]

?????? FIRST there's a small wooden utility pole. THEN one month later they're surrounded by giant concrete poles??? WFLA did not explain what happened in that one month. This story is insane. Terrible reporting.

[@robertphillips6296]

The Property Value is Zero to them not $6,000.oo.

[@bobmazzi7435]

No, it has a negative value. They have to pay taxes and insurance on a something they can't use.

[@braddouglas7839]

​@@bobmazzi7435 Like I said previously... start a pig farm. Let the neighbors know your intentions and offer them to buy it. If they don't...hello piggy. Piss EVERYONE off.

[@riggs20]

Seriously. I love how the county acts like they’re being helpful by lowering the land value assessment. Uh, no, land is worth $0.

[@TheTuffOnes]

​@@bobmazzi7435 They need to just stop paying the property taxes. The county will have to come along and take the property unto itself.

[@bobmazzi7435]

@@TheTuffOnes The problem with that is the owners now have a tax sale on their history.

[@vickijohnson9367]

Sue the seller, sue the seller’s real estate company, sue the county, and sue the title company. One or all will settle, because it is an undisclosed title violation. All monies and attorney’s fees reimbursed. Institutional and corporate abuse must be confronted. The seller knew something or there would have been a home there, decades ago. The neighbor knew.🎯

[@ElonaldTrusk]

This is one of the most logical and correct comments I've seen online in quite a while.

[@garygolfer3243]

Yes. It’s only $17,500 for the property, add time and attorneys fees plus other expenses and a settlement(s) of less than $100,000 should not be too hard. 👍

[@Fluffybunz779]

I don’t think you know how any of this works

[@braddouglas7839]

​@@Fluffybunz779I know how it works in my state. The seller and realtor need to disclose things like this. You can't list a property as buildable if it isn't. It doesn't fall on the buyer, it falls on the seller, realtor and local zoning commission.

[@wisdomsleuth77777]

What about suing Duke Energy for making your land unusable yet not paying the taxes on it while you're the one responsible for the taxation.

[@robmunach3870]

The closing attorney should have caught this.

[@Milesco]

If there was one. Not all land closings require an attorney. (Well, maybe in Florida they do; I don't know.) But the title company _definitely_ should've caught this. They're on the hook for sure.

[@matthewhoover6154]

I had an attorney miss a line in my land deed contract that was written by my realtor, it directly contradicted with the 7th paragraph, regarding who pays taxes. I kick myself for not catching it myself, but trusted that I had an attorney. Cost me 40k out of pocket to close on the sale of the house. I consulted an attorney and he said 'I'm sympathetic, but it isn't worth taking it to court, you'll probably lose'.

[@Milesco]

@@matthewhoover6154 I'm not so sure about that. Obviously I can't properly analyze the merits of a case from a short KZbin comment, but from what you said, it sounds like you have a legit claim against both the real estate agent *and* your attorney. For 40 grand, I would definitely pursue it.

[@kjvwarrior777]

I wouldn't pay anything, and tell them to stick it! 😂😂😂

[@EdwinDueck]

I had something similar happen, the reason was to township had NOT updated their information for over 50 years.

[@Navy_VetE6]

This should’ve come to light during the title search.

[@miltonturner2977]

Seller/Realty agent is required BY LAW to show prospective owners ALL Information, obviously they DID NOT. I smell a nice Law Suit!

[@Seriously-m1p]

That will end up costing you in the end. The only winners in lawsuits are lawyers.

[@joshuahudson2170]

@@Seriously-m1p Make a better argument.

[@gregfarnsley3851]

@@joshuahudson2170 In a case like this the most a lawsuit will probably get is the money they had invested. The cost of the land, all the fees for inspections, permits, etc. most likely not enough for a lawyer to take it on a contingency basis.

[@Seriously-m1p]

@@joshuahudson2170 Try to understand things in a better way. See the comment above this one. Ta Da. It will end up costing them more money in the end. There is No win in a case like this. Take the L….use it as lesson learned.

[@spazmonkey3815]

@@Seriously-m1p Ta Da ...HAHAHAHAHA!

[@mrhappy4521]

Whoever sold it to them knew this Laughing all the way to the bank!

[@KILLKING110]

You say that till the lawyers come a knocking for failure to disclose important information and false advertising don't screw with federal law

[@faithsrvtrip8768]

Nope. They are going to be sued for deceptive sales tactic and failure to disclose easement.

[@ElusiveMackerel]

Why is it that the government didn’t know that there was an easement on the property? Shouldn’t they have had that on file?

[@swamprat2]

It gets really wonky with "unrecorded easements" which, if you can believe it, are a real thing. And a freaking headache.

[@phillipmatthews8341]

The title company is responsible for the disclosure

[@UncleDavesKitchen]

only for the past 50 years

[@TheEagle12901]

Only to what they were hired to do. Most sales are doing limited title...always pay for a full abstract

[@joshuahudson2170]

@@UncleDavesKitchen If so, time to invoke adverse possession against the utility company.

[@ashlaunicaalpari4584]

Wow… the county gave them the okay to build? Umm sooo who gets in trouble for this mistake? If it’s zoned residential than the city should be liable

[@kutie216]

It’s their job to do due diligence. They probably won’t be able to sell and there aren’t refunds on property lol.

[@safeandeffectivelol]

@@kutie216 No seller disclosure?

[@GerhardMack]

@@kutie216 And they were magically supposed to know to ask the power company if there was an easement since the city didn't know about it?

[@vickijohnson9367]

The seller knew, or a house would have been built decades ago, plus even the neighbor knew. The sale of the property, without the complete easement documented, is factually a type of fraud. Enough on fraud in this country. Fraud is rampant, seller crying “I didn’t know” is unacceptable by law, of course they knew.

[@sirrebral]

​@@GerhardMack There's nothing magical about it; sellers are required to disclose what they know about a property (though proving what they did or did not know can be a challenge without some sort of evidence), and sellers are **advised** to get title insurance to protect themselves from "unknown unknowns" exactly like this. It's a classic case of "caveat emptor".

[@danmcleod1360]

This issue should have been seen during the title search.

[@Milesco]

Absolutely.

[@JarlSeamus]

They should sue the utility company to buy the land from them. If the easement encompasses essentially the whole lot, the power company should be liable.

[@Seriously-m1p]

It will be added to their next bill. Effectively paying themselves back. It was done years ago. Duke isn’t liable here.

[@score3q]

Thats actually really normal. Thats why you higher an actual surveyor and aubmit drawings to the city. You should have had this information when you bought the land. Just sounds like a lot of people who dont know what they're doing

[@hobbyoftheday4017]

I agree buying land is never as straightforward as it seems. We went through the process a few times and the lower the price the more problems with easement and perking and boundaries and so on.

[@lazaruslazuli6130]

'hire' a surveyor

[@jerryshelton1481]

Everything is supposed to be disclosed by the seller so seller should be charged with fraud

[@tarbaby315]

If the seller had inherited the property and had no knowledge of the easement, because they lived in another state than they have plausible deniability, and no legal responsibility to report some thing to which they had no idea. Every state has a transaction form for disclosure that includes the option of selecting the fact that you have no knowledge of anything about the property because it is inherited.

[@jebsails2837]

Sale should be nullified as goods not fit for the clearly stated purpose for which purchased. Happened to my brother. He bought a property with 8 cabins on it. He sought to place the cabins on permanent foundations, only to be advised of the utility right of way supplying power to a Defense Contractor. 30 yrs. on DC has installed back up generators, right of way given up, new owner has placed all eight cabins on foundations. Narragansett Bay

[@Meditations2024]

Easements are one of the biggest things you look for when buying any property. Mineral and water rights are another thing that should be cleared. A Good Broker or Real Estate Lawyer would have highlighted this.

[@GerhardMack]

Doubtful since even the city didn't know.

[@anonygrazer3234]

Lowering that property value to ONE DOLLAR would still be too much.......and the property appraisers SHOULD have lowered it to $1 _because_ of this situation, _which is partly THEIR fault, too_

[@apollo5751]

#1. Title was negligent. It is INCONCEIVABLE that the Title agency did NOT know of the easement. Looking at any other APN would instantly show the easement. Besides, going to the location would make that instantaneous, and to top it off, NO ONE builds below high tension wiring, unless they want INSTA-CANCER

[@DracSWyrm]

They should pay rent for these projects or buy them outright.

[@TheJunkymagi]

Wait wait wait. I read what I could (great job placing that image over the middle of the document, news team). The reporter said 2:03 nothing could be built within 100 feet of the power poles and the buyer 2:03 says within 100 feet of the pole... but that's not what the document says. It says within 50 feet of the centerline of the EASEMENT. I'd have surveyors out there and mark out exactly where the easement is and where the 50 foot line is. A 100 foot wide easement is easier to stomach than the 200 foot wide easement that the reporter and buyer claiming (lying?). Over 60 years since that document was created, I doubt very much that the poles are still in the exact center of the easement. Plus the document grants the easement to FLORIDA POWER. Maybe "ownership" has passed to subsequent power companies without pause of use but I'd want to make sure that it had never been left unused because the document also says that the easement goes away if it stops being used as a power line easement. If, say, it wasn't used for a year, then the easement could be ruled invalid and a new easement would have to be granted but google is useless because the rules of such things are complicated, to say the least. Next, the existence of an easement was obvious to everyone. I mean the (original, wooden) pole is RIGHT THERE in the pictures 0:47. I wouldn't have bought the land until I knew EXACTLY what kind/size of easement it was. There was no building there so it wasn't a transport to the house so it had to be a property crossing power pole, which needs an easement. And LASTLY lastly, why are reporters so stingy with the pictures? At the very least put up a graphic showing size of lot, location and direction of the power lines. With that they could have put a wide red slash across the property to represent the easement, would have a lot more impact than the short video clips which don't show scale, size or shape of the lot nor where that power pole (is there only one?) is on the property...

[@Seriously-m1p]

Not unusual that another utility would have transmission lines in another state.

[@TheJunkymagi]

@@Seriously-m1p Original easement was to Florida Power but the current owners of the power lines is Duke Power so that's why I mentioned it.

[@DVankeuren]

The poles in the video were recently placed, like they were put up after they bought the property. Also, does not matter, they were scammed because the easment was not declared to them before closing.

[@nschlaak]

Thank you for doing the reading and the homework for your excellent explanation. I, for one, am satisfied with your fact-filled comment.

[@davef.2329]

Still leaves the septic issues. The lot is useless for the purpose as advertised by the seller and intended by the purchaser.

[@donaldjackson4456]

Scammed. Thats bs

[@mariegumpel4955]

Yep..

[@BUStedLosAngeles]

First red flag is when your dream property only costs $17,000.

[@anonanon1982]

😂

[@joshuahudson2170]

I found places where I can get acres of property for less than that. I guess it depends on what your dream is.

[@swamprat2]

ya know, I've tried to buy several properties that were swampland, floodplain, unbuildable, etc. for my (private) hunting/fishing/kayak access, and the sellers will swear and down that it's zoned for waterfront condos, so it's $50K/acre lol. On the east coast once you get below $20K/acre on small lots, either there are no jobs for 50 miles in any direction, or it's not a good lot for building.

[@marsmars9130]

LOL not true property goes for less than that in almost every state

[@filonin2]

Maybe in LA, but that's a reasonable price for a half acre in a rural area, even in California.

[@nancienordwick4169]

If no one but the power company knew, I suspect the right of way was a normal 10 feet and the powee company altered the original more recently. Nefarious acts. In 1955 a ten foot easement would have seemed reasonable and plenty back then because the health dangers were not known, and power of the amounts we now use were unimaginable.

[@Seriously-m1p]

Zero health effects from electromagnetic fields. They don’t exist. No utility owns their rights of way. People do Like to make up stories to sell

[@StarDustMoonRocket]

This is why you have title insurance.

[@creaturafauna]

That what Title Insurance is for… would have been exposed in title search… if not, there’s your claim.

[@shugatoast7844]

I almost purchased my first home 2000 square foot farmhouse on 6 1/2 acres my offer was accepted at $48,000 ( foreclosure ) and I started the paperwork , and then the neighbors started saying there was no easement. Turns out the neighbors were all family members of previous owner who passed away. I had two lawyers and then the bank hired a Big lawyer, but there was no loophole. I was never able to purchase the house and the bank lost it for pennies on the dollar. I would have shared the easement with the house behind me my house and the house in front of me. One long, nice road ( running through my potential property ) that I had no legal access to use. easements are no joke.

[@bigmoline100]

So, Dad let the kids build houses, allowed them an easement into their houses. Somewhere along the way, everyone forgot to stipulate his house had access to what was probably his driveway originally. Mistake or preplanned to landlock so they could have it pennies on the dollar? Makes ya wonder doesn't it?

[@AdmiralStoicRum]

If there was already a driveway, where guests, deliveries, and residents could pass through to access the property then it is a perpetual thing

[@vickijohnson9367]

@@shugatoast7844 The banks don’t care if they have to foreclose in the 21st Century. They don’t “hold” individual properties as in pre-deregulation of the commercial banking industry. The debt instruments (which is what banks do, whether collateralized or not), are now all bundled in finance debt portfolios, the entire portfolio has a derivative placed (a 1990’s insurance instrument created to be paid out upon default of everything in it), then they take the portfolio to the Federal Reserve and leverage it as a bank asset portfolio. This is why the houses sit empty for so long, the bank forecloses quickly on the debt instrument (loan), but then has to pay off 2/3 of the portfolio to get the whole portfolio back to sell the asset (home). They only take title the day they sell, in order to liquidate the asset. This is how all debt is handled, although the buyer of debt portfolios can be, equity funds, hedge funds, other banks and nonbank financial entities. The more fraudulent the debt instruments, the more derivatives are put on. The Great Recession factually just bailed out insurance derivatives, the “bank bailout” was a smoke screen with money paid back in 18 months with interest. People would have rioted if they understood it was fraudulent insurance that was the real bailout. Right AIG?

[@ChazzleDazzleVideos]

My great uncle allowed an easement for a road company who purchased land behind his 100 acres to get access to thier land. The stipulation of the easement was that his family could have access to the land to use for hunting because his stand was on the edge of his property line and the land that his brother sold to the company. Decades later I now hunt in that same area and my mom has a paved driveway for the first 90% of her driveway.

[@h2s-i9o]

I cant think of any state where your permitted to landlock property.

[@rangerboy911]

Yea somebody didn’t call duke. I have been a tree contractor on transmission for years, if there is a row question it usually takes a few hours if not days to find that paper work. On an active rebuild. You get the right person and its “ what address are you referring to”. Totally the sellers fault for not disclosing the row.

[@DSavage610]

This is totally a fraud. The seller knew they were selling a lemon. Easement? I would hire a surveyor and make sure the easement is exactly where it is supposed to be based on that ancient document. If any of the 100' diameter is outside the easement zone, even by .01" from compliance, you can potentially sue if a utility company builds on your property outside of the designated easement area.

[@KyleSwango]

The seller knew this.

[@dylano7242]

Sue the seller and realtor for falsely listing the property and not following the utilitis easement law

[@michaelsmiley15]

How does this energy company think this land owner would find a document that was filed in 1955 They don't keep paper records that go back that far This is ridiculous The seller is one hundred percent responsible for this mess not the buyer Title insurance won't cover this An existing easement is the responsibility of the zoning Because the filed it in 1956 there is no paper trail The utility would also have to update that paper work No one is going to admit they screwed up

[@Bobrogers99]

The easement should have been filed with the Registrar of Deeds, and it should have been easily found during a title search.

[@joblo843]

The clerk of Court certainly keeps records back that far. A competent title attorney and a survey would have notified them of this before they purchased.

[@superdave8248]

The most like cause is that the Register of Deeds either misfiled the easement or simply failed to back in 1955. Odds are if you dug through the records of the surrounding properties you would probably locate this misfiled paperwork.

[@braddouglas7839]

And the realtor is responsible to disclose any easements or other problems. Doesn't matter if they know or not, they're ultimately responsible.

[@I_Am_Your_Problem]

@michaelsmiley15 When they literally present... a paper record...

[@navajojohn9448]

You wouldn't want to live under or close to those high voltage lines anyway.

[@AccountInactive]

Set up inductors with full bridge rectification and you've got free power 😂

[@noble_norse7786]

​@@AccountInactivelol, came to say the same thing! Who wouldn't want free power!

[@GoonyMclinux]

People who want cancer.

[@Seriously-m1p]

It won’t hurt you. If it was dangerous linemen would be dropping dead at tremendously higher rates than the rest of the public. They aren’t. Your home has electromagnetic fields in every wall that has wires for the electric system:

[@GoonyMclinux]

@@Seriously-m1p There are safe limits and when near these lines the vast majority of the time the EM fields are so high you will definitely have issues from it later on.

[@HeroDrt420]

Seller is responsible, they either knew or should have known about this. The utility company should have to buy that land.

[@BeyondPC]

When an easement makes the property unuseable the easer should be required to buy it or relinquish the easement. Also the city / county should be liable for not properly digitizing documents almost a hundred years old. Get with the times yeah?

[@Jon.......]

Time to sue the county for zoning the property as "residential"

[@CameronsCandorOriginal]

EXACTLY 💯

[@markthebuilder9837]

Obviously you have no idea how zoning works. Zoning is for an area, not each individual lot. Restrictions like these have nothing to do with the county.

[@Elmerkeith-c5g]

LooL , go ahead and sue the county

[@mr44mag]

@@Elmerkeith-c5g You're going to need a good attorney, like Marvin "Dover" Komatsu. 🤣

[@swamprat2]

lol I wish. I've tried to buy hunting land a number of times where it was literal underwater swamp (legally undevelopable), and for whatever reason, the county has it zoned for retail or apartments or whatever, and the owners think they can get $250K for 9 acres. It'd be funny if it weren't so aggravating. There's a reason why a "perfect" lot would be $8,000. It's because that lot is garbage and a bunch of other buyers have passed on it.

[@realestaeinaustintx]

The owners of the land can sue the realtor and their brokerage. They should have looked at the deed of restrictions before they listed/sold the property and place the deed of restrictions on the listing. The seller should have disclosed this. The realtor should have notified the buyers through their real estate agent of these restrictions. Just sue everyone, place complaint to their real estate board so all of them are investigated and get up to 3 times the amount of money they paid for the property Further more the title company they used to close should have caught this prior to closing Hopefully the buyers bought title insurance

[@navajojohn9448]

Always have to wonder why an empty piece of land among other properties for many years.

[@kutie216]

Yep and I guarantee the deal was too good to be true. If someone could have built there they would have

[@sirrebral]

This. The saying "you cant con an honest man" is often used to explain that people who think they are getting over on a deal...for example, knowimg better than everyone else...are more susceptible to getting burned.

[@gme5802]

Exactly and the super low price should have been a giveaway as well.

[@swamprat2]

Honestly, if I were a neighbor I might have just bought it because why not? Somewhere else to hunt, ride motorbikes, store materials, etc. And at least you KNOW nobody will try to put a house on it, if you own it.

[@akbychoice]

It’s the “” you didn’t ask, we don’t tell”” policy. It should have been posted for what it is.

[@javier6226]

Utilities fought tooth and nail to expand their easements from traditional 20 ft diameter to 100 ft radius to “unlimited” in the courts and won. homeowners tried to enforce the 20 diameter at the beginning so they could use the rest of their property but utilities companies argue that they “might” need at least 100 ft for future use and upgrade.

[@Seriously-m1p]

Nope. Distribution lines use a 20’ easement. Transmission lines are much larger so a larger easement is necessary.

[@blitzkrueg07]

There is a reason a property was sold for 17k when others around it sell for 125k

[@deal492]

THIS 👆

[@williamstandish2926]

Empty lot, there are quite a few cheap lots in the neighborhood.

[@solarusthelonghaulerrailfa3226]

Unfortunately this is a common problem realestate scams are often uncovered after the sale

[@mardegan86]

Make that make sense, u paying taxes on the property but it belongs to the utility company, Duke energy must buy this property if they wants to use it.

[@kutie216]

The company has an easement. Super common. This is what title insurance is for

[@Seriously-m1p]

They Don’t Own Rights Of Way. No utility does. Your bill would be astronomical if they did.

[@Matt-yg8ub]

I literally have 41 similar towers on my property….. But I own several thousand acres so it’s not that big of a deal….. Power company came through in the 1980s and obtained their easement because the government said they got to….. Here’s the part that pisses me off, yes they have an easement that says that I can’t build within 100 feet on either side of the line and I have 2 sets of lines 75 feet apart. ….. So I have a swath of ground 270 feet wide Running for a mile and a half that I can’t build on….. But the power company was only required to compensate me for the value of the land that the towers themselves are built on, Literally the footprint of the tower itself which actually comes to a point on top of a concrete pad 6 feet in diameter. The energy company basically had to pay me for 1200 ft.² of land but have 50 acres of land I can’t build on. Now I run cattle so I use it as pasture anyway….But it sucks That I’m paying taxes on 50 acres worth of land that I effectively only have partial use over

[@aironiversen9214]

This is one of those things that should be required by law to dispose prior to purchase. If I was this lady I would file a suit against the seller.

[@Zach-f8i]

They can sue the realtor for not disclosing the info, but at the end of the day, it's their own fault for not researching for themselves.

[@bigchuckyinkentucky6267]

Simple solution is for the power company to purchase the property. If they need that big of a right of way then they should be paying the taxes every year.

[@amyevans1080]

I find it funny how they only had little pole on the property at first, but after the deal is finalized they electric company made sure to build there. It sounds like the electric company wanted someone to purchase the land and have that person pay the property. taxes

[@mattbosley3531]

Electric company doesn't care who owns the property or if the taxes are paid. Their easement is good no matter what. Plans to build that new electric line were probably in the works for years.

[@neilkurzman4907]

Yes, the power company built an entire row of metal power poles to replace the old one to screw over whoever bought the $17,000 property. Yes that definitely sounds like something that could’ve happened. 🤦🏻🙄

[@patroberts5449]

@@neilkurzman4907😂

[@jamesm568]

Power company has a right to go through period.

[@dereckwilt39]

From what I understand utilities are building/replacing power lines across the country in an attempt to handle solar/wind projects. In my little county 3 major power lines have been completely replaced and a dozen or so substations have either been built from scratch or completely renovated. I highly doubt the power company even knew/cared that someone had purchased one insignificant piece of property on a line that probably stretched across hundreds of properties.

[@DaveT0818]

The easement has been there for 80 plus years.. you can never build in the easement.. I have an easement on my property.. same restrictions.. they are always noted on the property survey and should have been apparent during the sales process...the only recourse is to try to recover funds against the seller, the realtor, or the County...

[@UncleDavesKitchen]

if it were a larger parcel of land it'd not be an issue, but it's too tiny to have room to build and be away from the power poles. Maybe in 1955 it was a 20 acre lot

[@dereckwilt39]

If I'm reading the document that they flashed on the screen correctly it was 120 acres (E 3/4 of a 1/4 section).

[@noodles894]

I wanna see part 2 for sure!!!😤

[@Thorinox]

This should have been disclosed when buying the land. Which means the sellers lied about it.

[@autumnmcewing9211]

Real estate agent should pay they didn’t do their job 😡😡

[@superdave8248]

I disagree. I suspect the original Register of Deeds back in 1955 didn't do their job right. Or somebody pull the original out of the property file and never put it back. If it predates digital records, the only way you are going to find it is if the Register of Deeds has the original.

[@bobmazzi7435]

It was sold as buildable. Not true. So, the realtor needs to step in to make it right.

[@superdave8248]

@@bobmazzi7435 If the seller didn't notify the realtor, it isn't the realtor's fault for the failure of disclosure. Although I would agree there is an option to file a lawsuit on the seller for failure of full disclosure.

[@rafflesmaos]

Always require a survey when buying an empty lot OR require doing due diligence before final signing.

[@DVankeuren]

Professionals are already supposed to be doing that sort of thing. And easments certainly should be declared up front.

[@MichaelKurse]

This is a type of property that will show up year after year on tax sales.Waiting for some sap to buy it.😒😒😒

[@YamiSama77]

sue the company and city

[@feeder8164]

What a scam. Seems like they should be able to get out of that but we don’t know the whole story either.

[@God-z7c]

Since I did not disclose this. In a new about it when they sold property . You can get your money back plus interest . This is really not that important in the news

[@Derpy1969]

The sellers knew.

[@choff6057]

Did they get a survey? It's not required in Florida, but a survey would disclose any easements on the property.

[@gregfarnsley3851]

The easement was most likely in existence long the property was subdivided into lots. If the easement was not on the original deed for the property how would they know?

[@choff6057]

@@gregfarnsley3851 In Florida, easements are added to a deed by explicitly stating them within a written agreement, typically called an "express easement," which is signed by both parties involved and then recorded with the property deed at the county courthouse; essentially, the easement details are included directly in the legal document transferring ownership of the property.

[@bigdreeamer]

The seller definitely knew that and didn't disclose it. I d be suing him.

[@Edin155]

She got scammed let's be real🤣🤣

[@oh8wingman]

The fact that the county did have the original easement document on file means the county is responsible since, 1. they had it zoned incorrectly, and 2. the county granted them permission to build. A county land titles office is responsible to have all pertinent documents on hand for any piece of property within their jurisdiction. In this case, they overlooked important documentation which fomented the sale of this land to be built on so they are legally liable for damages in full. The former owners probably had no idea that there was an easement either unless they owned the land back in 1955 when the easement was granted. If that is indeed the case, they too would be liable.

[@ScrappyXFL]

You're missing some things. It is not the county's reposibility to inform on legal requirements it's not impossed. It was zoned ag/single residential, basically farmland, and lots are inside those areas which is what was bought. Easments and ROW notification is the responsibily of the seller and tititle company to inform.

[@swamprat2]

This is one of those things where you're factually accurate, but it's not NCIS or the Bourne Legacy. No real estate lawyer is going to take a civil case WITH THE GOVERNMENT over "damages" on an $8,000 undeveloped lot. Legal fees would run into the upper tens of thousands in the two years you waited for a trial date or even settlement offer.

[@62vespa53]

It also sounds like the people at the county are getting paid way too much for doing very little of their job. The county should have looked deeper into that and communicated that .

[@MichaelSmith-cc4cr]

I'm pretty sure the County is only responsible for recording their own utility easements like water lines and sewer lines, and the presence of any easement would have no bearing on zoning districts.

[@swamprat2]

probably, but also, we're assuming the easement was ever recorded at the courthouse. all we know, is that the 1955 landowner signed it, and got paid for the easement.

[@tmlcreativeproductions5813]

whoever sold them the land should have known this ..... sue the realtor

[@deejohnston2150]

Sounds like duke just needs to buy that whole parcel back from the couple.

[@Seriously-m1p]

Duke Doesn’t Own It. They only have a Right of Way. If they buy it then that money gets tacked onto every customers bill.

[@joshuahudson2170]

@@Seriously-m1p Duke better buy it before the title gets rebuilt in a tax auction. They could lose their easement in the process.

[@Seriously-m1p]

@@joshuahudson2170 It won’t negate the right of way. Been in the utility industry for 39 years.

[@ScrappyXFL]

@@joshuahudson2170 🎯My suggestion to the couple would be spend $1/ year make the county foreclose/take their property. Then they buy it clear.

[@ScrappyXFL]

@@Seriously-m1p 50 years and you update the easment which often requires paying off the land owner. Did a few years of lawyer/title work on a pipeline decades back. ROW and easments not held by the government must be updated EVERY sale or it might be void. Which is why we have title companies to instruct/disclose. You do have to prove to the FERC each transaction your garauntees are valid. Stack of boxes that seems redundant.

[@LuMaxQFPV]

Real Estate Law is ALL about "disclose, disclose, disclose". The seller had to know about the easement. Had to. Fascinating situation. A VERY good reminder when looking at land, to take the time to visit ALL of your potential neighbors and have chats. They would have told them about that lot. Title insurance was not mentioned here, that's glaring. Was there none? Any title company would have had this information.And if they didn't, their insurance would cover any loss. What wasn't clear to me was whether there were HT lines there when they bought it? They mentioned that wooden pole. They should have been alerted by that. They frankly seem oddly clueless on a lot of this. There is a lot more to this.

[@JadeA25]

Thats fucked up. Dont mess with someones $ like that. Someones gonna end up doing a Luigi.

[@swamprat2]

Yes they should definitely get in a time machine and go back in time and find the doofus who failed to record the signed easement in 1955, and then revenge will be sweet, I guess?

[@mra7282]

After reading all these comments, there’s a lot of misunderstanding what “Title Insurance” is…it’s to insure that who you are buying the property from is the legal owner. This easement issue is not a fault of the Title insurance. The buyer generally needs/should do a records search with the county clerk to identify easements on a parcel before purchase-in today’s world it’s all online and very easy if you have the parcel number. The better option is to pay for a land survey which will not only identify easements but also encroachments done by neighbors. The short answer, the buyers didn’t do their due diligence before purchase.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

Wrong because the county wasn't even aware of the easement. The reporter stated that. So no search of county records would have disclosed this.

[@swamprat2]

Agreed, but when we run title searches, we pay extra to search for recorded *and unrecorded* easements and liens. Better to have the title search company's rear end in the sling, than mine.

[@buddymax4388]

Property has no value, so no tax.

[@gme5802]

It has no perceived value as residential property, however it has actual value as agricultural land. The county did exactly the right thing in reducing the value to $6,000. The land can be used for grazing, growing crops etc… So, it still has value, just not the value expected by the purchaser. Besides, what did they think they were buying at such an undervalued rate.

[@buddymax4388]

@gme5802 bet soon as he puts farm animals the residents will bitch to the town

[@Noneya-bw5gm]

We're from the government and we're here to help.

[@ExotiqBeautii]

As a real estate agent, this is the new owners' and their realtor's fault. This should've been discovered and disclosed prior to signing. House or not, do your own due-diligence on what you're spending your hard earned money on. We can speak ethics all day, but by law, it's up to you to protect yourselves and your investments. I'm not blaming the previous homeowner, only because I'm giving general advice to protect others from going through the same thing. Yes, it's commonly the seller's responsibility to disclose any and everything, but it all depends on the jurisdiction. Not all areas hold sellers accountable for non-disclosures.

[@Gypsygirl9]

There was no previous "home" so what previous home owner? They bought vacant land.

[@treece1whit629]

Utility co needs to buy it

[@roberth3094]

Don't pay the taxes, just let it go.

[@lauriivey7801]

Ruin your credit because of someone else's mistake ... not the best option.

[@Boom38119]

@@lauriivey7801 you cant ruin your credit not paying taxes. it doesn't work that way

[@bobmazzi7435]

@@Boom38119 When you have a property seized it will go on your record. Plus, the county will get it and put it up for tax sale. And repeat the process. Of course, they have deep pockets so when they get sued for not disclosing the right of way......

[@lauriivey7801]

@@Boom38119 "Even though a tax lien does not hurt your credit score, there are plenty of other downsides to having a tax lien in place - and a tax lien can create problems in your financial life even if it’s not listed on your credit report. That said, tax liens are considered public records, and employers, landlords and lenders may still decide to review these records and use the information to determine whether to offer you a job, an apartment or a loan. So while your credit score might not be impacted by a tax lien when you go to apply for a new credit card or personal loan, your lender can still take it into consideration."

[@roberth3094]

@@lauriivey7801 Failure to pay your property taxes DOES NOT SHOW UP ON CREDIT REPORTS.

[@billberry3669]

Pull in an rv on the weekends, build a bonfire and party. Perfect cheap little lot to do that😅

[@ryanglaser5336]

But they may tell you can't do that in certain FL counties.

[@BmovinzFirstorlast]

I’m not paying high taxes for property to look like a country bumpkin smh bon fire and party lol insane

[@adamlone5548]

That easement was created in 1955 and there's existing documentation for it. The county DOES have it on file somewhere, and it should have been integrated into their GIS system long ago. The county absolutely shares some of the culpability in this.

[@Paul-di7js]

The people who sold it knew. Simply stop paying taxes on utility company land, it gets seized for not paying taxes.

[@Seriously-m1p]

The utility does not own it. They never did. They have a right of way. Just like if you and a neighbor shared a road.

[@joshuahudson2170]

@@Seriously-m1p They better start caring though; they could lose their right of way because a tax sale builds a new blank title.

[@Seriously-m1p]

@@joshuahudson2170 It doesn’t negate a right of way. Also a tax sale is good until the person that owes the taxes pays them and then regains ownership.

[@oquillo]

@@Seriously-m1p Not after a new title is granted. They have a set period (varies on jurisdiction) to repay, or the payer gets the property.

[@dirtbeard108]

@@oquillo catch 22. new title will not be granted with existing easement in place

[@b.l.8611]

It should be on their Title Report. They should have look at that Report. OMG…..disaster!

[@ronbelanger4113]

The realtor lied to the buyers.

[@swamprat2]

bro nobody is using a realtor on an $8000 lot.

[@KFARR]

Yea seems like the electric company owns the land but doesn’t want to “own” the land. Duke wants to own the land without paying taxes on it.

[@Seriously-m1p]

No They Don’t. No utility owns their rights of way. Nope. Doesn’t happen. If they did the cost of the taxes on the land would be passed to customers costing big $$$$$$ on their bills.

[@swamprat2]

Maybe the owner shouldn't have signed the easement in 1955 for those reasons. But they did sign it, and they cashed the check. So.

[@dustyflair]

Title Co can be held responsible. Unreal easments last forever....I thought the easement was between the FORMER land owner and the easement holder.

[@BillandLinda7]

@@Shellm-r3etitle insurance insures clear title, it has NOTHING to do with easements.

[@ronpeacock9939]

Sadly, once the easement was signed... it's transferred with the sale in perpetuity...

[@StormyTuesday5108]

Cancel the easement, not agreed to in the purchase

[@Dee-m7t]

Unless the deeds state easement you wouldn't know cause I know I've owned property power company did not have easement disclosed but gas company did it had a 60 foot easement and the piwer line was one that was large transmission lines.

[@Seriously-m1p]

@@StormyTuesday5108uh huh. They’ll cancel your service. I guess every time a property is sold then the city, who has waterline easements will have to move the waterlines huh? Same with gas company…..same with cable company…. Yeah. Not realistic at all.

[@MadsWorld34]

the same thing happened to my mother back in the early 70's at Ivan hoe Texas. she bought the land in 1964 as kids we would go out there camp and clear the land then it just set for years then she said we going to build a small house for when we go camping when we got out there there was polls on each side of out land with highlines running right down the middle of it. and now its no good for anyone to use. except maybe a paster for live stock.

[@johnks6733]

If all else fails give the land to the utility co, then they can pay the taxes