Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 12:47:28 PM

I purchased my lakefront lot back in the 80's from a very prominent partner of a large law firm in Montgomery (and long time Lake Martin property owner).  The land had never been owned by Alabama Power or Russell lands, but, was land that had been deeded directly to a prior owner in lue of payment for land that was flooded by the lake.  When the lake was originally flooded, it is my understanding that people who lost land were either compensated in cash equivelent or given lakefront in-lue of cash payment.  So, there was lakefront that was never owned by Alabama Power or Russel Lands.

The relevance of this is as follows:  If I understand what this attorney has informed me correctly, lakefront land that has never been owned by Alabama Power or Russell Lands does not have any deed restrictions from either of those entities on the land, in terms of setbacks, etc.  For example, on my lot, I do not have to comply with getting a permit from Alabama Power to construct a structure even right up to the 491 elevation and they have no legal authority to keep me from doing so.  I have already had conversations with the Alabama Power permitting people and they did not disagree with this position.  However, their position is, if something extends beyond the 491 foot elevation, that is, out over the water, I am required to have or acquire a permit and am required to abide by their rules.  O.K. so far, that that is what I have always done.

However, according to this attorney that I purchased my land from, if I understand him correctly, there is something that is called a "90 foot fee" or something like that, that, on land such as mine, extends 90 feet into the water from the 491 elevation.  His opinion, as I understand it, is that, unless Alabama Power acquired that "90 foot fee" at some point in the title's history, I have an easement to do whatever I like extending 90 feet into the lake, and no permit is required.

A case in-point.  This attorney told me that years ago, his neighbor had a permanent floating dock made of wood anchored to the bottom of the lake about 40 feet from the shorline of his property.  Alabama Power ordered this neighbor to remove the floating dock.  This attorney took case, did the title research, showed Alabama Power that they had never owned the land or acquired this 90 foot fee, and although it never went to court, Alabama Power backed off and the neighbor kept his floating dock in the lake.

I had this attorney do a title search again on the property that I purchased from him and this is what he told me in the letter resonding to my inquiry.  He said that from his research, my property is "subject to flood rights of Alabama Power Company" but there is no record of the power company having acquired the fee for 90 feet.  In other words, his position is that if Alabama Power cannot show that they acquired this fee for 90 feet, then I am not subject to their permitting requirements or regulations on docks, etc. that I put in the lake within 90 feet of the 491 level extending out into the lake.

I also heard that back just prior to 2008, Alabama Power tried to restrict a developer who wanted to build condos by restricting the number of docks this developer could put in.  This developer supposedly went to court, and presented pretty much the case that I just made for his land, and supposedly won the suit to put in as many docks as he wished as Alabama Power had never acquired the 90 foot fee on this land.  I don't don't know if this is true or not, just something that I have heard a couple of times.  

Question...has anyone out there any knowledge on what I have presented and/or does anyone know the name of this developer that supposedly sued Alabama Power on these grounds and won?  I would lke to learn more.

Thanks,

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 2:06:55 PM

Interestingly you assume APC has final authority, but you should investigate the control the Feds have.  APC has to follow all guidelines and laws of FERC and/or Corps of Engineers.  When a commercial entity applies to APC to build docks, dredge, etc, then APC simply forwards that application to the appropriate Feds for approval.  As to the 30’ easement to the 491’ level you mention, I know of a friend who owns property that never had the easement applied to his property and he built his house about 10’ from the 491’ level, but those lot’s are rather rare.

I do remember one attorney from Montgomery that did do some property sales on the Lake a number of years ago...like the homes across from Chimney Rock and over to the west of the dam.  Maybe that's where you are.  One thing I've always heard is,  the State owns all the original stream (river) bed land, the power company owns all the other land below 491’, and the citizens own all the water.  If you sue and win your 90’ of lake bottom, better look out, you'll need to pay back taxes for the past 90 years.  BTW, do your tax records say that you've been paying taxes on that 90’?

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 4:53:46 PM

Wix:

Thanks for your thoughts...some clarification.  I've already pretty mucy been able to establish that based on the particulars of my lot...I could build all the way to the 491 elevation if I so desired.  No desire to do so though.

As regards the 90 foot easement into the lake (assuming it can be established that it exists as the attorney who developed our area communicated to me and defended for his neighbor), again, my understanding is that this is an easement to build structures such as docks out over the water and/or to anchor something to the lake bottom as long as it isn't a hazzard to navigation, not land that I own.  Therefore, there would be no tax due on an easement to use as I do not own that land.

And no, this lot is not anywhere near the original river.

And finally, if the story that I heard about the condo developer is true, he did not go to court with the feds or FERC, but, with Alabama Power, and the story is, he prevailed.  The story also goes that he did not build the condo's as this all happened around the 2008 market decline.

So, if anyone has any further knowledge on a 90 foot fee easement into the lake for certain lots and/or the developer who supposedly prevailed with APC, I would appreciate knowing.  Just doing some research here.  Not intending to sue anyone...

Thanks,

Name:	HARRY -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 5:26:33 PM

Another question...my property was a former lease lot that wa purchased from AP and specifically states that these lots cannot be subdivided but it happens. What’s up with that?

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 6:24:04 PM

If I am not mistaken, APC set up “subdivision covenants” that govern lot subdivisions.  Unfortunately, other homeowners under the same subdivision covenants have to take legal action.

TO OTTER:  You can already build a dock out 50’, and attach a large floater for another 12’ to 16’.   Ain't that far enough??

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 7:38:15 PM

Well, if you plan to acquire a mortgage FEMA gets involved and it is time and expense consuming.  I had even the Elmore county epa folks become involved.  Delayed my construction by 6 months, eg.. elevation certificate $500, appraisal $650, and begging fema to issue my exclusion, forgot the fee for that application!  Bureaucrats will emerge out of nowhere?  Good luck 

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 8:11:14 PM

Missing the point.  Mortgage not an issue so HUD, etc, not relevant in this case...already established that APC has no legal jurisdiction on my property from the 491 foot elevation back.

Point is, trying to get additional information as to whether APC has any realy legal authority to regulate what I do within the lake if indeed they never eliminated the 90 foot fee easement.  Yes, their guidelines may be sufficient...not the point.  I'm trying to determine if the attorney that I received advice from is correct...that APC has no say on total square footage of docks, anchoring something to the bottom of the lake as long as it isn't a navigational hazzard, etc.  This isn't a question of what I can or cannot do within APC guidelines, it is a qustion of if APC has any legal authority to control what I do.  APC I'm sure, will never openly or voluntarily admit that they don't, assuming they don't. 

Looking for the name of the developer who supposedly won in court over APC over this issue and/or some legal eagle who knows the original lake legalities to confirm whether or not APC has any authority.

Thanks,

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 8:19:11 PM

50ft is the maximum length for a pier but in many places you won't get a permit for anywhere near that. It depends on the width of of the lake where it is to be placed. The  typical formula is 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3 in narrow sloughs, meaning you can use your 1/3, the folks on the other side can use 1/3 and the middle third remains open for navigation.

For your question Otter, I do not believe that APCO flooded any land they did not have clear tittle too without restrictions. If they couldn't come to terms on price they used the condemnation process to aquire it at fair market value. Very few land owners when Martin was impounded fought to keep any land. In fact just the opposite. Most would only sell if APCO bought all of their land. APCO only wanted to buy to the 491 mark but agreed to purchase all of the tracts that included what would become waterfront. That is why APCO ended up. With so much of the land around the lake.

I am not a lawyer but have read several books on the early days of APCO and the building and flooding of the impoundment. When this lake was built the surrounding land was considered useless and nobody wanted it for several reasons. First and foremost was the recent to the time building of the Panama Canal and the resulting diseases, especially malaria. Also the original charter called for the lake to be drawn down 50ft each year. This resulted in large swaths of mud for a good portion of the year so nobody wanted to live here. It stayed at 50ft for a couple of decades then went to 30ft, then 10ft,and now 7ft.The current 10ft set back from 491 is a late 20th century iteration so it has no bearing on nearly deeds at all. We're their a few folks that held onto their future waterfront? I'm sure there must have been but I doubt they were granted any special deed concessions but if they were and the deed was subsequently transferred without those concessions they were gone forever

I write all this with nothing but general knowledge as a basis and I could be wrong and would be very interested to know one way or the other. You need to hire a disinterested title abstracter to do a full search on your property. It sounds like a typical 30 year search probably won't do what you need. You could probably get it done for about $200 or so, depending on how complicated it gets around the time the lake was built. I know an excellent one that lives and works in the Atlanta area but has done Tallapoosa County in the past when she still had a place here, but she still comes over sometime. In fact she is President of my "Warm Water Friends Club". If you are interested I will see her this weekend or I can put you in direct contact with her. Anecdotes and stories of the  great prowess of this or that lawyer mean less than nothing. The only thing that. Matters is what the deeds say. Good luck please post what you eventually find out.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 8:28:49 PM

I posted below but let me add this, APCO absolutely owns everything inside the 491 line and unless YOU have a special easement onto their property the have absolute control. If that easement wasn't presented to you at closing with your deed, it does not exist, or your closing agency hired a poor abstracter and you would have cause against the title insurance company  IMO. If such easement ever existed it may have been limited to the original grantee and not been transferable or maybe they chose to keep it for themselves. Either way if you don't have it it or can't find it recorded at the courthouse it is a figment of someone's imagination.

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 9:20:02 PM

Lifer nailed and I will add that since FEMA decided that all of the lake is a flood zone (unless in the past few months it has changed). Don’t be so sure they will not enter the scene via the water agency in the state.  

APC is fairly easy to deal with but I would not push them too far.  Perhaps if you ask your intention straight out, you might get a proper answer.  So if you are trying to build a bridge across your area I would worry.  

Name:	itisd -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 9:57:49 PM

Russell Lands built a bridge !!!  In a pretty narrow  body of water- no publicity until it was started

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 10:02:03 PM

You got ripped on elevation certificate.  Unless you have structure below 492’ you do NOT have to have flood insurance.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 10:07:04 PM

They also filled in several spots between islands in the Ridge to connect islands.....and it was approved by APC and FERC.  No one filed complaints because they didn't know about it.

Name:	itisd -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/14/2018 11:04:10 PM

Yelp- snuck it in- no objections that way

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/16/2018 1:06:48 PM

This is a very interesting conversation.  Only problem is there are contradictions from different posters.  Sure would be nice to find the case and then be able to get the real facts from the developer involved.  Everybody seems to have comments but no real facts to prove your comment.  Hard to believe there are no lawyers on this board that have a intern needing something to do.  Would really love to know if AP really can stop you from building a pier in the manner you want.  Definitely would change what I have.  

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/16/2018 4:31:03 PM

Crimson4Life:

It would be very interesting to find that case, if it exists.

I've heard from a couple of other privaely and here is what I have learned...again, I'm not an attorney.

The are at least two types of easements that can be on land.  However, earlier in the thread a comment was made that if indeed a property had an easement attached to it, if the easement was not recorded with subsequent deeds, then the easement  would no longer apply.  

An easement is permanent unless the parties agree otherwise. But the parties certainly can agree that an easement will terminate at some point, whether at a specific time or when certain conditions occur.

There are all kinds of ways to terminate or abandon an easement.  Too many to go through here.  However, the point that the attorney who developed my development was making to me, if I understand him correctly, was that there was a permanent written easement giving use 90 feet out into the lake that, unless done away with in-writing somewhere along the transfers of title, still exists.  In his search of the title history, he could not find any record of this easement being terminated.

So, back to my original question:  1) Is there any attorney or landowner out there who goes way back who has ever heard of an easmenet such as has been described to me and 2) Can anyone identify the developer who prevailed, in court, over APC in the right to build docks within his 90 foot easement, assuming such case exists?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/16/2018 4:59:27 PM

If this attorney/developer is so sure it exist why has he not provided you with a copy? If he couldn't find  where is was canceled that means he "searched" so once again I ask why hasn't he provided this document? Also why have you not demanded the document instead of flapping gums? It is obvious you want/need it to be true. With a copy of the easement even I with my limited knowledge of doing title searches and an afternoon in the records room in Dadeville I could search it out for you.

I will say this again, if any deed is recorded without a previously properly recorded easement attached to it there is a cause of action against whoever wrote the title insurance,even though it is not an adverse easement in this case, easements attached to deeds are part of the deed and must be recorded with all subsequent deeds. Someone needs to put up or shut up. You claim to have visited with at least two lawyers on the subject yet neither has offered any more proof of this claim than I have. The alleged Court case would be public record and easily searchable by any lawyer. Free legal advice is worth less than what you pay for it, which is nothing. Hire a competent title abstracter and you can have your answer in days, if not hours.

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/16/2018 6:13:28 PM

Does not pass my smell test.  And to post on an obscure website discussion verifies that this is bogus.  

Btw, who needs a 90 for pier?!

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/16/2018 8:48:15 PM

Woa...getting a little testy there, aren't we?  Legit question and some answers have been helpful...but not the editorial opinions.  Missed the point entirely...who needs a 10,000 square foot house or who needs a $200K boat?...the question is, not who needs it, but, is it legal to have one.    I won't repeat the questions here...some of you get it, some never will.  Signing out.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	OK, here's the simple answer.
Date:	5/16/2018 9:09:12 PM

No.

If you don't beleive/accept that I suggest you build whatever it is you want so bad then fight it out in court.

What will happen is you will most likely get a cease and distant order before you finish. If you ignore that APCO will most likely let you continue till completion. Then they will order it removed. If you don't comply with that they will remove it for you and send you a really nice bill for the removal. When you don't pay that they will lien your property and file suit themselves or maybe just wait you out till you or your heirs try to sell, then settle.

That's what my crystal ball says. Can't wait to see it play out.

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	OK, here's the simple answer.
Date:	5/17/2018 7:30:46 AM

Well stated lifer.  

Fight city hall at you risk!

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/18/2018 3:10:51 PM

Hey Lifer how about backing away and calm down.  Geez...its a conversation and I for one would love to know IF I wanted to change my pier I could.  I dont want a 90' pier but I have other "blocking view" issues as well as sq ft issues with mine that I could change if I was not mandated by AP otherwise.  So to some of us it does matter what the actual rule is.  Never even knew there was a possiblity the easement was not associated with the deed.  I also dont have any debt on my property so they have nothing to put a lien on.  Open up a little bit and realize just maybe there is some truth to the story and that there really is a "secret" that AP tries to hide and avoid.  

Ridiculous how defensive you are about something you dont care about.  How about just removing yourself and then you dont have to worry with someone asking questions and soliciting information.  I kinda thought that was what this forum was about.   It's Friday...go find the spirits and lighten up some.  

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/18/2018 4:47:39 PM

I agree that discussion is appropriate for this message board.  My problem was the lack of clarity in the question.  The discussion was all over the map with hypothetical questions that a developer would logically not ask a public forum.  No response seemed to satisfy the questioner.  

All of that is the fact that the power company controls the lake and shoreline.  Lifer answered accurately that structures can (and I have witnessed) be removed if it does not meet the requirement of the power company.  

All that to say is my response that something does not pass the smell test is just that, my opinion.  I suppose it hit a nerve.  

Is it 5:00 o’clock yet?!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/18/2018 4:54:10 PM

The fact that you made the statement that you don't have any debt on your property so therfore they have nothing to lein  shows your total ignorance on the matter so maybe you should stay out of conversations that are above your level of understanding.

Alabama Power bought every square foot of land that is flooded. They own it. Sometimes they are gracious enough to allow us to build piers, boathouse etc. on their property by permit (easement). I know this may be tough for someone that has exhibited very little knowledge of such matters to understand, but it is the way it is.

I am not the least bit angry or upset, what I am is intolerant of folks who reuse to see things as they are. That's why I don't tolerate liberals very well. I repeat what I said before, build whatever you want and fight it out in court. It's their pond, we just get to play in it. Maybe in the process you will learn what a lein is and how they work. Good luck.

Name:	Rooster -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/20/2018 8:17:23 PM

I know I am late but Lifer is correct on all points.  No Lien is meaningless.  

Name:	Rooster -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/20/2018 8:29:00 PM

Meant no debt is meaningless.  Sorry!!

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Possible Contact For Answer
Date:	5/20/2018 10:58:25 PM

Read this from 2010. It maybe be the docks that were built for the condos. Russell may have the info you are looking for.

http://stillwatersra.com/uploads/SWRA_Annual_Mtg_Min_10.pdf

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/21/2018 9:03:07 AM

All I know is that three years ago when I tore down my Jim Walter cabin and built a new house, I took out a cash out mortgage to fund the construction.  That mortgage triggered a question about the “flood plain” that is/ was the entire lake by fema.  I was required to get an exemption from the declared flood plain 491.5 level or take out flood insurance at a cost several thousands dollars.  Exemptions require a elevation certificate ($500) and application to fema which required 90 days.  So construction was placed on whole until I received the exemption.  

After construction enters Elmore County Transportation Dept (for the state water agency, ADECA) asking for a new elevation certificate on the new house.  I invited them to show me the legal requirement since I had one and the new house sits where the old one sat.  They sent a rep out and took pictures and dropped the issue.  

Just had a new pier built and the power company was great to deal with on the permit.  Of course the pier goes out about 40 feet and not 90 feet.  I’m sure my neighbors would have something to say about a 90 foot pier.  

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/21/2018 10:57:41 PM

I am just interested in the questions being asked.  Obviously AP doesnt want everyone on the lake building what they want and cant control any of it so I am sure something is in place to secure that.  People like me that bought their place back around '86 might not have the same kind of detail deed as the newbies around the lake.  

Lifer....

As far as the lien comment....other than being sued and losing I cant really find anywhere that indicates someone can put a lien on a house or land that is yours with no debt.  I have absolutely zero knowledge in the way it could work but I did atleast google some and really didnt find anything that stated as you do.  Can you please share with me how AP could put a lien on my lake place because I broke a covenant/rule by building something on the water?  I am not being an a$$...just curious and you seem to know the law/rule.  The other poster indicated you were right.....so I dont doubt you....just want to know.

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/21/2018 11:03:11 PM

I am just interested in the questions being asked.  Obviously AP doesnt want everyone on the lake building what they want and cant control any of it so I am sure something is in place to secure that.  People like me that bought their place back around '86 might not have the same kind of detail deed as the newbies around the lake.  

Lifer....

As far as the lien comment....other than being sued and losing I cant really find anywhere that indicates someone can put a lien on a house or land that is yours with no debt.  I have absolutely zero knowledge in the way it could work but I did atleast google some and really didnt find anything that stated as you do.  Can you please share with me how AP could put a lien on my lake place because I broke a covenant/rule by building something on the water?  I am not being an a$$...just curious and you seem to know the law/rule.  The other poster indicated you were right.....so I dont doubt you....just want to know.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/22/2018 7:23:05 AM (updated 5/22/2018 7:36:05 AM)

Anyone can lein anyone's property simply by going to the courthouse and filing the paperwork. It is primarily used by contractors who have a dispute with property owners. It is really easy and doesn't require any proof. No affidavit either. Just fill out the forms and pay the nominal fee. The property owner won't even know, unless someone tells them, until they go to sell or transfer the property. When the title search is done the lein shows up. The lein must be cleared before title can transfer. You must pay it, negatiate a settlement, or go to court to fight it.

What you don't seem to understand is that APCO owns the land under the lake the same way that your neighbors to the left and right own their property. Those neighbors may allow you to use a portion of their property either by hand shake or easement. The handshake will work fine, until it doesn't. If you want/need it to be permanent then you must get it in writing.(easement) that you can build, cross, use their property. If not you wouldn't even consider building anything on the neighbors property.. If you do, it very simply becomes theirs. The lake is no different. You are building something on somebody else's property, with permission. As such they can dictate what and where you build it and to what specs. If you don't want to play by their rules then you simply don't play. If you choose to play and not follow their rules they have legal recourse, just like you do if I were to show up and build anything on your property. I strongly suggest you don't test it. They will win.

Edit- I went back an read your post again. I realized I need to address one issue. APCO would lein your property for the cost of removing an unauthorized structure that you built on their property. Very simple. They could choose to just sue you outright also if they wanted to make an example of someone but APCO is averse of any kind of negative publicity, and some would see it as negative, no matter how correct they would be in their legal position.

Name:	Rooster -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/22/2018 10:07:04 AM

Did you know— if you don’t pay your property taxes a Lein can and will be placed on your property.  After going through the proper legal system anyone and I do mean anyone can pay your taxes and after a certain time frame can own your property.  This almost happened to someone I know because of his ignoring the notices he received.  I don’t have a dog in this fight, but just sharing info.  By the way,  this person paid cash for 88 acres of land and almost lost it.

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/22/2018 2:36:14 PM

In your example a lien was put in place because I did not pay my property tax.  That has nothing to do with a lien from me violating a deeded easement that may or may not exist.  So completely apples to oranges.  I have asked and googled and cant find anything that says someone can put a lien on property that is owned outright unless a lawsuit is lost and you cant pay the mandated fees or you are default on some kind of payment such as property taxes.  No where can I find where a situation as Lifer is stating can occur.  I was told to stay out of the conversation since it was above my level of understanding so I am asking for the person who claimed I didnt understand to share some wisdom and clarify how this lien could occur.  

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/22/2018 3:36:49 PM

I explained it above. If you need more simply go to the record room at the Dade illegal courthouse and ask for a lein for. She will print you out one in a jiffy. Fill it out, pay the fee and you have a lein on whoevers name and property you put on the forum. Try searching for "contractors lein" aka mechanics lein.

Name:	Crimson4Lif -	Reply
Subject:	Legal Right to 90 Feet Into the Lake?
Date:	5/23/2018 12:18:12 PM

Ok Lifer I see your point however both the contractors lien and mechanics lien both are filed with the condition I owe them something for work performed on some kind of property.  Every lien I have found is tied to the fact the property owner OWES someone something.  In our example I dont owe anyone anything.  I know in this backward state anyone can sue for anything so I get your point there but in reality I thought you meant there was really a legitimate lien that could be placed on a property for an this kind of easement violation.  In the end I actually know more than I originally thought and the answer to the lien is false.  A good way to look at it....what is the lien value?  There is no value to a lien if there is nothing owed to anyone.  I find it hard to see a judge even entertaining the lien unless he/she is in AP's pocket...which in this state...very possible.     

I live in a residential neighborhood (not at the lake) and there was a huge issue with the home builders they were bringing in to develop.  The homeowners went ballistic being afraid the builder coming in was going to build a cheaper house and cause the values to drop on the other existing homes.  People were doing things to protest...such as signs in yards.  The HOA warned everyone that if they continued to violate the covenants (no signs allowed) they would be forced to place liens on the property.  One homeowner went and paid his house off and basically gave them the finger.  No lien could be placed on the property and there are no such fines setup in the HOA so nothing legally could be done to the homeowner.  Paying the house off freed him from any type of lien the HOA/developer could put on the property.  That is a fact and the home owner was a neighbor to me so I had many discussions with him and his attorney and know all the legal jumbo that goes with it.  He then flipped on them and forced the builder to prove that building a house at a much cheaper price and argueablly with cheaper materials would not cause the comp's to be lower and ruin/lower home values.  No answer by the developer was ever given but they eventually decided to leave the neighborhood.  

I mainly wanted to be aware of anything legally I could do to hurt myself such as the easement violation and wanted clarity.  I still think AP probably does not have the deeded easements filed the way it would need to be on some of these properties and homeowners just dont know about it.  Am I going to go research it...no....does it change my lake life...no....in the grand scheme does it even matter...no...but I am curious. 

Happy Memorial Day 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/23/2018 2:30:20 PM

Once again, owing a mortgage has absolutely ZERO bearing on the ability to lein a property. Believe it or not, it is a fact. Educate yourself on the difference between warranty deeds, quit claim deed, and security deeds. I have no knowledge of the covenants by which you and your neighbors agreed to live when you bought the property, but I can still say you are comparing apples to oranges.. I do however know a bit about owning lake property on an APCO lake in Alabama having owned wholly or partially several lots/houses on three different lakes.

The lein is because you violated property lines and constructed an unauthorized structure on someone else's property and they had to spend money to remove it. The lein would be for the amount APCO spent to remove it. Having teams of lawyers they probably would go to court and get a judgment first, but they wouldn't have to in my opinion, but I could be wrong on that one point. I am not a lawyer but I do know how to read deeds and easements and covenants.. I also know how to conduct simple title searches and they always include a search of lens and judgements. I have also filed leins on property and k owners how easy it is.

I also find it interesting that this deep into this conversation you suddenly remember these extensive conversations with a neighbor and his attorney on the subject of leins. Once again I recommend you build water the hell you want and see what happens. Rest assured however, you will be caught as APCO photographs every inch of shoreline on the lake every year now and use software to compare it year to year for changes. I know several folks that have tried to slip something by them and been caught. I have seen a couple of the "nastygrams" they got by certified mail regarding what they did. Fortunately each of those folks were able to get fetro-active permits because the structures complied with guidelines.

Think about this now. Your whole neighborhood went into revolt of structures being built by folks who were authorized to build them. What would you do if the came and started building a structure on YOUR property?  Like I said go ahead and build it. I'm sure APCO won't mind.

Name:	GC -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/23/2018 6:34:02 PM

Wow, this will not end.  Lifer should be an attorney.  liens can attached to property by anyone for almost any reason.  The effect of a lien only prevents the sale, transfer or othe action on the property in the probate court/county records.  Having served on a hoa board, violations of covenants can and do result in liens on the piece of property via a fine for whatever amount.  The reasons can be so petty as leaving your trash can out after collection dates where covenant states it will be out of sight by the next day.  Or having a figurine by the front door in violation of the covenants.  Or installing a bedding area too close to the street by 6 inches.  

The effect means if you want to sell the property with existing liens, good luck since the title company will not be able to give clear title. Of course, the power company is a tad more aggressive in the enforcement.  My lake place is governed by a set of HUD rules in addition to the power companies covenants when I purchased the land from a previous power company lease.  

Lifer is correct on his assertions. There’s Superman’s cape and then there the power company temper!  I have seen a sea wall destroyed when in violation.  Pick your poison carefully!  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/26/2018 3:31:33 PM

Liens can be placed on a property regardless if there is a mortgage or not.  And until it is satisfied, you will not be able to sell your property.  This is why I have always paid for title search and insurnace regardless of whether it was required or not.  I had a subcontrator call me and tell me he was going to put a lien on my house for non-payment by the prime.  Worried I consulted a lawyer, who told me that he could not place a lien on my house in Alabama becasue he and I didn't have a contract.  This is different than it was in VA,  - mechanics liens could be placed on houses when the builder still owned the house, and if you wanted to buy, you had to satisfy those liens. I had a boss that decided to forego the title search and insurnace and ended up entangled in liens that were placed by subcontractors.  It took years, lawyers and $$$ to get it all untangled.  

I personally woudn't play chicken with the power company.  They have more money and legal resources than the average person, and I suspect they win most of time.  

I am wondering about this 90 foot grant - woud a title search uncover whether this is true or not?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/26/2018 9:26:16 PM (updated 5/26/2018 9:39:11 PM)

Hound your lawyer gave you some bad info. A lein can be filed without a contract. No contract or proof thereof is required to file the Lein. I known this from personal experience. I have an active lein against a property right now. I know  what it took to file it, which was filling out the forms and paying the nominal fee. The only way to have it removed is to negotiate or go to court and let a judge settle it. Then a contract will be helpful, but not required to be in writing. A verbal agreement is as good  and  binding as a written contract, just not as easy to prove.

In your case he could easily file the lein but would most likely loose in court when challenged as long as you show proof you paid the general contractor. The subs issue is with the general contractor who didn't pay him, not you. It is nice threat to hold over a homeowner, but has very weak legal standing. Most get settled because it is cheaper to pay something to the sub-contractor and get an immediate release than it is to pay lawyers to fight it out in court.

I am not a lawyer but I know I am correct. There are lawyers that read the forum. If I am wrong let any of them come on here a make a case for anything other than what I have written. As my name is well known anything short of a lawyer stating his real name and putting him reputation on the line will not be accepted however.

If one does I will promptly apologize for posting "fake news" and move on, but I know I am right as I have actually done it. Most lawyers never have and never will. They deal in text book law and not real world law. I'm sure the textbooks say you need a contract to win a lein but you most certainly don't have to have one to file it. The lein process was  instituted to give small business folks an access point to the courts without having to hire lawyers. If the subcontractor you dealt with didn't file the lein I am certain  he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on and was simply trying to scare you into paying him. He certainly deserved to be paid, but by the GC that hired him, not you. As long as you paid the GC and I  am certain you did.

And to answer your question, absolutely a title search would absolutely answer the question. Earlier in the thread I offered to hook him up with a very competent one. A very dear friend of mine that I actually called you sister. She happens to be asleep in the recliner within arms reach of me as I type this. If you were in Tallapoosa County instead of Coosa I would actually check to see I'd the sub-contractor actually followed through with his threat to file a lein. If he did you wouldn't know it without doing a search. You don't have to hire an abstracted to find d out. You can probably just call the courthouse and ask for the records room and ask whoever answers the phone. It is probably worth finding g out now as opposed to later. If you can't contact me and I can ill be happy to meet you at the courthouse in Rockford and search it out for you. I doubt he did but you need to find out before more time passes.

Name:	Swelch -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/31/2018 11:21:15 AM

So after reading this entire post, I have a question. Is it true that I don’t need oermission

from Apc if I am building above 491 and my lot was never owned by the power company?

My family has owned our place since the mid 60’s  There were plenty of lots around the real island 

area that were sold by mr  castellberry who bought them from farmers and individuals just like the power company

did when they decided to flood the land. He then sold the lots off several years later. Our lot was bought directly from

Mr  castleberry who bought it before the lake was here. Does that make it one of those rare lots that 

the power company has no say in?

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/31/2018 10:08:51 PM

I own one of those lots that never was owned by either Alabama Power or Russell and had similar title history to yours...I was advised by the attorney that developed our subdivision that APC had no control over anything 491 (490 at the time) and above.  Approximatly 5 years ago I was building a small building within 2 feet of the 491 line to store lake toys, etc..  APC shoreline rep came by and asked if I had a permit from them to build.  I informed him that I did not need one as they had no jurisdiction above 491 for the reasons previously mentioned.  The conversation was cordial, the APC shoreline rep did not contradict my position, and I never heard from them again.  I can assure you from personal experience with APC shoreline permitting people, that if they felt that they had authority to require a permit for my storage shed, they would have pressed the issue and required a permit...which they did not.

Name:	Swelch -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	5/31/2018 11:33:11 PM

That’s useful information. Thank you. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	6/1/2018 5:59:43 AM

That is a totally different scenario than what you originally posted. Nobody, especially me, has stated that you can't build what you want, where you want ON YOUR PROPERTY. Above 491 is your property and being able to build on it has no relation to the back chain of ownership. The only only restrictions on that come from an HOA if you live in a s/d that has them.. APCO probably ask you to move it related to blocking the view and find others. I don't know and more importantly don't care. Everything I posted relates to building inside the 491 pool.

I will caution you to be careful however. Part of my "lot" encroaches into the pool from when my place was graded and constructed. Mine is minimal and grandfathered in but my neighbors place encroaches 50 ft. Or so so technally it belongs to APCO.

Name:	Otter -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	6/1/2018 9:00:07 PM

Swelch:

You are welcome.  Actually, it can make a difference who owned the property prior.  In the case of Alabama Power, if they owned the property at any time, they place deed restrictions on the land that run in perpetuity going forward,  That is why, if Alabama Power has ever owned the land, their typical deed restrictions stipulate lake setbacks, etc.  Additional deed restrictions can be added by subsequent owners, but, the deed restirctions initially placed by Alabama Power cannot be modified.  That is why, if you own property that was once owned by APCO, per their deed restrictions, they can require a permit from them if building within their setbacks.  Hope this helps.

By the way, Lifer seems to be taking all of this way too personal as if someone is challenging his supreme intelligence.  I stopped responding to him long ago...not worth it...

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind as he who will not see
Date:	6/1/2018 9:43:06 PM

You hit the nail on the head. Deed restrictions indeed. Funny you know all about them now but started the thread asking g about some phantom easement. Since you were obviously given the dedication restriction, which are very plainly stated in the deed, what makes you think this phantom 90ft easement wouldn't have been written into your deed? It seems like  aybe you educated yourself a little since the thread started.

Why would I take it personal? You posted looking for info. I gave it to you so it would seem on this issue I do have superior intellect to you. Show where anything I posted is not factual. Come on, I dare you to try. Better yet, build whatever it is you are so desperate to build. But answer this, what would that 90ft pier be compensating for? Rhetorical question. We all know.