My family is working through dividing up a piece of land into 5 parts after the death of my grandmother. The most logical split would result in one piece not having access to a county road.

I've suggested an easement be granted to that piece.
And a relative, who may or may not know s* from shinola (tbd), is saying that such an easement is no longer an accepted practice and that parcel must "own" road frontage.

Does that make sense?

Here is a really informative article. I have a Lavaca Co deal I am working on that supposedly has a 50 year old access agreement in the deed that states something like "20' wide access through Aunt Jill's land". The property behind my deal is land locked without that agreement.

flagpole

Flag lots do offer fee access to road frontage. They also come with their own unique problems. Look into the width of your County's minimum required lot frontage. Many people are surprised to find it is 60 feet in a lot of places and that it applies to the whole height of the flagpole. That's 1 acre on the tax roll for every 726 feet of driveway.

A well drafted easement in a family partition may be easier in the long run. If going that route I would recommend widening the easement at the road frontage to at least the County's minimum for a variety of reasons. And maintain that width to several times the depth.

chris1515 said:

---

…if only you knew…

At some point I'm going to write up a long post about everything I've learned during this process. And things people should and should NOT do when it comes to leaving a will/estate planning.

---

If I were a betting man I would bet that you're experiencing the joy that is undivided interests in land. Been there and have the hole in my wallet.

Yep. Two places.
350 acres in one and 750 in the other. 5 kids.

And a will that stated all heirs will "share and share alike".

I'd like to kick that lawyers ass for writing such. But that was written 35 years ago.

Long long story…

One solution might be to have the heir with the landlocked parcel sell it to one of the others. Everyone would have to agree of course, and at least one of them would have to have the money.

So what's a better solution for folks who own land to distribute to heirs in will? Genuinely curious from those who've had practical experience.

chris1515 said:

---

Yep. Two places.
350 acres in one and 750 in the other. 5 kids.

And a will that stated all heirs will "share and share alike".

I'd like to kick that lawyers ass for writing such. But that was written 35 years ago.

Long long story…

---

What a mess! Best of luck dealing with it now. I've run into a few of these situations that were a generation or two down the road.

The owners need to carve it up in their will. And clearly designate who gets what and don't leave it to the heirs to sort out. If they can't bring themselves to make the division, hire an impartial third party to do it.

Or, not popular but less drama, set things up to be sold after death. Taxes will be minimal and everyone gets an equal share.

CS78 said:

---

Or, not popular but less drama, set things up to be sold after death. Taxes will be minimal and everyone gets an equal share.

---

Or, place in a family trust or partnership as one parcel and let everyone enjoy. Then, as folks want to capitalize it, the partnership has right of first refusal to purchase it and keep it whole.

In this case most of the land has been in the family for over 100 years. So there wasn't much appetite to see it sold off.

As for sharing it…that'd be a joke.

Technically, the only true ways to share and share alike are by keeping it as one piece and having everyone with equal use or selling and then equally dividing. Otherwise, nothing is truly equal. Bring it up with the executor and let them know you would be willing to consider other legal actions if this cannot be worked out equally (letter and intent of will) by all parties amicably.

If you're going to have to reply that anyway. Want to make it an easement? Why not replied it with the easement actually in that one piece of properties plot.

In my experience, it is going to get ugly, no matter what. Always look out for your own best interests if the group won't agree to keep it whole in a family partnership with clearly documented process for selling your own particular share. Then, the land isn't partitioned, and the partners can then decide, if not willing to purchase the share of the partial owner, which part of the land to sell so the remainder maintains a better value for the whole.

Flag lot is the answer!

chris1515 said:

---

Yep. Two places.
350 acres in one and 750 in the other. 5 kids.

And a will that stated all heirs will "share and share alike".

I'd like to kick that lawyers ass for writing such. But that was written 35 years ago.

Long long story…

---

For what it's worth I wouldn't necessarily blame the lawyer. That is quite common. Having been on that end of the conversation with parents many times, despite my attempts to explain the downsides I would estimate a majority of the time the parents will still want to do "share and share alike." Parents have a hard time believing what kind of sh*t people their kids (and their kids spouses) can be. They assume their kids will be grateful for receiving any kind of unearned inheritance and never anticipate how petty and shallow the beneficiaries will be. Even when I would try to tell them that my experience was at least 90% of the time the beneficiaries end up in some kind of dispute, the parents always assume their kids will the 10% that will work it out

I don't disagree with you that dividing up land should be handled while the landowners are still living but unfortunately the landowners often choose not to follow that advice for numerous reasons: cost, belief that their family can get along, not wanting to be seen as favoring one child over others, desire for flexibility to sell parts of the land before death without having to repartition it, etc.