|
| Author |
Message |
manofbush
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Jan 2019 04:40pm
Reply
Hi there,
I own two properties in Ontario that are adjoining. Unbeknownst to me, the laneway I had been using for one property is actually on the adjoining property that I also own. The laneway is also bounded by a fence, which is also on the adjoining property. This has been the case since probably at least the early 80's. So, the 10 year possession test is satisfied. I didn't own the property at that time. Late in the 90's I bought the property at which approximately the same time it was transferred to the land titles system.
To me, it looks like a case of adverse possession. My understanding to get the laneway attached to the other property, I will need to get a survey done that outlines the land in question. Then I would get a declaration from me (since I own both properties) that the disputed area is indeed subject to adverse possession and should be transferred to the other property. Then file a quit claim deed to that effect.
Is this the entire process? Are there forms to do this? Is there anything I am missing?
I will likely use a lawyer for this, but am doing my initial research first.
|
|
Fanman
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Jan 2019 06:25pm
Reply
Why would you need to if you own both properties? If at some future date you choose to sell one part (any part) of your combined property, can't you simply divide it up any way you want and get a new survey of the part you're selling at that time?
|
|
Great Outdoors
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Jan 2019 01:11am
Reply
I agree with Fanman.. I believe you may be overthinking things. If you own both properties and down the road wish to sell one, I believe you could either do a property line adjustment or just another subdivision. Of course requirements can vary state to state, say nothing about different countries.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Jan 2019 10:33am
Reply
Yeah, why bother unless you have a plan to sell one or the other?
|
|
frankpaige
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Jan 2019 11:49am
Reply
""To me, it looks like a case of adverse possession""
Not sure you can bring adverse possession claim against yourself now?
It's all going to come down to a legal interpretation. Love em, Hate em. Them lawyers make the rules, interpret the rules.
Enjoy the place
|
|
AK Seabee
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Jan 2019 11:49pm
Reply
If you own both properties and want to insure access for both why not record an access easement. No lawyers and you can save platting costs with the local planning department
|
|
Houska
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Jan 2019 04:10pm
Reply
I agree with AK Seabee, but for slightly different reasons. In my (Ontario) county, at least, registering an easement would require paying a fee to get planning consent and likely surveying the laneway (following provisional approval of the consent application), but would be uncontroversially approved in this instance, and would be sufficient for you or any future purchaser to have guaranteed access over the laneway sufficient to get a building permit.
In contrast, actually moving the lot line so the laneway is on the "right" property would require a lot more discussion, higher fees, may or may not be approved, and I think would use up one of your (or your future purchaser's) allowed severances, for dubious additional benefit.
You could probably record a right of way of access on title without the consent and without the survey, but -- again, in my area -- this form of access would not be sufficient to get a future building permit, for which you require access via a registered easement.
Adverse possession would apply if you were fighting with the other owner to recognize their right of way, but in this case you don't need to fight with yourself.
I may sound like a lawyer in this, but I'm not, just had to recently deal with easements and consents on my property. Some of the basic constructs are legislated for all of Ontario, but the interpretation by planning and building departments varies. In particular, depending on your local zoning bylaw, you (and/or a future purchaser) may require the actual laneway to be on a registered easement, or merely you to have access directly or via registered easement to a public road regardless of whether your laneway is elsewhere. A friendly chat with your local planning department - or a free consult with a local planner - might be worthwhile. I suppose that can depend locally too, but I've found them to be helpful rather than obstructionist.
Good luck!
|
|
Bancroft bound
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 09:02am
Reply
Whose name is the 2 properties registered in?
If same name on both, it is now 1 parcel!
If you wish to sell then a severance would be needed.
Bring out the cheque book!!!
|
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 01:23pm
Reply
Quoting: Bancroft bound Whose name is the 2 properties registered in? If same name on both, it is now 1 parcel! If you wish to sell then a severance would be needed. Bring out the cheque book!!!
Perhaps that varies with location (county, state, country....). I have some properties with adjoining lot lines and each is treated as an individual parcel and have been for twenty some years. Tax bills and titles all in same names and the county looks at them as separate entities.
|
|
Bancroft bound
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 02:09pm
Reply
Quoting: ICC Perhaps that varies with location (county, state, country....). I have some properties with adjoining lot lines and each is treated as an individual parcel and have been for twenty some years. Tax bills and titles all in same names and the county looks at them as separate entities.
Ontario.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 02:19pm
Reply
You can covert it to a single property, downside is, you can not sell just part of at a later time.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 03:26pm - Edited by: ICC
Reply
If the government automatically combines everything that has the same names and are adjacent that, to me, is a very messed up system. Big disadvantages to the owner as T_M_T pointed out. On the one hand it would be simpler for me to combine adjacent properties and have fewer pieces of paper to deal with. But I'd rather keep them separate. Makes disposing of easier.
But if that is the case, and if the lots in the OP are in Ontario the 2 lots should be considered one at this point and the whole question of the driveway is moot. Perhaps the names on the properties are slightly differently listed?
Google shows that (in Ontario) if the lots are in a planned subdivision then the lots may be covered by an exception and they will not be combined if the names are the same.
|
|
FishHog
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 06:44pm
Reply
Quoting: Bancroft bound If same name on both, it is now 1 parcel!
Not that I've ever bought two side by side properties, but I've never heard of that. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me if that is the case. But would make more money for the lawyers so its probably true in Ontario.
|
|
silverwaterlady
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Jan 2019 07:22pm
Reply
IDK why you should have a problem with the road.
The only problem I can see is if you decide to at some point sell off one parcel, the one that does not include the road. We own two adjoining parcels of land each with roads.
The first road is a old logging trail. There are three seasonal cabins down the road.
We own the first mile of the road. Put a unlocked gate up and allow the cabin owners to access their properties. No paperwork involved, no lawyer. We also allow the snow machine club to use the road, they keep it groomed.
The second road is our private road.
If at some point we decide to sell some lake frontage that would pose a problem with our private road. Nobody wants to pay a premium price for lake frontage that does not include road access.
However there is no way we will sell because after the gov takes their cut its not worth bothering with.
Our kids are going to have to deal with all the gov bs when we die. Sorry kids.
|
|
Bancroft bound
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Jan 2019 09:41am
Reply
Quoting: FishHog Not that I've ever bought two side by side properties, but I've never heard of that. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me if that is the case. But would make more money for the lawyers so its probably true in Ontario.
Local farmers discovered this quite a few years ago.
Farmer owns 100 acres or so. Has 2 boys. Neighbouring farms, right beside, come up for sale so he purchases them. Thinking down the road he can give to sons as startup farms. All registered under the Dad's name. Lo and behold when comes time to get the boys started, Dad finds it is all 1 parcel! Must now go through severance to distribute the properties. As some rules change, this may not even be allowed now, minimum sizes now come into play.
Headaches and nightmares !!!
|
|
silverwaterlady
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Jan 2019 01:40pm
Reply
A old farmer sold us our adjoining parcels.
Sold as two parcels.
They did not become one parcel.
IDK how they could.
Unless we decided to go that route. But there is no need.
We recieve two tax bills. One for each parcel..
|
|
|
