I caught this story on KFOR's website (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-man-strands-elderly-in-homes-story,0,6684065.story)....

What do you think; Capitalism at work or crooked bastard?

Here's the court record (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&db=Oklahoma&casemasterid=2314890) for anyone interested.

I caught this story on KFOR's website (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-man-strands-elderly-in-homes-story,0,6684065.story)....

What do you think; Capitalism at work or crooked bastard?

That's pretty sick. I hope the Judge asks the DA to charge Ron Edwards and RJS Properties with attempted extortion. What an ASS.

I would think there must be some sort of easement requirement that takes presidence over his property. It seems like I recall from my meager law and real estate studies that people must be allowed entrance and egress to and from their land. I will agree to the last sentance above.

I'd say it was a clever purchase, no doubt about that. but putting up painted lines of the property line and simulating concrete blocks is a little much. sure its his property, but zoning, setbacks, blah blah blah might prevent him from executing this plan.

would he need an approved building permit to build a wall ? i'd guess its different in every city. i believe in my city any work over $1000 requires some sort of permit. it will be interesting to see how this is resolved.

I would think there must be some sort of easement requirement that takes presidence over his property. It seems like I recall from my meager law and real estate studies that people must be allowed entrance and egress to and from their land. I will agree to the last sentance above.

You're correct (as affirmed my my own meager studies).

See easement by necessity.

And Ron Edwards, obviously not a smart man is going to be on the hook for keeping this land around the condos conforming to Edmond city code.

Can't wall of the access, and expect it to stay.

Another interesting tangent - I've not pulled any pleadings, but assuming, as I do, he acquired the land fair and square ... is the land subject to not only general zoning rules, but also any restrictive covenants as part of the Homeowners Association? If it were forgotten land, perhaps not, but it raises certain possibilities.

Easement by necessity
Parcels without access to a public way may have an easement of access over adjacent land, if crossing that land is absolutely necessary to reach the landlocked parcel. There is an implied easement arising from the original subdivision of the land for continuous and obvious use of the adjacent parcel (e.g., for access to a road, or to a source of water). This easement is extinguished upon termination of the necessity (for example, if a new public road is built adjacent to the landlocked tenement). An easement by necessity is distinguished from an easement by implication in that the easement by necessity arises only when "strictly necessary," whereas the latter can arise when "reasonably necessary." Easement by necessity is a higher standard by which to imply an easement.
As an example, some U.S. state statutes grant a permanent easement of access to any descendant of a person buried in a cemetery on private property.
In some states, such as New York, this type of easement is called an easement of necessity.[7]
[edit]Easement by Prior Use


A sells the front lot, but forgets to get an easement for driveway access.
An easement may also be created by prior use. Easements by prior use are based on the idea that land owners can intend to create an easment, but forget to include it in the deed.
There are five elements to establish an easement by prior use:
Common ownership of both properties at one time
Followed by a severance
Use occurs before the severance and afterward
Notice
Not simply visibility, but apparent or discoverable by reasonable inspection (e.g. the hidden existence of a sewer line that a plumber could identify may be notice enough)
Necessary and beneficial
Reasonably necessary
Not the "strict necessity" required by an easement by necessity

So it seems the condo owners should file suit against the owner of the surrounding lot and make HIM bear the cost of legal action.

If I read the journal entry correctly, it looks like his lawyer dropped him as a client (or the other way around).

If I read the journal entry correctly, it looks like his lawyer dropped him as a client (or the other way around).

The JE indicates Homeowner's Assoc have lost their bid, and that their counsel was present for the hearing to settle the Journal entry but refused to sign.

From the OSCN, I can't tell if the motion to withdraw is Homeowner's Association counsel or counsel for another party. My guess is the former, but that's merely a guess.

Even though RJS does retain title to the land, I don't think that equates to the pay or get boxed in strategy successfully going foeward.

Could be wrong. It's happened a time or three.