Obtaining propery under false pretense?

I am a land owner with 5 other people owning other properties. We have a right of way going through our properties. One land owner wanted us to agree eliminating part of a right-of-way because she said she did not have a place to put a house (which I disagreed with) The cost would have been passed on to all of us to change the plat and have it resurveyed. About ,000 ea. After agreeing on a contingent basis we found out that her intentions were all along to divide her lot into 3 and build three houses. She just needed the right of way to give her more land for one of her houses. I call this fraud and obtaining property under false pretense. What do you call it?
She presented it as a win- win situation, which again I opposed. With the so called "second" road eliminated it would be less road to maintain.
Contingent basis….That we would pay for the right – of – way change only if she used it to build A (meaning singular) house. If she decided to put her house elsewhere we would not give up the right of way. This understanding is in written form.
Thank you Hawkeye….very informative.

3 Responses to “Obtaining propery under false pretense?”

  1. wizjp Says:

    Failure to do your dilligence and having the deed for the right of way fail to specify that it only permits a single family dwelling to occupy the abandonment.

    See a lawyer

  2. George S Says:

    Fraud also. You could sue her to make her pay for the expense and compensation for any lost property. First just tell her she misrepresented her intentions and you want compensation. Perhaps she will just pay it.

  3. Hawkeye Says:

    What do you mean "agreeing on a contingent basis."

    Any transaction that involves property MUST be done in writing. No exceptions to the rule. This is known as the Statute of Frauds.

    And…. how in the WORLD did she get YOU and the other landowners to front the cost of the surveying?? There was NOTHING in it for you…. why would you do this?

    She didn’t really "obtain" any new property… she just had part of it reclassified from an Easement (which precluded building) to Fee Simple (absence of an easement just like any other outright property ownership). So basically she changed her rights to USE the land… not her actual ownership of it…. ownership she already had.

    Your loss (and your neighbors too) is just the loss of use of the right of way (easement)….. which you feel was certainly lost due to false assertions on her part. What do think use of that easement is actually worth??? What do you think the house she is building is worth??? Who do you think has enough to lose to fight tooth and nail in court??

    Here’s the deal though…. if you went along with this… and so did your neighbors…. did you think your understanding of what SHE was going to do was binding on her FOREVER???

    What I mean is this… once she has the land she can do with it as she wishes…. she is free to change her mind. So YOUR hurdle is proving this was her intent "all along" as you said…. which may be very hard to do unless she started the subdivision process before asking about the reclassifying the easement.

    You can fight her…. but you might do the most damage by going to a city planning meeting (all of you neighbors) and vocally OPPOSING the subdivision of her lot into 3 lots.