09-08-2016, 11:11 AM
Mahalo for your thoughts. I would think this would be pretty clear case with precedents but maybe not!
>exactly does dominant and subordinate mean?
Two side by side properties with two easements, but only one (the dominant easement) physically connects to the owners' and the other side not connecting to that owners' property is a subordinate easement interest.
>a gate is a good way to get people to stop driving on your driveway.
They claim right to cut the lock and bash through gate (unobstructed access).
>>can someone just take your road as if it was there own and not have to pay for development or maintenance
>County claims jurisdiction over roads "open to the public" while declining maintenance because they are "privately owned". If any of the stipulations in HCC 24-2 can be construed as applicable... interesting arguments are possible, maybe even a precedent.
It is a private gated road, I still don't see why shouldn't they have to build thier own road on thier own dominant easement.
>My guess is that both parties have the right to use both easments, usually for ingress and egress, but neither has the obligation to improve or maintain either.
What a mess, and not a very favorable outcome for either party.
>...the neighborly thing to do...
This is a mainland land developer with no concern.
aloha
>exactly does dominant and subordinate mean?
Two side by side properties with two easements, but only one (the dominant easement) physically connects to the owners' and the other side not connecting to that owners' property is a subordinate easement interest.
>a gate is a good way to get people to stop driving on your driveway.
They claim right to cut the lock and bash through gate (unobstructed access).
>>can someone just take your road as if it was there own and not have to pay for development or maintenance
>County claims jurisdiction over roads "open to the public" while declining maintenance because they are "privately owned". If any of the stipulations in HCC 24-2 can be construed as applicable... interesting arguments are possible, maybe even a precedent.
It is a private gated road, I still don't see why shouldn't they have to build thier own road on thier own dominant easement.
>My guess is that both parties have the right to use both easments, usually for ingress and egress, but neither has the obligation to improve or maintain either.
What a mess, and not a very favorable outcome for either party.
>...the neighborly thing to do...
This is a mainland land developer with no concern.
aloha
aloha