So, the current owner is going to retain title to the landlocked portion, but is going to lease it to the buyer of the homeplace tract.
Yeah, this will be great the first time a pissing match arises.
The owner of the landlocked part will nearly have carte blanche in court to devise an access route to his parcel. He will cite ease of construction, all weather access, etc, and any improvements the homeplace owner has made will be junior in nature to the access and subject to demolition, with or without compensation. (suck factor 9)
A route needs to be determined in advance, and the easement documents drawn up ahead of time.
Period.
Nothing has been signed yet, trying to get it all hashed out before any ink touches paper. Other aspect to the land in question, it is grazing only. No structures, well, nada. And, there is no water on it, and no rights attached to it either. So it would have very little value except to the person that owns the plot with the house.
What I'm wondering mainly is if there is an easement already in place, and then an easement in gross as well for the seller (who will remain a neighbor) for the drive past the house if the easement in gross can be converted to a regular easement. I can absolutely see if there were no other easement or access to the parcel, that the owner would be wielding a big stick as far as getting access. I just figured if you can show this is already a guaranteed access via the easement at the back of the property then that would diminish their standing.
