ROW to Cote Grave(s)

General Forum for Danville Topics

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby TomBillbroughJr » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:11 pm

AlfredTwo wrote:I don't understand what is stopping someone in the family from getting a loan and buying the property. Sad if there is no one with the credit to do so alone but seems like several could get together if they wanted to. Either way it doesn't seem like people are working together and that is the really sad part.

The executors of the Will are working together as the property is their inheritance and no one else's. Everyone seems to want to have a say in what should be done with my grandparent's estate, but unfortunately the parties that have the most to say about it, are the parties that had already received their land/inheritance before the deaths of my grandparents. I wouldn't mind buying the property, but I am only 23 and I am not quite ready to settle down and build a house, nor do we have time to rent out the property as "was my grandfather's wishes". I loved my grandparents. My grandfather was one of the most influential people that I have ever had in my life and I miss him dearly, however, I do not associate him with his land or the area in which his ashes were spread. His physical-being was never what I admired about him, and what remains of him is even less significant to me. It would be nice to keep the land, but the debts that my grandparent's incurred (which are more than 40k, not that it really matters) have driven the executors to wish to sell the property. I am in no way to benefit from the sale of estate, but I would love to see a new family start memories of their own there. I hope they can get along with the neighbors.
TomBillbroughJr
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:41 pm

Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby etocc » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:20 pm

Curt unfortunately some people are so set in there ways, even if you have the proof right in front of you they still will not believe you. Back many years ago even before Tomjr was born his mother and her sister were given their land by the deceased free and clear, with no strings attatched. Now for me (Chuck) to "inherit" my land prior to my parents death, I had to pay off outstanding property taxes ($14,000) pay ($15,000) to have Cote Drive built and paved, another ($60,000) for outstanding attorney fees and then ($30,00) towards an old mortgage.

I might not have paid the actual value of the property but I paid. I had to go through Laconia Savings bank and get a loan that was co-signed by my wife's parents (my in-laws) to pay the debts.

But like I said even when you have the proof in hand some people are so pig headed they will not even consider the truth.
etocc
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby TomBillbroughJr » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:27 pm

"Proof" seems to be used pretty liberally on this thread. "Hearsay" maybe a bit more accurate. Or even good, old fashioned "BS". The Town's unofficial forum is hardly the medium for you to complain about what your parents didn't leave you. You were given two parcels of land, why you think you are entitled to three is beyond me and the rest of your siblings. Be grateful for what you have, cherish your parents' memory, move on and get over it. I'm sick of hearing about it and having to deal with it. When I go on vacation and get a voicemail message from my mother, very upset because she had just been threatened by your wife and had to fill out a police report, that is where I draw the line and feel the need to get involved.
You knew your father longer than I did, but from what he taught me about family, I am sure he would be ashamed at how your acting about this. You are not entitled to the land, that has been made explicitly clear by your parent's Will and you know that. If you are so consumed with what your parents' "wishes" were, why can't you just accept the documented wishes that they have and stop trying to attain land that is not yours. You do not need an easement on the property for fire trucks and ambulances. Those are emergency vehicles, and they can handle the mild incline that is your driveway. When the FD starts using Prius-type vehicles, then you might have a valid argument. I have no interest in making your squabbling Town business, and neither should you.
On behalf of my extended family, I would like to apologize for burdening the readers of SOD for having to read about a bratty squabble over a "who-gets-what" and "I-want-more". Complete drivel, all of it.
TomBillbroughJr
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:27 am

Video of 6/7/11 BOS Meeting

Discussion of Cote issue starts at 11:38.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby AlfredTwo » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:51 pm

How do people who don't want the land sold think the debts should be paid off? Are there other assets that have been left that could cover it?
AlfredTwo
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Kimball Terrace, Danville NH

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:08 pm

AlfredTwo wrote:How do people who don't want the land sold think the debts should be paid off? Are there other assets that have been left that could cover it?


This has gotten to be just like the discussions about court cases, where the two sides have seen the official records but readers of SoD have not (until recently -- thanks to BOS). The two sides put out their respective spins and the average reader has no idea how close to or far off from the truth any of it is.

You can go to the probate court in Brentwood, look at the records, and form your own opinion. The records would include wills, appointment of executors or administrators, inventories of real and personal property and debts, financial accounts of administration, motions to the probate judge and the results.

This is how I learned much of my own family's history in Danville.

This is all public information, but it is private business in the sense that the decisions are between the heirs and the probate judge, not the public, unlike a court case involving the town, where residents have every right to assess the conduct of their public officials based on the information about the case.

The public issue at hand is whether the Danville selectmen should use their statutory authority, totally discretionary, to intervene on the side of one branch of the family against another. As I have stated, I think this would be unwise.

Another point against intervention: Even if the property had been sold outside the family, the applicants (for the temporary right of way) have made public statements that they have access to the property as a matter of right, based on the theory of prescription. Although it doesn't say so explicitly in the cited statute, it is implicit that one would only seek relief if one did not have any other legal access to the burial site, whether public or private.

The selectmen meet Monday night. I suggest that they put this to bed at least for now. Here is the motion that I would make if I were a BOS member:

To deny the application for a temporary ROW to an alleged burial site on tax lot 4-2-1, and to suggest to the applicant that he not resubmit the application until the property has been sold outside the family, documentation of a legal burial site has been submitted, and he and his wife have recorded a quitclaim deed to the owner of lot 4-2-1 that relinquishes any and all rights in 4-2-1 by title from his parents, from title to the adjacent lots 4-2 or 4-2-2, by prescription, or for any other reason, and that there is no commitment from the BOS to grant the application in any event.


The reason for making a suggestion about resubmission as opposed to putting on firm conditions is that the current BOS cannot tie the hands of a future BOS.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:01 pm

The BOS minutes of 5/31/11 wrote:Charles Cote brought before the Board a request for Board Approval asking for a burial site easement under
RSA 259:14 Right of Way to Private Burial Ground. Charles stated his father was interred on estate property
that is for sale he would like access to the burial site. Conversation followed and it was determined that a
permit was not issued for a private burial site, his father’s remains were buried and scattered at the site, and the
marker placed at the area had been moved and placed elsewhere when the property was listed for sale by the
executrix of the estate.
Vice-chair Giordano asked if an easement could be included in the deed when it was sold and Mr. Cote stated
he was currently not allowed on the property; he was not an heir to this parcel. The Board asked Mr. Cote to
provide them with the parcel plot marking where the ashes were located and his attorney’s opinion on the
matter. The Board stated they would do some research regarding remains versus ashes and permits, etc. Patty
was asked to seek the Estate executrix’s input, as well.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:33 am

The BOS minutes of 6/6/11 wrote:II. Charles Cote – Right of Way

Mr. Cote was not in attendance. The Board had asked him to bring them a copy of the parcel plot with the gravesite marked and any correspondence from his attorney that addressed this matter. Neither were submitted to the Board. Chairman O’Neil read an excerpt received from the attorney for the Estate of Patricia Cote that outlined the need for a burial permit, etc. Vice-chair Giordano noted RSA 290:5 also referring to the requirement of a burial permit that needs to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and must be in place, with all permit requirements met, for a plot to be designated as a Burial Plot. Vice-chair Giordano made the motion, seconded by Selectman Harding, to not sign the Right of Way access requested by Charles Cote. Motion passed unanimously.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby safety frog » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:25 am

Sounds like the proper decision was made.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:37 am

RSA 290:5 wrote: 290:5 Burial Permit Required. – No interment of the dead body of a human being, nor disposition of the body in a tomb or vault, shall be made without a permit, and only in accordance with it. No disinterment, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, of the dead body of a human being shall be made without a permit from the department of state, countersigned by the local health officer, and only in accordance with such permit. Before a disinterment permit is granted, the surviving spouse, parents, and children, who are 18 years of age or older, of the deceased human being shall be given written notice by certified mail of the disinterment request and shall be afforded 10 days from the written notice to object to the disinterment before the permit is issued. Such disinterment permit shall not be required for removal of such dead body from a tomb or vault for the purpose of burial, for reinterment of dead bodies after discontinuance of a public cemetery, as provided in RSA 289:15 and 289:16, if a body is to be removed within the geographic boundaries of the same cemetery, nor in a case where an autopsy has been ordered by a county attorney or the attorney general. No person shall assist in, assent to, or allow an interment or disinterment to be made until a permit has been obtained under this section. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.


No requirement to record at the registry of deeds. But it would be a good idea to do it via a plot plan or less expensively via a sworn affidavit.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby etocc » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:14 pm

Rsa 290:5 is the error the Selectmen made , you only need a permit if you intern a dead body, no permit is required to intern cremated remains , either way it is a buriel ground per rsa 289.1 with or without a permit . and the law is clear when the property changes ownership the law say's shall be recorded on the deed .

289:1 Definitions. – In this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
I. "Burial ground'' means a private family or religious institution's cemetery, mausoleum, or columbarium on private property and not available for use by the public. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "family'' shall mean members of the immediate family and any individuals related by blood or marriage or civil union to members of the immediate family.
II. "Burial space'' means a lot in any cemetery, mausoleum, or columbarium as designed and intended for the interment of a human body, bodies, or remains, but presently not used for such purpose.
289:3 Location. – All cemeteries and burial grounds shall be laid out in accordance with the following requirements:
I. No cemetery shall be laid out within 100 feet of any dwelling house, schoolhouse or school lot, store or other place of business without the consent of the owner of the same, nor within 50 feet of a known source of water or the right of way of any classification of state highway. Existing cemeteries which are not in compliance with the above set-back requirements may be enlarged, provided that no portion of the enlargement is located any closer to the above-listed buildings, water sources or highways than the existing cemetery, and provided further that no such enlargement shall be located within 50 feet of any classification of state highway.
II. Burials on private property, not in an established burial ground, shall comply with local zoning regulations. In the absence of such regulations, such burial sites shall comply with the requirements in paragraph I. The location of the burial site shall be recorded in the deed to the property upon transfer of the property to another person. III. New construction, excavation, or building in the area of a known burial site or within the boundaries of an established burial ground or cemetery shall comply with local zoning regulations concerning burial sites, burial grounds or cemeteries, whether or not such burial site or burial ground was properly recorded in the deed to the property. In the absence of such regulations, no new construction, excavation, or building shall be conducted within 25 feet of a known burial site or within 25 feet of the boundaries of an established burial ground or cemetery, whether or not such burial site or burial ground was properly recorded in the deed to the property, except when such construction, excavation, or building is necessary for the construction of an essential service, as approved by the governing body of a municipality in concurrence with the cemetery trustees, or in the case of a state highway, by the commissioner of the department of transportation in concurrence with the cemetery trustees.
IV. Nothing in this section shall be construed to conflict with RSA 290, local ordinances, or cemetery rules concerning burials and disinterments of human remains
etocc
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby curt » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:10 pm

See also RSA 325-A Cremations.

You might be right in some or all of what you are saying.

Regardless, the selectmen's power is discretionary and they should not use it on your behalf. Therefore they shouldn't spend any more time discussing it, much less spending money for legal advice.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: ROW to Cote Grave(s)

Postby AlfredTwo » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:52 am

Seems to me that the Selectmen should stay out of it until there is agreement among the family. Never a good idea to get in the middle of a family dispute when it is possible to stay out of it.
AlfredTwo
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Kimball Terrace, Danville NH

Previous

Return to Danville General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron