Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Only in Florida
- Thread starter strantor
- Start date
Ah, if only it had been real! But still a cool image.
In Florida, it's likely, Based on a true story.
So... there was a photo of an alligator and a photo of a racoon?
Or would that be "Inspired by a true story"?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-snake-spotted-catches-ride-214758557.html
Small snake spotted catches a ride off a gator's back
Small snake spotted catches a ride off a gator's back
I've always scratched my head at disclaimers like that. You claim that it is based on true events and real individuals, but then claim that any resemblance to anything or anyone (which, presumably, includes those events and individuals upon which it is based) is then somehow coincidental???
Whenever I see a disclaimer like that, I always interpret it to read, "Any resemblance to actual laws of physics, or actual reality, is coincidental."
I also shake my head at the atrocious grammar of these titles. I get that liberty is taken to pack as much into as few words as possible, but this is almost undecipherable (except that humans have a very good ability to extract intended meaning from really poorly worded content).
https://www.wfla.com/8-on-your-side...y-law-from-building-home-on-new-property/amp/
Brooksville couple discovers they are barred by law from building home on new property
Brooksville couple discovers they are barred by law from building home on new property
Title insurance covers this, no?
Don't know, it depends on Florida law but I would think so. The seller is responsible for full disclosure.
They have a valid title to the property but there is a easement in gross (benefits a person or entity and not a parcel of land).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/easement-in-gross.asp
The fact that the easement was recorded puts the responsibility squarely on the title company, IMHO.
They failed to discover the easement during the title search.
What's the point, otherwise?
Maybe the buyers decided against buying title? Bad move if that's the case.
Edit: if I see a utility pole smack dab in the middle of a property I'm interested in buying, that's the *first* thing I'm asking about.
Last edited:
I agree they should pay but I can easily see how it could happen (not an excuse for missing something important that they were paid for finding) if the easement was not linked specifically to that property and was in a box labeled 1955 that only Duke remembers.
There likely is a long strip of overlapped properties with the same easement in gross. The logical thing is to reduce the electrical easement to something reasonable like the 10 feet it is in Oregon for in-city utility poles. Unimproved state lands have 50+ feet from center.
https://www.portland.gov/code/17/82/060
Last edited:
This makes me laugh and reminds me of my Dad. Growing up he would fall behind on the Electric and Phone payment so, he would call them and say just remember your Utility Pole on my property belongs to me and I can do anything I want with it, by they way you owe me rent.
They would give him the time to pay it. Thanks for the memory.
kv
Probably not. Most title insurance policies are written such that they cover essentially nothing. In essence, they exclude anything that their search revealed while also excluding anything not revealed by their search.
I need a Venn diagram, please.
Last edited:
It seems they did ask about it but 'nobody' expected it to be 100 feet as I don't think that's the modern width of a city utility easement. That's the rub, not the fact of a common city sized utility pole easement they expected. The person(s) that owned the property in 55 got paid and that should have been disclosed with each new buyer.
Last edited:
It's pretty simple, really. The legalese says that they are not liable for anything that wasn't disclosed to them or that their search of public records didn't reveal. Elsewhere, the exclude anything that was disclosed to them or that their search of public records revealed. Basically, they disclaim responsibility of anything that they are unaware of, while also disclaiming everything that they are.
There are also common exceptions that make the policy almost worthless, including exceptions for any easements not shown by public records and utility easements of any kind.
On top of that, the standard title insurance policy doesn't cover the homeowner at all -- it covers the lender only and only pays out to the degree that the lender doesn't get paid by the homeowner. The homeowner would have had to purchase a completely separate policy to protect themselves.
