So you bought a house....

Blkvoodoo

Blkvoodoo

professionally useless
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Location
Archer Lodge
This is happening in my neighborhood, I/We are not directly effected.

I've viewed the JoCo GIS maps hundreds of times in the 19yrs I've lived here, not until the end of 2017 early 2018 did the easement lines show on the maps, and then only at certain resolutions as you zoom in and out.

Several of the homes involved have been bought and sold multiple times over the years.

From what I've been told this was discovered by a title office that went back 30+ years in their search on a property in process of being built and ended up being right in the middle of the easement.

Shenanigans ? Someone somewhere knows....

Long-forgotten Duke Energy easement threatens Johnston neighborhood :: WRAL.com
 
I’d be focusing the collective efforts to tell duke energy to pound sand without proof of purchase that is authenticated by govt books saying the land was legally purchased.
 
skyhighZJ said:
I’d be focusing the collective efforts to tell duke energy to pound sand without proof of purchase that is authenticated by govt books saying the land was legally purchased.
Click to expand...

they purchased the land in 1987, several documents to show that....but at what point is it abandonment ? They allowed the homes built and powered them, some for 20years and counting....
 
Blkvoodoo said:
they purchased the land in 1987, several documents to show that....but at what point is it abandonment ? They allowed the homes built and powered them, some for 20years and counting....
Click to expand...
Okay I guess I didn’t read the article correctly.
In that case I agree that the landowners / homeowners should push for abandonment based on the fact that nothing was properly recorded in the books and not found when they subdivided the lots.
 
skyhighZJ said:
Okay I guess I didn’t read the article correctly.
In that case I agree that the landowners / homeowners should push for abandonment based on the fact that nothing was properly recorded in the books and not found when they subdivided the lots.
Click to expand...

there is a video there as well, shows some of the documentation.

subdivision was started in 1996
 
Something similar happened to my parents a few years ago. There was a private road access issue because someone wanted to drop a subdivision on some farmland at the end of the road, and in the course of figuring out who actually owned the road it was discovered that the whole section of the valley was mis-surveyed years ago. There are now two parallel gravel roads 2 feet apart, and my mom's property ends 3 feet off her front porch.

I have an easement at the back edge if our property, which affects where we can build our garage, but no one can tell me where it actually is (apparently not centered on the power line). It changes depending on what you look at, which is a big deal because the zoning changed since the house was built and the house is now in the rear setback. Not much room left in the rear yard for a garage between the house and the easement depending on which plat...
 
Last edited:
Whoever platted/stamped/recorded the subdivision w/o showing the easement is probably out of bizznizz now, so they can't be sued. Power easements should be a corridor on the map and the lots would share a property line w the edges of the easement. It could be the easement was not recorded before the subdivision was recorded, or the platter did a shitty job of researching before drawing the subdivision. GIS maps are only as accurate as the makers of those digital maps, and I've seen lots of mistakes/errors on GIS maps.
 
Last edited:
Company I used to work for started building on I think 10 lots in there, we got all the way to foundations about a year or 2 ago when duke popped up. All I know is we had to walk away from the lots we started.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like an adverse possession case for the home owners if they’ve been treating the property as their own for the past 20 years and Duke has only now decided to do something about it.
 
Duke acquired rights to the property well before the subdivision started, so this issue is between the homeowners, developer, and title insurance companies. I say if they want Duke out, Duke should pull out completely. Abandon all future and current service in that area.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Duke acquired rights to the property well before the subdivision started, so this issue is between the homeowners, developer, and title insurance companies. I say if they want Duke out, Duke should pull out completely. Abandon all future and current service in that area.
Click to expand...

That would be fantastic!

I live a few miles away and hate all these subdivisions. Nothing would make me happier :lol:
 
Title insurance will be on the hook to make home owners whole.
Adverse possession is the angel I'd explore if I wanted to keep my home
 
awheelterd said:
That would be fantastic!

I live a few miles away and hate all these subdivisions. Nothing would make me happier :lol:
Click to expand...
I figure it's a lot of NIMBY mentality. Kinda like when the Concord Morons complained about Bruton Smith building drag strip on land he owned beside a race track.
 
awheelterd said:
That would be fantastic!

I live a few miles away and hate all these subdivisions. Nothing would make me happier :lol:
Click to expand...

unfortunately its gonna get MUCH worse REAL soon !!
 
Ron said:
Title insurance will be on the hook to make home owners whole.
Adverse possession is the angel I'd explore if I wanted to keep my home
Click to expand...
yeah, seems like this is exactly why people have title insurance.
Of course I'm sure the ins. company(s) will want to strike some kind of deal w/ Duke.
 
jeepinmatt said:
I figure it's a lot of NIMBY mentality. Kinda like when the Concord Morons complained about Bruton Smith building drag strip on land he owned beside a race track.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some homes in the subdivision who are in the fight simply as NIMBY people, but most of the true complainants are not NIMBY mentality. I've personally talked to at least two people who say they have been told they would have to move because Duke would need to demo their house, and one member of my FD says he and his neighbors will lose a significant amount of what they thought was their property, impacting driveways and out buildings (his exact words are there will be a tower five feet off his bedroom window). It's not about Duke putting up the towers and lines on land they own, like in your example with Bruton Smith, it's about someone screwing up somewhere and selling the land Duke had rights to without telling the new buyers and/or the developer building the subdivision in typical subdivision fashion instead of with the future planning to install large transmission towers and lines. If the developer had known about the easement and/or built the subdivision accordingly, and THEN the residents were fighting Duke about putting up the towers, then I'd be 100% with Duke in telling them to pound sand. But that's not what this is. I don't believe Duke is the bearer of blame, and I'm not sure the argument of them losing their rights to the land when they connected the power to the houses is legally the correct answer, but it's probably the best leg the homeowners have. *I* honestly think the developer is to blame but that's just because I know him and his family and I would trust Casey Anthony to watch my child before I would trust them.

Duane
 
CLRracer said:
I'm sure there are some homes in the subdivision who are in the fight simply as NIMBY people, but most of the true complainants are not NIMBY mentality. I've personally talked to at least two people who say they have been told they would have to move because Duke would need to demo their house, and one member of my FD says he and his neighbors will lose a significant amount of what they thought was their property, impacting driveways and out buildings (his exact words are there will be a tower five feet off his bedroom window). It's not about Duke putting up the towers and lines on land they own, like in your example with Bruton Smith, it's about someone screwing up somewhere and selling the land Duke had rights to without telling the new buyers and/or the developer building the subdivision in typical subdivision fashion instead of with the future planning to install large transmission towers and lines. If the developer had known about the easement and/or built the subdivision accordingly, and THEN the residents were fighting Duke about putting up the towers, then I'd be 100% with Duke in telling them to pound sand. But that's not what this is. I don't believe Duke is the bearer of blame, and I'm not sure the argument of them losing their rights to the land when they connected the power to the houses is legally the correct answer, but it's probably the best leg the homeowners have. *I* honestly think the developer is to blame but that's just because I know him and his family and I would trust Casey Anthony to watch my child before I would trust them.

Duane
Click to expand...
Not a fred smith fan I take it :lol:
 
Back
Top