My neighbor and I share a driveway consisting of a bridge across a creek. The bridge is approximately 75% on my neighbor's land and 25% on my land. We have both shared this bridge for 20 years or so. Recent flooding resulted in damage to the bridge. FEMA has awarded both my neighbor and I an equal amount of money to correct the damage to the bridge. However, my neighbor wishes to have two bridges now. One on his property and one on mine. By not replacing the bridge he is in effect denying me access to my property. I feel that one bridge is sufficient and there is no need to construct two. Can he force me to build a new bridge to have access to my property and/or can I force him to repair the existing bridge and leave the matter as it was?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question concerning two houses, 1 driveway
- Thread Starter fungo100
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Call a spade a spade - he's not "forcing you to build a new bridge to acess your property". He's doing what he wants and letting you make a choice.
I don't know if YOU can force him to repair the existing bridge, but I would imagine FEMA could. If the money given by FEMA was given to fix the bridge, then it would appear to me to be a misuse of the funds for your neighbour to use it to build a new bridge.
Would it be feasible for you to use your funds to fix the existing bridge and let your neighbour do what he wants with his money?
I don't know if YOU can force him to repair the existing bridge, but I would imagine FEMA could. If the money given by FEMA was given to fix the bridge, then it would appear to me to be a misuse of the funds for your neighbour to use it to build a new bridge.
Would it be feasible for you to use your funds to fix the existing bridge and let your neighbour do what he wants with his money?
Thanks for the reply, but I do think he is "forcing" me to build a new bridge as he is not going to replace the existing bridge but build a new one and not allow me to cross it to my property. I checked with FEMA and the money can be used to repair the old bridge or build a new bridge, but all expenses over the amount FEMA gave us are our responsibility. The amount given to us will repair the damaged bridge, but will not come near to building two new bridges. Not feasible for me to use the funds to repair the existing bridge because the neighbor wants to tear it out to make room for the new one that I won't have access to. Since it is 75% on his property he will just move it over so it will be totally on his property.
Nothing in the title about restrictive covenants. We've just always shared this bridge, and therefore there is nothing in writing saying that we have (or don't have) to do so. However, without it I will have no access to my property and I just don't see how he could be able to tear it out if doing so will prevent me from accessing my property. Is there something like an "easement of use" or "easement of necessity" that would apply?
An easement of necessity might arise if your only way to the public road was through your neighbour's property. As I understand it, neither of you have access to the public road except by building a bridge. So an easement of necessity probably does not arise - you and he are both equally free to build bridges.
An easement generally is over real property, i.e. land and its fixtures. The bridge is probably a fixture to the land, and it might be the subject of an easement. But the question you are really faced with is, what happens now that the bridge is destroyed? Is your neighbour obliged to repair it? I am not exactly sure of the answer, but by analogy to contract law and the doctrine of frustration, I would suspect the answer is "no". If you and he contracted to allow you to use the bridge, and the bridge was destroyed, it would be impossible to fulfill the contract. The contract would be "frustrated", and would be automatically discharged. I suspect the same is true here - you have a right to use the bridge while it exists, but he is under no obligation to rebuild the bridge if it is destroyed.
So what you need to do, legally, is establish not only that you have the right to use the bridge - which is pretty empty right now - but establish that he is obliged to repair it. Frankly, I think that is unlikely under the general principles of property law. I don't know the specific laws of your jurisdiction, and I suppose there might be some sort of reliance or estoppel argument you could make, so I could be wrong about that. You should talk to a local real estate lawyer to be certain.
Prior to doing that, I would explore your options with your neighbour. Why is it he wants separate bridges? Has the previous arrangement been unsatisfactory? Is there any way of building one bridge on his property and allowing you access to it?
An easement generally is over real property, i.e. land and its fixtures. The bridge is probably a fixture to the land, and it might be the subject of an easement. But the question you are really faced with is, what happens now that the bridge is destroyed? Is your neighbour obliged to repair it? I am not exactly sure of the answer, but by analogy to contract law and the doctrine of frustration, I would suspect the answer is "no". If you and he contracted to allow you to use the bridge, and the bridge was destroyed, it would be impossible to fulfill the contract. The contract would be "frustrated", and would be automatically discharged. I suspect the same is true here - you have a right to use the bridge while it exists, but he is under no obligation to rebuild the bridge if it is destroyed.
So what you need to do, legally, is establish not only that you have the right to use the bridge - which is pretty empty right now - but establish that he is obliged to repair it. Frankly, I think that is unlikely under the general principles of property law. I don't know the specific laws of your jurisdiction, and I suppose there might be some sort of reliance or estoppel argument you could make, so I could be wrong about that. You should talk to a local real estate lawyer to be certain.
Prior to doing that, I would explore your options with your neighbour. Why is it he wants separate bridges? Has the previous arrangement been unsatisfactory? Is there any way of building one bridge on his property and allowing you access to it?
To answer some of your questions, I have no idea why he wants two bridges. I thought arrangement was satisfactory. There is definitely a way to build the bridge on his property and allow me access to it, but he is not agreeable to that. He wishes to separate our properties totally and put a fence up between us. As for the old bridge, I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear earlier, but it is temporarily usable. We were able to rig it enough that it is usable, but only until the next heavy rains come. Then it will more than likely wash out again.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
