Riparian rights to HOA owned lake

I live in a subdivision in Georgia with a small lake surrounded by homes. My property borders on this lake. The subdivision has no covenants. Until recently, the half of the lake in front of my property was not owned by the subdivision; the builder still owned that half of the lake. The other half is divided among the homes on the other half of the lake. Recently, the HOA took over the deed for the remaining half of the lake. I have had a dock and walkway from my property to the dock for close to 20 years. Now that the subdivision owns the property, I'm being told that my dock must be removed, as it's on HOA property. I thought that, since I've been paying HOA dues since I moved here 30 years ago, that I would be considered part owner of the lake, now that the HOA owns it. The lake is tiny (not really navigable to go anywhere), but we stocked it may years ago, and we like to use our rowboat to go fishing. By the way, I've also been maintaining the dam over the years, and my wife and I continually clear the silt and trash that accumulates on our end of the lake. We're on the shallow end, and the wind blows in our direction over the lake. I would think that I have riparian rights because my property borders the lake. Opinions? Thanks.

You could probably also argue that you have a well established prescriptive easement.

EdY (Georgia): At this forum & others, Comment-inviters frequently use terms or introduce justifications that respectfully are tough for anyone to sort out without the documents to verify.

If the lake & lakeside you are describing is legally a common element ( or merely something like a bare co-ownership tenancy in common) you or anyone has a hurdle.

That hurdle includes having to prove that you your property has acquired by prescription / adverse possession / "squatting"/ whatever, some sort of unique right no longer shared with others.

Eg my kids have played on the common element swings or swim in common pool so much that now I claim my property uniquely has acquired some sort of unique, title specific property easement etc "Their usage gave me squatters' rights of some sort."

You see the immediate upfront issue eg of such a claim . . .

Easement claimants have to prove a lot state by state. Respectfully if your private lot title is subject to have CCRs/restrictive covenants/condo Declaration etc those will speak heavily to any sort of claim you now try to make. You might plead for grand-fathering if the dock & access is on a common element whose ownership you share with others.

The above advice to you to get competent legal advice is a good one. The advisor will insist on seeing the documents just for starters.

Option: Go to HOA board and explain that you will continue to maintain the dam and clear silt and trash if they allow you to keep the dock. They may not be aware of the services you provide and the expense they avoid if you don't bring it to their attention. Also, find out what their actual objection is - Condition? Fear that others will do the same? Insurance liability? Something else?

Issue: When the dock went up could make a difference. Was it there when you bought? Was it there when the developer was still in control?

Question: Whose names are on the deed as grantor and grantee?

Comments: Riparian rights usually have to do with passage or use of water. Nothing in your post gives me the impression that passage is needed or that dock is necessary. Like others have said, can't claim adverse possession if you acknowledged someone else's ownership (either developer or HOA). If lake is a common element, then you have a right to use - Doesn't mean that you have a right to your own private structure on common property.

Answers to your questions (this is long, so ignore unless you're really interested):

I moved here 30 years ago. My survey shows I have lakefront property. Due to drought, the water level was low, and there was a lot of exposed sediment in front of my property. About 28 years ago, I built a small bridge over the narrow waterway to the sediment island to get access to the lake. I painted it a light blue gray (more about this later). About 20 years ago, we build a dock on the far side of the bridge. The dock sits on top of the sediment on the other side of the waterway. Later I added a wooded walkway from my fence to the bridge. I did state originally that the subdivision has no covenants. The are voluntary homeowner dues that I have been paying since we moved in. The lakefront area behind my house is not accessible by anyone unless they gain access by walking across my or a neighbor property or come across the lake, so no one else really uses the space. I've always considered it my space. All the lakefront owners were under the understanding that we owned the lake rights and had full access. This is what we were told over the years when we asked about the lake.

The objection to my dock - my next door neighbor is a lawyer and now president of the HOA. He move into the subdivision around 1993. My neighbor is very aware of the work my wife and I do to maintain the lake. He has seen us working in the muck. Also, he helped me repaired the dam 2 or 3 times over the years, and the board has since agreed that it is the HOA's responsibility. We used to be good friends. I'm sad about this.

I had recently done some maintenance to the dock and walkway, including pressure washing and repainting everything. He said his wife didn't like the color and asked that I repaint it. I asked other neighbors around the lake, and they had no problem with the color - a bluish gray. He then claimed that the dock impedes the natural flow of the runoff from the ditch between our properties.

A year ago, he had the county send an Erosion Control specialist out to inspect the placement of my dock, complaining that it's in the way of the natural flow of the stream (actually a runoff ditch). He stated in the HOA minutes that the inspector found a violation and that I was ordered to remove the dock. He also stated that the HOA owned the property under my dock. I contacted the County Erosion Control manager who came out with his original inspector. He said there was no problem with my dock and that if there had been a problem, we would have been cited the same day. My wife is pretty sharp and did a lot of research on state and county ordinances about lakes and runoff ditches. She also located surveys of the subdivision and properties around the lake. That's when I discovered that the subdivision did not have title to the half of the lake my property borders. The original builder neglected to turn over the deed to the subdivision. The HOA president at the time and the board members agreed to drop the matter.

Just this week, the HOA got the builder's heirs to turn over the deed to the subdivision, and my neighbor decided to reopen the complaint. A lawyer called us yesterday to tell us he is representing the HOA, and we have 60 days to remove the dock, bridge, and walkway. I then called the HOA board treasurer to ask what he knows about the complaint. He had no knowledge of it and said that he would have to approve hiring and paying a lawyer. I plan to discuss the matter with the other board members to find out what they know.

I'm looking into adverse possession and also prescriptive easement. I'm not sure I can use either. The HOA recently acquired the deed. What is in my favor is that they thought they owned the property when they first complained last year.

I have never heard of either a lawyer or an HOA serving notice by telephone. It sounds suspiciously like your lawyer-neighbor is up to no good.

Yep, all initial contact I've seen from attorneys are written and sent certified or by messenger.

Ed IMHO GET AN ATTORNEY this is not the time for self help. Reasonable discourse can only occur between reasonable parties and it sounds like this attorney's wife rules the roost and there is no telling the depth he might sink to to get peace at home.

Yes, we are consulting an attorney on Monday. Been doing some research on lawyers with experience with these kinds of matters. Thanks again for all your feedback and advice.

If I'm not mistake Bob, Canada's Torrens system provides a government-sponsored guarantee of title. US states (except MA and HI) rely exclusively on private title insurance. Govt bears no responsibility.

NpS - right on the button. ( Ontarions actually buy lots of title insurance here because the jurisdiction's "guarantee" (one of 3 principles along with 'mirroring' & 'compensation') tends to put victims through a sort of bureaucratic Hell after blissfully allowing title fraud by total strangers.)

The vulnerable easement debate here (the Ramsay case ) :
Govt : "If the easement is a title-registered promise instead of a true interest in land, then - if uncited for 40 years nor revived in time by Form (32) - it can be ignored by subsequent good faith buyers for full value. Anyway we passed the law." ( think : the Florida MRTA wars).

But Courts : "We don't like allowing a genuine interest in land to be killed just because of a 40 year title searching limit. This ain't CCR's being eclipsed Florida style MRTA"


JeffT2 Isn't this the HOA argument ? :

"The timeliness calculation cannot start start until we get legal title. Anyway EdY's usage primarily speaks to supporting our group rights awaiting transfer from developer, not to any contrary private one for his own property." EdY's lawyer can answer.