Driveway easement agreement form
An agreement between two individuals is only binding upon those two individuals.
In order for such an agreement for shared use to be binding upon future owners of the property, an easement would have to be recorded and it would run with the deed, not with whoever happens to own the property at the time.
So, check the deed.
If thereu2019s nothing regarding a shared driveway in the form of an easement, then your neighbor has no right to continue using your driveway.
I am not an attorney and am not offering legal advice but rather opinion however, so verify everything for yourself.
Property easement Agreement form
What the question asks is essentially thisu2014you own Lot A:,And someone buys up Lots 1u20138.
Since you have no right to cross land that isnu2019t yours, how do you leave your property?,But thereu2019s some missing info and false assumptions here.
,The original u201cQuestion Detailsu201d read as follows:,Assume you own a house in a libertarian society.
Surprisingly, the next day a person privatizes the land all the land surrounding your house.
,But how does this happen? What was the status quo ante?,,If we take the wording literally (u201cprivatizesu201d) then weu2019re assuming a sort of Lockean u201cstate of natureu201d in which the land in Lots 1u20138 previously belonged to no one and have now been u201cenclosedu201d or u201chomesteadedu201d or in some other way claimed by one or more individuals commingling their labor with the land and thus making it theirs.
,But if this is the case, then at least one of those individuals (I suppose the one who claimed the final encircling lot) has affirmatively acted to imprison youu2014to seize and block off your last means of egress.
,This would violate the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), so in a libertarian society, that individual would have an obligation to make some provision to allow you to freely pass.
,Additionally, if you happen to have passed and repassed often enough to create a defined trail across one of the lots prior to that lot being u201cprivatizedu201d, then you yourself have thereby claimed title to that trail, or at least to an indefeasible right-of-way easement.
,,But if weu2019re not assuming a state of nature, then someone owned those lots before.
,There are a few possibilities:,You owned one or more of them, and sold them off without remembering to reserve an easement for yourself.
,In this case, you are an idiot.
* And libertarianism neither claims to be nor is obligated to be a cure for idiocy.
You should probably start negotiating with one or more of your neighbors to purchase a right of access.
,Someone else owned them before you bought Lot A, and the person who sold you A is one of the owners of Lots 1u20138.
,In this case, because the u201clandlockedu201d parcel and one or more of the surrounding parcels were previously under common ownership, under common law principles you would have an u201ceasement by necessityu201d across one of the parcels owned by the seller of Lot A.
The idea is that the seller cannot derive an unjust benefit by selling a parcel and at the same time denying its use.
There is no particular reason to assume that libertarian philosophy wouldnu2019t endorse this reasoning, at least by default.
,Of course, I suspect libertarianism would still permit the buyer to expressly agree to the purchase of a landlocked parcel without access (for some reason or other)u2014in which case weu2019re back to the u201cYouu2019re an idiotu201d scenario.
(At least, assuming you intended to use the parcelu2014perhaps you bought it to prevent its use for some undesirable purpose, in which case lack of access isnu2019t an issue.
),Someone else owned them before you bought Lot A, and no owner of any lot 1u20138 owned A.
You bought an already-landlocked parcel without ensuring you could access it.
,Someone else owned them, and you had an express, negotiated easement across one or more of the parcels.
,The problem never arises at all.
You had an express easement.
You still have an express easement.
You will continue to have an express easement no matter how many times the u201cservient parcelsu201d change hands, unless you allow it to be extinguished by misuse, non-use, or express agreement.
,Someone else owned them, and you had a u201chandshake agreementu201d allowing you to pass through, but now the new owner wonu2019t let you.
,OK, maybe youu2019re not an idiot, but itu2019s still your fault for not solidifying your right to pass by recording some form of easement.
Because libertarianism is a basic philosophy, not a u201ccomplete systemu201d, different libertarians could disagree as to whether the u201chandshake agreementu201d created an obligation for the prior owner to convey the parcel to the new owner with an easement vested in you or not.
Under classical common law, the answer is no.
,Someone else owned them, and the owner turned a blind eye to your open and obvious use of the parcel for access, but the new owner wonu2019t let you continue.
,Again, this scenario is u201cunderdeterminedu201d by libertarianism alone, but many libertarians would endorse some principle akin to the common law doctrines of u201cadverse possessionu201d and u201cprescriptive easementu201d by which failing to assert your property rights over a very long period of time (classically twenty years) causes you to lose them.
nnSo, by using the land for passage without permission but also without objection, you may have acquired a u201cprescriptive easementu201d to continue doing so.
If so, then this easement is your property and is not something the previous owner can sellu2014so when the previous owner sold his lot, the new owner did not acquire unencumbered title to the whole lot, but rather acquired title to the lot subject to your preexisting easement.
,Someone else owned them, and you used one or more of them for access as a u201cmere trespasseru201d (i.
, furtively, avoiding the notice of the previous owner).
,Youu2019re an idiot and a criminal, and thereu2019s no reason we should care about your problem.
,*[This is the u201cgeneral youu201du2014i.
, u201cthe person in this hypothetical scenariou201d.
It is not intended to refer to the reader or the questionu2019s author.
],In other words, the problem simply doesnu2019t arise.
,Unless youu2019re an idiot.