Land locked parcel of land

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

It seems to me, as a lay person, that the Executors (or their solicitors) would have had a duty when selling the property, to ensure access to the parcel of land was maintained in some way.

Not sure why they would have such a duty, if immediately prior to the death no such right of access existed? The time to create such a right would have been when the parcel of land was put into the OP's relative's sole name.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

Not sure why they would have such a duty, if immediately prior to the death no such right of access existed? The time to create such a right would have been when the parcel of land was put into the OP's relative's sole name.

except that why would such a specific right have been needed then?

The newly purchased land co-joined the owners existing land so by definition he (she?) could access the newly purchased land via the existing land.

My (deceased) mother did exactly that - bought an extra bit of adjoining land. the difference is that after her death we (Executors) sold both plots together.

In OPs case, the Executors should surely have been managing the entire Estate properly. They sold one Title and made no provision for the other.

But as I said, I'm not an expert.

Tiglet2

OK, it seems that your relative's late wife owned the house. Your relative was not a joint proprietor. After the late wife died, her executors (stepson and stepdaughter) sold her property, of which your relative is entitled to a sixth.

The parcel of land however, although orignally bought in joint names, is in the sole name of your relative. Therefore, the parcel of land does not fall within the estate of your relative's late wife and could not therefore be sold with the house.

Unfortunately, as you have now discovered, the parcel of land is landlocked. The only possible interested purchasers will be those adjoining the land who could gain access to it. If you want to sell it, you need to approach those properties who could have potential access. No one else would be able to buy it without rights of way over neighbouring land for access.

seatbeltnoob

Davesnave wrote: »

It depends how many neighbours have potential access to this plot and what their gardens and houses are like, but circumstances might exist where the land has a reasonable value.

We retained the bottom 6m of our garden when we sold our last house, but this later allowed 4 neighbours to double the length of their gardens. They paid us £5k each and met all legal expenses, so it was definitely worth doing.

I hope I never buy a house from you, that is very sneaky indeed. new homeowner wont be pleased when they find out they'be been short changed.

Tiglet2

Sorry, meant to say:

Unfortunately, you do not have any rights to access the land. Think of the house and parcel of land as two separate titles. One belongs to the late wife, the other to your relative. As far as Land Registry are concerned, they are separate titles with separate sole proprietors. One title has been sold off to an unconnected person, which has effectively prevented/cut off any access for you to the parcel of land. In an ideal world, if the house and parcel of land would have had joint proprietors (i.e. the late wife and your relative), then the two titles could have been sold at the same time, or even merged together to form one title.

G_M

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

I hope I never buy a house from you, that is very sneaky indeed. new homeowner wont be pleased when they find out they'be been short changed.

Why?
they presumably knew what they were buying at the time, and at what cost, and were happy to proceed on that basis.

What happened subsequently to a bit of land they never had any legal or practical interest in is irrelevant to them.

Persumably, if they'd wanted that land, they could have offered Dave an additional £20K (or more) when they bought his house, or indeed later when he sold the land to the neighbours.

Davesnave

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

I hope I never buy a house from you, that is very sneaky indeed. new homeowner wont be pleased when they find out they'be been short changed.

Don't worry, there's no danger of that.

Bless you, and have a nice Wednesday.

Davesnave

G_M wrote: »

Persumably, if they'd wanted that land, they could have offered Dave an additional £20K (or more) when they bought his house, or indeed later when he sold the land to the neighbours.

True, but as busy sports people who hated gardening, the 1/5 acre they were left with was challenging enough!:rotfl:

DaftyDuck

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

I hope I never buy a house from you, that is very sneaky indeed. new homeowner wont be pleased when they find out they'be been short changed.

What an idiotic comment. Do you think the buyers didn't view the property, look at the housing details from the agent, even look at the Land Registry plan? Did they really do a Google satellite view and say "we'll have than"?

Or, did Dave camouflage net half the garden :D?

Davesnave

DaftyDuck wrote: »

What an idiotic comment. Do you think the buyers didn't view the property, look at the housing details from the agent, even look at the Land Registry plan? Did they really do a Google satellite view and say "we'll have than"?

Or, did Dave camouflage net half the garden :D?

I think the poster probably has no excperience of buying or selling property.

We had one couple, who, a week after agreeing to buy our house, decided to abandon the purchase as it wasn't in the school catchment they preferred. However, they added that they'd still be keen if we threw in the plot. Apparently their kids' education was that valuable!