[Guest]

Suppose a plot of land A with constructible status exists with a boundary between it and another plot on which a house has been (long-ago) contructed. The owner of Plot A (Party 1) was the recent vendor of the house to Party 2

Plot A is now sold to a third party (Party 3 - quelle surprise...), who submits wholly acceptable house plans to the Mairie for consideration.

Party 2 and Party 3 have met each other in the past, get on well, nattered socially, etc, no worries. However, they do not see each other in their 'daily routine'.

The measuring-and-pegging ceremony for Plot A is carried out without an invitation to Party 2 to participate; he just arrived home one day to find stakes in his lawn, cars driving round it for access (even though they could have accessed Plot A easily without touching the lawn), etc.

No documentation concerning the boundary marking is subsequently passed to Party 2 for consulation, signing, etc.

NB the boundary itself has not changed where it is a common boundary to Party 1 and 3 - just the ownership of the Plot A.

Party 2 wanders off to the Mairie to check something only semi-related, sees that the shape of Plot A on the plans is totally different to that which has been staked out on the ground - by the tune of about 200 sqm out of a supposed total of 1600sqm.

So, as it said in my A-Level exams long ago - 'feel free to discuss', particularly with respect to ...

1. Should Party 2 have been formally, er, party to the geometre ceremony, even though that ceremony did not actually change the boundary itself, just who he shares it with?

2. Should Party 2 alert Party3 to the discrepancy before the AdV (assuming it hasn't already been and gone?

3. What else have I missed ?

 

[Guest]

I've used a geometre before, and there was no legal requirement to invite the numerous other landowners bordering my property. In my case I just needed confirmation of the border in the scrubland, woods and fields surrounding. There are no nearby buildings.

I kind of assumed that the cadastre plans at the mairie were accurate in that they should have been drawn up according to accurate previous estimates by a geometre. In your case, I would say that if one geometre can make a mistake (allegedly the case if the earlier plans are indeed inaccurate), then this latest survey could just as easily be wrong.

 

[parsnips]

Suppose a plot of land A with constructible status exists with a boundary between it and another plot on which a house has been (long-ago) contructed. The owner of Plot A (Party 1) was the recent vendor of the house to Party 2

Plot A is now sold to a third party (Party 3 - quelle surprise...), who submits wholly acceptable house plans to the Mairie for consideration.

Party 2 and Party 3 have met each other in the past, get on well, nattered socially, etc, no worries. However, they do not see each other in their 'daily routine'.

The measuring-and-pegging ceremony for Plot A is carried out without an invitation to Party 2 to participate; he just arrived home one day to find stakes in his lawn, cars driving round it for access (even though they could have accessed Plot A easily without touching the lawn), etc.

No documentation concerning the boundary marking is subsequently passed to Party 2 for consulation, signing, etc.

NB the boundary itself has not changed where it is a common boundary to Party 1 and 3 - just the ownership of the Plot A.

Party 2 wanders off to the Mairie to check something only semi-related, sees that the shape of Plot A on the plans is totally different to that which has been staked out on the ground - by the tune of about 200 sqm out of a supposed total of 1600sqm.

So, as it said in my A-Level exams long ago - 'feel free to discuss', particularly with respect to ...

1. Should Party 2 have been formally, er, party to the geometre ceremony, even though that ceremony did not actually change the boundary itself, just who he shares it with?

2. Should Party 2 alert Party3 to the discrepancy before the AdV (assuming it hasn't already been and gone?

3. What else have I missed ?

Hi,
If you are sure that P3 has encroached on P2's land as shown on the cadastre, P2 should go to the mairie asap to object. He may wish to inform P3 that he is going to do this, and on what grounds.
Ultimately , if not solved via the mairie, a "bornage amiable"can be proposed by P2 to P3 , if refused , a "bornage judiciare" can be applied for by P2 at the "tribunal d'instance" for the area; in this lower court an avocat is not compulsory.

 

[Guest]

Thanks to both frogblogger and parsnips.

To clarify, no, there is no question that P3 has bought a chunk of P2s land with or without knowing it - there has been no encroachment that I can see according to my own (ie P2) plan cadastrale.

But - point taken about a phone call to the Mairie, and also, methinks, to the Geometre involved.....

 

[hils]

There is an insurance policy you can take out for specific boundary issues - I have one but unfortunately can't find it just now and can't remember who it was with. But they do exist.

 

[Matou]

Minesthechevy,
If I understood well the parameters, Party 2 is not really involved. He/She just discovered that something wrong might have occurred when party 1 sold the neighboring land to Party 3. However, Party 2 is on relatively good terms with party 3 and he/she is quite fed up with the “nice persons” involved in the "bornage" process that savaged his/her beautiful lawns. Yet, Party 2 might also want to “spare” Party 1 who sold him/her his/her house…

It seems that we have a kind of whistle blowing case here.
And we know that whistle blowing is not a popular activity in France (“c’est pas beau de cafarder” = it’s ugly to sneak)

Apparently Party 2 has no real “legal interest” in the problem as he was not slighted.

The first question that comes is whether Party 1 really sold the whole of plot A to party 3. The appropriate answer is to be found in the contract(s) (i.e. “compromis de vente” & “vente”).
Provided something wrong happened, the next question will be whether should Party 2 inform someone of his/her discovery (e.g. Party 1, Party 3, both of them, a 3rd Party, etc.).

Party 2 certainly has no legal obligation to inform anyone unless he suspects a crime (e.g. “escroquerie” = conning). Moreover no one knows that he/she knows…

Nevertheless, Party 2 might feel morally obliged to inform someone. Yet, it is up to him/her to see whether he/she wants to be involved in something that might end-up in a lot of troubles and bickering…

Cheers

 

[Guest]

Matou

You have summarised it near-perfectly, thank you.

It won't take the brains of an an Archbishop to realise that I am 'Party 2'...

I was annoyed that the geometre tore around my garden un-necessarily, but worse things have happened. I'm sure I'll survive.

The REAL worry for me is that IF 'Party 1' has retained a strip of land for himself to use later as access to another part of the field, it would go against an agreement that was made when I bought this place. The vendor really was one of the worst sort, and he was aided and abetted by an immobilier and a notaire who I would never, ever recommend, except for flogging.

 

[Matou]

The REAL worry for me is that IF 'Party 1' has retained a strip of land for himself to use later as access to another part of the field, it would go against an agreement that was made when I bought this place. The vendor really was one of the worst sort, and he was aided and abetted by an immobilier and a notaire who I would never, ever recommend, except for flogging.

Minesthechevy,
if you can, you should have a look at the sale contract. Maybe party 3 will agree to show it to you if you give him/her a good reason like a question about "servitude"(i.e. easement right) for instance.
If your agreement was oral and Party 1 does not respect his word it will be difficult to rely on said agreement unless you can prove it's existence (e.g. the "notaire" or someone else witnessed it).
Good Luck!

 

[Guest]

matou, your advice is noted and VERY much appreciated, thanks.