Follow by Email

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

SHEILA by MY SECRET ISLAND - orig. Tommy Roe [official video] alternati...

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Dari and sword

Dari, Balder, and Hairy lay down on some old sail that they found in the boat, but Boomush sits near Rina and starts to purr very loudly. “Lower your purr, my darling,” Rina gives him a smile. “We do not want to draw attention to us, though Ieronim already knows where we are. Moreva still does not and let it be this way for a while.” Boomush changes his purring to a low voice and starts to rub his head in Rina’s hands. “I know, I know, you are worried about me, that I am not strong enough to defeat Ieronim. Maybe you are right, but I would not use one of your lives – do not offer me such a gift. I’ll try to use the energy of the sea.” Rina says and lifts her hands up like she is hugging the sea, air, and moonlight around her. Dari is in the border state between sleep and awake, and she can see things that she could not in the usual life. She sees how the blue energy of the sea, sparkling energy of the air, and silver energy of the moon, flow inside Rina and make her shine from inside. At this moment, Dari’s eyes close and she gets to her dreams. This time, she is near the underwater cave again, and now she knows that it is not the cave they are looking for. It is some cave where Ieronim has driven them for the battle, and to prevent them from finding the cave with the amulet. Dari sees that Rina is trying to find the way out of this cave, and even Boomush could not do it. “How are we able to breathe underwater?” Dari asks herself, and the answer just pops into her head. “We are not breathing- instead we are getting energy for life from some outside source, and this source may be the sword of freedom, but it is getting weaker and weaker, and in a few moments, it could stop transmitting energy to us.” “What should I do?” And again, the answer is into her head, and it is clear and frightening at the same time. ”You should unite with the sword of freedom and become it.” It was too much for Dari, and she awakes with the loud cry. “What’s the matter?” Rina turns to her.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Litigation continues

Beginning of the story you can see here http://nadejda-healingjourney.blogspot.com/2014/03/litigation-how-it-started.html

We decided to file with the court and found that there are many cases which are support our case. To file with the court you will need pleading paper you can see sample here http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/legal-pleading-paper-28-lines-TC103992040.aspx

WE did not asked for any compensation or injunction, we just explained the situation and asked that this smal part of parking lot would be granted us as easement. we asked for equitable easement, because , though this part was in use a lot of time and can qualify for prescriptive easement , but the permission to use it from neighbor prevents it to be prescriptive easement.

There are several types of easements: Express easements, created by grant deed or contract, i.e., agreed to by the parties and in writing; Implied easements, arising from the inferred intent of the parties upon conveyance of title under cases of reasonable necessity; Equitable easements, granted for long-time use and improvement of land, continuance of which would cause little harm to the property owner and cessation of which would cause irreparable harm to the user; Prescriptive easements, based on continuous, open and observable use of the land for 5 years or more Easements by necessity, created to allow otherwise practically impossible use and enjoyment use of property that is landlocked as a result of severance of parcels http://randicklaw.com/blog/2011/06/equitable-easements-in-california/

Terms under which easement in situation closest to our situation can be granted set forth in Authority ALI TASHAKORI, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. JOHN LAKIS, as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

1. They did not create the easement it was there long before they bought the property ;

2. They brought the claim for easement as Plaintiffs ;

3. “The court further found that “[t]he Lakises will suffer very little or no harm from the Tashakoris’ use of the driveway and easement area. The Lakises do not use and have never used the shared driveway, nor the land on which the driveway sits,”;

4. “The area is completely separated from the main portion of the Lakis property by a fence and vegetation, and is thus not accessible from the rest of the Lakis property without scaling the fence.”

5. “ The Lakises do not pay and have never paid for upkeep of the shared driveway, nor do they maintain and landscape or have they ever maintained or landscaped the area surrounding the driveway.;

6. “The land on which the easement area is located essentially provides no benefit to the Lakises.”

7. And: “The court noted that the Lakises presented no evidence to suggest that there would be any diminution in value to their property should the court grant the equitable easement sought by the Tashakoris. ”.

8. The trial court found that the Tashakoris were innocent, and their encroachment on the Lakis property was neither willful nor the result of negligence.

9. The Tashakoris reasonably relied on inaccurate representations by the real estate broker and the prior owner.

10. In Tashakori : The potential future use of the driveway by one additional family, should a house ever be built upon Lot 18, will not create a significant additional burden on the easement or the land on which it is located.

11. The court thus entered a judgment granting an equitable easement to Tashakori.

Also some other law cases can be applied: though Tashakori case is about usage of driveway Court deemed for example, in (Miller, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 289) there the plaintiff successfully sued to establish a right of ingress and egress to his property over a portion of the defendant’s property. Acknowledging that in previous decisions applying the test “the courts were dealing with fixed structures which encroached on the property of another,” the appellate court concluded that “[t]here is no difference in principle, only in degree, between a driveway which cuts across a corner of lands of another and so encroaches 24 hours a day, and the transitory passage of vehicles which intermittently invade such lands.” (Id. at p. 306.).

To be continued

Labels