On the other hand, the parts of these agreements include the terms of the contract. These contractual requirements are contractually contractually employment with the sale of the land to new owners. For example, the agreement generally requires landowners to share electricity and maintenance costs. In addition, parties generally have to share water production when there is no water available to meet the needs. In addition, dispute resolution conditions, restrictions on the addition of new parties, limitation of water use or description of the withdrawn process may include. If a well needs to be repaired, the agreement must indicate who is responsible for the repair. As a general rule, each landowner is responsible for the pipes that serve their own apartments and must share the cost of repairs to common appliances such as water pipes, pumps or a well house. Who receives commandments? How many offers do you need? How do the parties choose between competing offers? Developing a maintenance plan is a useful way to structure each party`s schedule, costs and responsibilities. The agreement should define the procedure for deciding and executing reparations. If repairs affect third-party use or if the parties must allocate costs, repairs must be subject to the prior agreement of the parties involved. On the other hand, the terms of the agreement are sometimes not written.
The sale of neighbouring land served by a common well or the subdivision of real estate and the provision of well water by pipeline may create an unwritten agreement on well sharing. In the event of a dispute, the parties may take legal action to establish the agreement as tacit relief or an irrevocable license. Since the parties must define the terms of unwritten relief through costly litigation, parties who share a well should consider drafting a written agreement instead of «handshake agreements.» We discussed these kinds of agreements in a free webiner here. There is a debate about what was said at the October 7, 2008 meeting. Everyone testified that he told Adams at that meeting that there were two water sources for the property – the Well Shared and the Farm Well – and that the Shared Well was not connected to the irrigation system. Adams testified: (1) One of the Beckers told him that the shared tree could provide water for the sprinklers on the property and that the farm well was not necessary to cover the property`s water needs; (2) Allen had told him that the well Farm operation would not be continued after the sale; and (3) no one told him that the irrigation system was not connected to the shared tree. Adams also stated that it was not until well after the sale that she discovered that the shared tree was not connected to the sprinkler/watering system. Neither Allen nor Adams could recall whether, at the October 7, 2008 meeting, anything had been said about whether the sprinkler system was fully automatic. On June 27, 2012, the Beckers sought a summary judgment on all claims.
They submitted that (1) the Beckers would not have held responsible for a misrepresentation in the MLS list, because (a) adams, at the October 7, 2008 meeting, had clearly explained the existence of the second well and (b) had never checked the MLS list prior to its publication and therefore had not been aware of its contents; (2) they would never have made a positive statement that the shared tree would provide water to the land; (3) there was never any intention to cheat or deceive; (4) The Humphries relied on the advice of their real estate agent and not on the MLS list or disclosure form to establish their imprecise belief that the Shared Well is the only source of water on the property; (5) the Humphries failed to rule or ask questions about the amount of the damage; (6) the Beckers have disclosed to their real estate agents all relevant facts and are not responsible for the disclosure of the necessary information by these non-agents; (7) Allen and Jane were not Eileen`s agents; and (8) Humphries` complaint did not render the fraud circumstantial