Yes the abutter is my neighbor behind me. I already contacted a surveyor. I think my so called title insurance should pay for it. filix.

I'm a little confused. The neighbor has planted shrubbery on HIS property but in what you believe to be an easement area, or on "common" land you believe to be an easement area? (Edit - I reread and now see what you are saying about it being on his property but in the "new" 10 foot easement.)

I don't know... easements can be problematic...sometimes these things don't get recorded or they're recorded in such a way that they do not readily come up in a sale and may not even be known to the current owner (selling to you.) Or, perhaps they are recorded but the restrictions are not spelled out. An "easement" doesn't always mean "no vegetation may be planted." It sounds to me like the easement is only for access and doesn't otherwise restrict the right of the abutter, who still owns the land. If the easement doesn't explicitly say that, it does not restrict what the neighbor can do. Honeysuckle has shallow roots which typically won't cause damage, and although forsythia grow longer tap roots, I don't believe they have dangerously long and wide root systems. They would be the least of my worries but leach fields are expensive enough that I would want mine entirely on my property, so I could have as much control as possible over maintenance. And a 10' easement doesn't provide much protection from invasive plants, anyway. A neighbor could plant right up to the easement and still potentially damage the pipes.

We have a neighbor's driveway which crosses our property, and it's there (supposedly) due to a verbal agreement from someone who owned our property two owners ago, almost a decade before our house was built. The last owner never mentioned it and glossed over it in walking the property line with us (this is a large acreage.) But, we believe he knew about it. However it was never recorded and it only just (after about a decade of our ownership) likely became a "prescriptive" easement. We have another more restrictive easement crossing our property - recorded - but about twice as wide as we thought it was. The wider easement is not referenced on our deed and it took some creative searching on my part at the Registry of Deeds to even discover it. It did not come up in a title search. It's quitclaim and also raises some issues about what a different neighbor believes he owns.

I don't believe it's covered by title insurance. My understanding of title insurance is that it protects you from some true ownership interest which wasn't turned up in the title search. An easement doesn't fall into that category.

This post was edited by lizzie_nh on Fri, Jul 4, 14 at 21:42

Just to add - a survey won't necessarily "fix" the problem. I know that all too well. Without going into great detail and every possible scenario, there are many times in which all a survey can really do is confirm erroneous boundaries. For instance, we know for a fact that we have a large swath of land between our property and our neighbor's which is not legally deeded to anyone. It SHOULD have been ours, as when the land around the neighboring property was subdivided, obviously the lines were intended to run right up to the neighbor's true boundaries. However, the plat was stupidly based on the town tax map, which dramatically misrepresents the size of the neighboring lot (completely out of line with the neighbor's deed.) It was based on aerial photographs and they were clearly misled by the presence of an old stone wall. An in-depth review of deeds back to the original one, and an easement definitely confirms things. Anyway, so our boundary is what it is... a survey of OUR property couldn't convey anymore to us. A survey of their property - only if it used the deed and not the tax map - could reveal the swath not deeded to anyone.

A different situation, of course, but all this to say that your survey MIGHT not turn up a solution. And it also might not be down to the boundary lines, but instead down to the existence/exact wording of the easement, as well as any other agreements which may have been made. It's possible, for instance, that in reducing the easement the leach field WAS supposed to be moved so there would still be a 50 foot maintenance area around it, with only 10' on the neighbor's property. (I'd be very surprised these days if a (new) leachfield could be that close to a property boundary.)

This post was edited by lizzie_nh on Fri, Jul 4, 14 at 21:11

Thank you for your feedback. The real remedy with less hassle would be to move the leach field on my land. If that is possible. The reason its where it is, is because that's the only spot they could find with the right soil conditions. I don't know if I would have to take apart the old one. Or just abandon it. Could be very costly. I think the lawyer that did the closing bears some responsibility. filix

Is sewer an option in your area?

No sewer is not in this town. I'm in the country. filix