Neighbor Wars·
WELL OF CONTENTION
A California cottage owner discovers years of an unrecorded well-sharing pact with a neighbor, sparking a high-stakes dispute over water rights, vandalism, and looming lawsuits.
Pay the demand or call a lawyer?
Be one of the first to vote.
The dispute started with a well, and a neighbor who claimed half of it.
A new cottage owner in Kern County, California bought a property with a well on the land, only to learn that the neighbor next door had been plumbed into it for years and now says he has a half interest in the water. The neighbor, according to the poster, even says he "had a third interest for a few years 20 years ago," tracing the arrangement back through a chain of owners long since dead.
The problem, the poster says, is that none of that ever made it into the public record. The "informal agreement with the owner two generations ago was never recorded ,no covenant with the land, all parties are deceased." The poster says, "I never signed anything," and says a realtor had told them the setup was a recorded agreement. Later, after the neighbor listed his own place for sale in July, the poster checked the title and found that "it wasn't recorded."
That discovery changed the tone fast. When the poster told the neighbor he had no right to the water, the neighbor responded by offering cash, "(not much)", in exchange for a new contract giving him a half interest, so he could sell his cottage with the arrangement attached.
Then the plumbing issues escalated into a fight over safety.
An oak tree crushed the neighbor's rooftop water tank. The poster says the tank was left "gapping open," and the neighbor tried to patch it with duct tape. Calling it "a health issue," the poster cut off the neighbor's pipe. After that, the poster hooked the well up to their own house, saying the well had not been plumbed to their place when they bought the cottage.
Now the neighbor and his lawyer are demanding money. The poster says they want "$20,000 (and an additional $200. Per day until full restoration)" and are giving ten days: "In 10 days or he sues."
According to the poster, the lawyer claims the poster "admitted to vandalism" and "acknowledged the existence of an unrecorded agreement." The poster disputes that framing and is now asking the obvious next question: "Is this extortion and should I lawyer up?"