Madmen - running - false land claim

[charnizay]

Hello again - I wonder about a lot of things! - But one thing that I am preoccupied with presently is whether a newcomer into a small French village is able to order about and make false claims over the (surely) irrefutable cadastres as published by the www.gouv.fr web site. This objectionable person also breaks all land speed records by sprinting up to the Marie to get his complaints heard, it is actually quite funny if you are not on the receiving of his actions. I am beginning to think that maybe I will offer for sale tickets to the next debacle, which should be happening about December.

Again - many thanks for prompt replies - whoever you maybe, Charnizay.

[pachapapa]

Be useful if you show us a picture.

Use the link below to enter the cadstral details of your parcelle.

http://www.cadastre.gouv.fr/scpc/afficherRechercherPlanCad.do

Then right click and save an image to your HD.

Then publish it on the forum.

[charnizay]

• > Centrer sur la commune

• > Centrer sur la feuille

X :

 

Y :

• > Mémoriser ce zoom
• > Zoom mémorisé
• > Zoom précédent

Please do not break your sides laughing when I tell you that my parcelle is no. 62 and the piece that I am fussing about is the triangular piece that runs along the yellow shaded cabine to the rear of my garden. I know it is tiny and not probably worth bothering with, but in view of the unpleasant manner of the neighbour and the fact that his watering of this strip will/has already undermined my cabine wall I am seriously thinking about defending it. He is no. 61. Regards Charnizay.

Feuille 000 AC 01 - Commune : CHARNIZAY (37)

[pachapapa]

OK got the plan  saved; the triangular bit 0.60m x 5.66 m approximately.

Perusing & cogitating.

[pachapapa]

Strange that there is no fence or something between parcelle 61 & 62 up to the north east corner of the shed.[8-)]

The tri-point for Parcelles 61,62 and 63.

What do the discontinuous lines at the back leading to Parcelles 60, 61 and perhaps a garage in 63?

There are two buildings in Parcelle 61 situated on the boundary line; are they still there?

 

[charnizay]

Hello again - There is a wall which stops as the cabine begins and then there is nothing, we have to step outside of our garden to actually access the tiny strip of land. We did make a tape marker a few years ago, from the end of the wall to the last point of the cabine, but nothing was mentioned so we took it down. The discontinuous lines between 60 and 61 show a shared path between 61 and 60  which allows them to gain vehicular access to a communal road. Number 63 also has servitude over this path, but the yellow block is not her garage it is a garden shed. The two buildings shown on no.61 no longer exsist but have been replaced by a lean-to shed which runs approx in between the old buildings. A little difficult to explain but hope it has helped. Regards Charnizay.

[pachapapa]

Sounds complicated. I'll look at it tomorrow on the tower with the copy of the plan. At moment watching Tele & surfing on the netbook.

Cheers PPP

[pachapapa]

Am I correct in assuming that the short wall, causing you to have to step out of your property to access the triangular strip, starts at the North West corner of the cabine and runs in a Northerly direction for less than a metre towards what would have been the South East corner of the shed which is no longer there?

Have you got a tape measure or a friend who has one?

Thinking of something like 10-20 metres.

[charnizay]

Hello - I am sorry for my delay in answering you. The wall of my cabine makes me step out of my garden towards the east, the strip then continues to runs eastward for approx. 5 metres - tapering to finish at the north east end of my cabine.

In my opinion the triangle has a .50m base ( running north/south) and tapers eastwards for approx 5 metres to finish at the north east end of my cabine.

I have photographs but unfortunately do not not know how to present them??

Many thanks for your attention in this paltry matter but there are many matters to consider in this - what's next? - The stone degradation due to watering, the stone is very soft limestone and when wet/freezes and seriously delaminates and degrades - and the fact that before now for the past 4 years no attention has been given to this land, this feels like an attack upon me, I have made efforts to keep down the weeds and attended to the general tidiness - also I will want to renovate the wall soon and how can I possibly arrange this without damaging my neighbours efforts? - I keep under control the ivy which grows upon the roof of the cabine and again if this "garden" goes unchecked then what?

You are very kind to spare your time - I am very grateful, Regards Charnizay

[pachapapa]

Yes, I posted above "the triangular bit 0.60m x 5.66 m approximately", using the advanced tools available on the cadastre web site.

So we are talking about the same piece of wall.

I dont think photos will be necessary at the moment but if needed it is fairly easy to make them available for viewing. Also dont worry that the plan doesn't show as the time limit for display will have expired. I have a copy on my principal computer.

Right down to basics: the line on the cadastre plan running from the party wall at the house to the north east corner of your cabine represents the division between Plot 61 and Plot 62. The "extension" of the west wall of your cabine, of the order of 0.5 metres lies within your property as far as the boundary line between the properties. It is possible that it extends beyond the boundary line, if this is the case that portion belongs to your neighbour.

Does the wall offer any crucial support to the cabine; let me put it another way, if you removed it would anything fall down?

Subject to your reply on the wall I am obviously considering the removal of a portion or all the wall depending on its position relative to the boundary line.

Who built the wall? How long has it been there?

It seems incredible that somebody has built a wall on someone elses land such that it bars that someone else from accessing a portion of their land.

[charnizay]

Hi - You appear to be seeing the situation correctly except for the fact that the wall (as shown on the cadastre by an unbroken line, terminating to the north east end of my cabine) does in fact finish approx 5 metres before that, at the end of the furthest east small yellow block in plot 61, (no longer there but replaced by my neighbour's water tank). The wall of my cabine has no structural value except to the cabine itself and we are allowed to demolish this should we so wish, I have checked with the Marie. The cabine was probably built in the mid 18oos. I think that the wall shown on the cadastre as the dividing line between plots 61 and 62 was built in the 1950/60s when the two houses were separated by the one old owner, it is a parpeign wall and would look to be a hastily and scrappily built affair, unfinished and inadequate. There were also two gates through this wall to allow access for members of the family to go freely between the houses. We have sealed off the 1st gate to the next door's yard but left the other gateway open as this leads on to the triangular piece of land which we see as ours. This gateway is the gap between the north/west corner of the cabine and the black dividing line.  Although the two houses were owned by the same family they are separate buildings built at different times and fully independant of one another. We have owned plot 62 since 2004 and the owners of plot 61 have owned theirs since 2008, previously the string of owners did never interfere in any way with us and the other neighbours who own plot 60 also say that we own the triangle of land, but this is "hearsay".

The cadastre is very clear as to the ownership of this small triangle - do you think? and rather than demolish my cabine at the moment I would consider making a "divide" between what we see as ours and they see as theirs but presumably this ownership will have to be established by someone, a geometer possibly. My neighbour said she would consider using a geometer to establish this but when I stated that I would not bear any of the costs she appeared to back down, as it were.

It seems incredible that a neighbour can behave in this way and then force us into a "meeting" at the Mairie where we are very disadvantaged and not on first names with any of the officials there. I know that I should give up all claim in the interests of detente but like I said before it simply is incredible that someone can behave in this way.

Again thankyou for bothering to keep in touch, I look forward to your comments - Regards Charnizay

Complicated huh? you must relish a challenge?

[pachapapa]

Difficult keeping in mind the content of your 6 threads running on the same subject.

So there is no wall nearer than 5 metres from the north west corner of your cabin.

The following additional information is probably pertinent:

" I think that the wall shown on the cadastre as the dividing line between plots 61 and 62 was built in the 1950/60s when the two houses were separated by the one old owner, it is a parpeign wall and would look to be a hastily and scrappily built affair, unfinished and inadequate. There were also two gates through this wall to allow access for members of the family to go freely between the houses. We have sealed off the 1st gate to the next door's yard but left the other gateway open as this leads on to the triangular piece of land which we see as ours. This gateway is the gap between the north/west corner of the cabine and the black dividing line. Although the two houses were owned by the same family they are separate buildings built at different times and fully independant of one another."

The impression I get is that there may be possibly a servitude de destination du pere de famille involved.

8.1 - La destination du père de famille
Cette notion nous vient du droit romain et de son « bonus pater familias » (le bon père de famille). L’humanité n’ayant pas l’air de se bonifier avec le temps, le « bon » a disparu.
La destination du père de famille est régie par les articles 692 et suivants du CC. La logique est celle de l’état de fait.
Pour illustrer, imaginons que notre père de famille possède deux maisons sur son terrain. Vu que tout lui appartient, il établit un chemin qui dessert les deux maisons. Ses deux enfants héritent chacun d’une maison puis les vendent, etc., etc. Lors des mutations successives, les actes de vente ne font état d’aucune servitude.
Un propriétaire d’une des maisons décide de fermer le chemin (l’est chez moi, l’est à moi). L’autre propriétaire n’est bien sur pas d’accord et s’oppose à cette fermeture, mais il n’a aucun titre lui permettant d’affirmer qu’il a un réel droit sur le chemin.
Le propriétaire lésé entreprend de remonter le temps et s’aperçoit que le chemin existait du temps où le père de famille possédait les deux maisons. Il va donc revendiquer la servitude au titre de la destination du père de famille. Le voisin ne pouvant prouver le contraire, le juge déclare la servitude acquise.
En résumé, pour pouvoir invoquer la destination du père de famille, il faut que l’état de fait ait été instauré alors que les propriétés étaient réunies dans la même main. Il est préférable, mais non obligatoire, que l’objet de la servitude soit apparent, rendant celui-ci impossible à ignorer. Il appartient à celui qui conteste l’existence de cette servitude de faire la preuve d’une convention contraire.

And the existence of two gates would appear to support my opinion.

The other important point is that a division of the original property took place in the early 60s and this would have probably involved the boundary line being set out by a geometre expert in conjunction with the notarised acte de vente.

OK I'll leave you with that for the moment, just do a google translate and post any queries with that and I'll polish them up or explain.

Cheers,mike.

 

 

[charnizay]

Hi - Wow!! that was very interesting. I looked at the transalation and it would appear that maybe we would have a right of way over the path out into the communal road. We have used this path with the permission of the neighbours who own plot 60 to clear ivy and bring gravel into our garden. We have used the old gateway that was there when we purchased our house (and is still there) and when we meet up with the other neighbours (60) the little gateway has always been used. The other neighbours (61) have either been on holiday or absent on these occasions, or even not in ownership of the house, we are aware that they have sensitivities about us being in attendance so we try and avoid them.

I am sorry but I think that I may have made an eror in the dating of the separation of the properties, it was possibly the 1980s but maybe this is not so important? The two properties were very strongly linked even to the extent of having the electricity supply "shared" between them by dint of passing a cable through a hole in the party wall to supply a lamp for the use of the Mother who lived there.

Am I correct in thinking that the "destination du pere de famille" is part of the civil code?

Also what would be my next move? Should I write to the notaire who supposedly gave my neighbours "permission" to plant/claim the piece of land? This notaire has been notified by myself that there is a dispute over the piece of land but seems reluctant to actually do anything, it was very difficult to even get any response from him, but he knows and has been sent a copy of the relevant cadastre. I am prepared to write to the notaire quoting the situation and quoting the "code civil" if it would be of use.

I am also sorry that the "threads" are confusing but I am unable to understand just what that actually means - sorry though.

I will say again many thanks for all the info that you have given me, it has certainly helped me to look afresh at a situation where I was rapidly sinking into despondency and seriously thinking of selling and pulling out of my French adventure, which I may add up until now has been very enjoyable. I have found friends and exceptionally good people in this village. It would seem silly to allow one bad apple into the mix.

Regards Charnizay

[pachapapa]

The division of the properties in the 80s is not a problem at all;

The closer to the present day the easier it will be to do an administrative check.

There will also be people around, not necessarily neighbours, who can still remember the situation before and after the division.

The servitude du destination de pere de famille ( by the way there does not actually have to be a father involved ) is covered in the Code Civil  Article 692 and the following related articles. Worth a read.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=D88ACAEEED468147766FA3574E849587.tpdjo03v_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006150127&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20100727

Note this post was posted due to thundery weather earlier and should be read as complentary to the post immediately below.

 

[pachapapa]

A division in the 80s is beneficial as it will shorten the administrative trail.

The servitude du pdf is coverd in Article 692 of the Civil Code together with accompanying Articles.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=D88ACAEEED468147766FA3574E849587.tpdjo03v_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006150127&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20100727

The Code is fairly terse on the matter as is often the case but there is established jurisprudence on the interpretation of the relevant articles.

Whilst there can be little doubt, short of a major error by a geomètre expert or a clerk at the cadastral section at the government offices, that you own ALL the land on the cadstral plan running from the centre of the party wall up to the north east corner of your cabin.

It does not surprise me that the notaire is reluctant to reply to your query on the use/ownership of the small triangular piece of land at the very least he would be inciting your neighbour to exercise an "empiètement" over a portion of your land. That would be VERY serious.

Check out the following link with google translate.

http://aufildudroit.over-blog.com/article-7130947.html

However at this stage it is difficult to establish whether you have a right of way to the communal road behind the houses; the existence of the gate would prima facie suggest that you do. Consider the reality of a use of the right of way. The hatched line indicating the south side of the road passes through the two properties shown as parcelles 63 & 85. At the north east corner of your cabin it changes to a solid line; this would suggest to me that there is co-linearity between the south limit of the communal road ( question is it communal in the sense of controlled by the commune or communal in the sense of  common to the properties enjoying its use ) and extending along your boundary line up to a point where it meets with your gate. A bit of history of the gate in the past would be useful.

cheers

[charnizay]

Hello again and also again many thanks.

I will now carry out some research into all of this, I feel on a much more secure footing thanks to your efforts.

I am not so worried by having the right of way over the path at the back but nevertheless it is useful to know this and maybe we will need to exercise our full rights, also it is good to have things down correctly.

I have been reluctant in the past to involve my friends and neighbours in the village by asking questions but I think that I will discreetly ask now, the behavoir of my immediate neighbour has been witnessed by others and it has been made plain to me that it is "dissapproved of".

I will also write to the notaire and try to ascertain if it is the truth that he "gave permission" for this piece of land to be used, this should prove interesting if it is the truth, also I may discreetly mention the code civil and that I will be tracing the history of the properties involved.

As far as the history concerning the gates goes then I can tell you that the 1st gate that we blocked off was used by the old lady (mother) who lived there to go and take meals in the next door property. There was also a large drainage pipe evident to conduct rain water under the house next door and out into the gutter at the front, we have since redirected it.This gate was put there when the properties were separated. The gate at the end of the garden was placed there when the parpeign wall was constructed, there is also a concrete step down onto the triangle, again this was used by anyone who visited the house to gain access out onto the communal road, it is a short cut to the village shop and also to a large piece of garden now owned by our errant neighbours, plot 90 on the cadastre. In the past when the Mairie's secretary or the Maire himself, or any other neighbours have made visits this access point has been used. We tend not to use it very much as we have access at the front of the house. however it would be exceptionally useful for us to be able to legally use this for delivery of logs, gravel, and clearing the garden waste, we have long leyandii hedges which make lots of debris and it is very inconvinient to lug all the rubbish through the house.

I don't know if you would like to be kept in touch as to what the notaire says, or if you would like me to update you, I would be pleased to do this - but for now it seems that we have reached a natural break. I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help, thank you.

Regards Charnizay

[pachapapa]

[:D]Just one thing before you go.

The line on the cadastral plan between your land and the refractory neighbour has a slight dogs leg in it close to what would have been the west garden shed, assuming that the wall goes beyond that point of flexion then the east end would lie on the straight portion looking towards the north east corner of the cabine. Any chance of you measuring the length of the wall as it stands at the moment.

As a clarification the methods of measurement and setting out by geomètres experts is very rudimentary; often nothing more than taking off intersecting arcs. This being the normal case it is probable that the wall is on line and the cabin corner is fixed, the gap would be just line of site. A word of warning geomètres experts are very expensive and are free to charge what the market will bear. Think in terms of € 300 to do nothing.

I am afraid my pretensions to the right of way would be an absolute minimum of either on the position of your cabin a standing for vehicule parking, a car port or a garage complete with inspection pit.! 

Just post anytime a query pops up; I will check soon the series of plans on the records of your plot from the on line file; this may help a bit; there are usually in country areas about three a century. I'll post next week again if there is anything interesting.

In your dealings do not be too communicative, look for replies and useful information.

[charnizay]

OK - the wall is 10 metres in length and would appear to run straight from the back wall of my neighbour's house up to where my cabine begins. At that point the wall stops and there is the gate on my property. The west small shed of the neighbour was an ancient, large rabbit house since demolished so if there is any change of direction it would be at that point. I cannot honestly say that any deviation in direction shows to the human eye.

I simply cannot afford to employ the services of any expert presently, I have to sort this myself. My neighbour has said she will bear any costs involved to prove that the land is theirs but "oh la la".

My husband agrees fully with your pretensions.

I have written to the notaire who supposedly said it was ok for them to make the planting but he says nothing/answers none of the questions, and wants us to meet up at his office with our deeds, this cannot happen until September at least and then I wonder just what it would achieve.

Regards Charnizay

[pachapapa]

Thanks picture now clear on the wall.

It would be difficult to see on an irregular wall, even on the plan it is minute but having worked in South Africa as a mine surveyor in my youth I have an acute sense of a straight line.

September is still a while away.

Ciao and have a good summer, mike.