for FlamingoBlue, Siren, or any other law types.

[WriterDom]

18 people own a piece of property in South Carolina. All cousins, which probably makes it worse. Some want to sell it, some want to keep it. But I don't think the ones that want to keep it are interested in buying out the sellers. So it's either going to be sold outright, or kept. Would a simple majority of sellers be enough to sell the property?

Part of the property includes a fairly large private lake. Perhaps 400 yards by 50 yards. If the property remains in the family, how should it be set up to reduce the liability of a guest drowning and suing all the owners.

 

[Mischka]

18 people?! Wow. The cousins are considered tenants-in-common. I'll presume they own an equal interest in the land, unless the conveyance specified otherwise. The Code of Laws of South Carolina permits a forced partition of the land, which would allow those cousins interested in selling their portion of the land to do so. Note that does not mean that all of the land can be sold; only those wishing to sell their interest may do so. If they want to keep the property intact, then all of the cousins must consent to its disposition.

Also note that the South Carolina Supreme Court has held that in-kind partitions are appropriate only where they may be made fairly and impartially without any injury to any of the parties. Thus, the parties seeking a partition-by-sale carry the burden of proof to show that partition-in-kind is not practicable or expedient.

I'll leave the liability question to the experts. And no matter what, it looks like they'll need to get a local lawyer involved.

 

[freakygirl]

Ok.. I'm not a lawyer.. so I really can't give you legal advice.

I say.. shot the other 17 cousins.. keep the property for yourself.. Build a really cute house next to the lake. Don't invite anyone over to swim in it. And keep the gun handy for any unwanted visitors who attempt to swim.

That should solve the problem.

 

[WriterDom]

There is also a 4 bedroom cabin. So I guess selling parts isn't an option.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Mischka, as usual, hit the ball out of the park on the partition issue. Partition may still occur even if the property is partly improved.

As far as liability goes, I can dust off the Torts book and we can have a scholarly discussion on negligence standards for guests as opposed to trespassers. However, as much as everybody would enjoy that, I think I'll stick to some practical advice.

Post the property and the lake with "No Trespassing" and "No Swimming" signs.

Don't let guests swim unattended.

Inform local law enforcement that your property is posted and that you'd appreciate their assistance in keeping unwanted guests off the premises.

When you see trespassers, run 'em off and keep doing it. Be consistent.

Last, but surely not least, buy lots of liability insurance. Ask your agent about a liability umbrella over your homeowner's policy. It's cheap -- I have one for my admittedly lakeless home and it's less than $150 a year for $1 million coverage.

Otherwise, it's drain the lake and plant cotton....

 

[lavender]

 

[WriterDom]

There is a locked gate to the property, and the lake isn't visible from the road. But I don't think there are no trespassing signs. There hasn't been any swimming in 40 years since two people were taken to the hospital within an hour of each other for cut feet. It's not the kind of pond you'd want to swim in anyway, too murky, mossy, and usually muddy. But people do get out in the boat and fish. The youngest of the owners is 44, so you can imagine all the generations below who have access to the lake. I could see a situation where some teens could get a hold of some beer, and get out in the boat horseplaying and have it capsize. I guess it would be common sense to provide and require life vests. The property has just passed from the oldest generation who grew up in a different legal environment of the 40s and 50s.

thanks for your input.

 

[Myrrdin]

You could invest in a few alligators for the lake. That ought to reduce the shareholding cousins down to a more manageable size.

Every family tree needs a little pruning every now and again.

 

[SINthysist]

Is this from the piece currently on Newsmax? I am thinking Diane Alden, but it could have been someone else's commentary.

But after seeing people's reaction to the Drudge report article, I could see why you would not come out and say it.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Inform local law enforcement that your property is posted and that you'd appreciate their assistance in keeping unwanted guests off the premises.

In Missouri, posting signs and informing law enforcement aren't required. We simply paint one fence post on the property line purple, and/or put a notice in the 'Public Notices' section of the local newspaper.

Of course, this town doesn't have law enforcement, and the sheriff doesn't exactly cruise the area.

We have a pond, large dogs who may or may not bite, horses, and a swimming pool. All 'attractive nuisances' and all covered on our homeowners policy. If someone enters our property without permission, and they get hurt, it's their problem, not ours.

And I really like Freaky's advice.

 

[Amused]

South Carolina cousins, huh?

First, you'd have to factor in how many of them are married to each other......

 

[Mischka]

Just looked up the trespasser laws of South Carolina. I haven't seen this distinction before. If there are no No Trespasser signs posted, then a trespasser is "[a]ny person entering upon the lands of another for the purpose of hunting, fishing, trapping, netting; for gathering fruit, wild flowers, cultivated flowers, shrubbery, straw, turf, vegetables or herbs; or for cutting timber on such land, without the consent of the owner or manager, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall, for a first offense, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days." You'll note that curious swimmers are not included in the definition.

Once warning signs have been posted, any and all entry onto the property is considered trespassing. So get those signs prominantly displayed pronto, WD.

 

[Siren]

Yea, what dem lawyerly types is a sayin

 

[morninggirl5]

I have the solution to the many owners dilemma. Get the property tax bill sent to your address. Conveniently forget to pay it for the next few years. (Check with the county to see how long before they will auction it for back taxes.) When it goes up for auction, have a friend buy the land, it probably won't cost much more than the back taxes. Buy the land from said friend.

No more cousins to deal with.


This is brought to you by Wicked StepMothers, Inc.

 

[bearlee]

I don't do real estate or property law but lavender, I hope you do well on your test, but remember, a person invited is not a trespasser but an Invitee. The attractive nuisance doctrine doesn't work real well in Ohio as I recall and generally there is no liability for trespassers unless of course you set a trap for them-like putting alligators in the lake maybe. I would listen to Mischka-seems to have a pretty good handle on South Carolina law and see an attorney although, I must admit I like the advice of morninggirl5 and it would probably work. As far as people using the property, that can be a problem after 21 years in most states. For some reason I can't remember what it's called right now and it's something so simple. But, lavender, being in law school would know immediately. It's the kind of stuff they teach you that you forget almost immediately. The worst part is it came up in my personal life regarding a driveway on my property. Oh well, it's late. Ever have a divorce question, let me know.

 

[Siren]

Its called adverse possession