Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 7 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

1,225
Posts
561
Votes
Scott Weaner
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Yardley, PA
561
Votes |
1,225
Posts

Interesting Legal Dilemma

Scott Weaner
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Yardley, PA
Posted

I have an interesting legal dilemma. I own an unusual property in Mount Laurel. It is a townhome-type property that consists of 1/2 of the 2nd floor and the 3rd floor of a 3 story building. The lower unit has the 1st and 1/2 of the second. it has a shared driveway. The backyard is strictly owned/used by the 1st-floor owner who is an absentee landlord. That unit is unoccupied. I have already done roof and driveway repairs at my expense.

The neighbors are complaining that a retaining wall in the backyard is collapsing. This retaining wall is there due to a change in elevation between the 2 connected properties. My feeling is that this would be the responsibility of the owner of the lower unit. Of course, I could be totally wrong...nothing new there!

Any thoughts?

Loading replies...