Government on your property
This is a discussion on Government on your property within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I didn't read the article, and I'm certainly no real-estate lawyer. That said, there really is something called "adverse possession," a form of squatters rights. ...
November 24th, 2008 08:30 PM
I didn't read the article, and I'm certainly no real-estate lawyer. That said, there really is something called "adverse possession," a form of squatters rights. Not sure it applies here but it might. Then, it wouldn't really matter what happened in the 1800s, or what the exact title says. It may be that an earlier "owner" actually acquired the property by adverse possession. The history would need to be thoroughly researched.
November 24th, 2008 09:08 PM
The history was reasearched and it was found that the Parks Service does indeed own a 100 foot tract cutting right through the middle of his land.
They have the documentation, it actually dates back to 1856.
Hopyard, what you speak of is true in most cases, but not this one since it is the Federal Gov. and you cant take possession from the Feds.
I'm betting that the "assault charge" against him more than likely wont stand. The ranger that zapped him forged his name on a statement that said he turned down hospital treatment, when in fact he did request to go.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
November 24th, 2008 10:14 PM
Chances are, when the guy bought the land, the deed included something like "English Covenants of Title" or some such - that includes a "warranty of title", by which the seller promises that he really does own all the land, as well as a "warranty of further assurances", which means the seller is obligated to defend the purchaser's title in court as necessary.
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.
November 24th, 2008 10:15 PM
Last edited by HotGuns; November 24th, 2008 at 10:26 PM.
Reason: discussion of illegal activies
USN 78-82/USAF 82-93 Medically Retired
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
DAV Life Member
NRA Life Member
November 24th, 2008 10:43 PM
Which is great if seller is still alive and has assets
Which is great if the seller is still alive and has assets. Even title insurance might not help; companies come and go.
Originally Posted by user
November 28th, 2008 11:47 AM
You forget, the Feds have an unlimited supply of money (ours). The land owner does not.
Originally Posted by PatrioticRick
November 28th, 2008 01:27 PM
I thought I mentioned the money aspect of this way back on page one?
Originally Posted by BikerRN
November 28th, 2008 11:05 PM
OOPS. You sure did. I have bad short term memory I guess.
November 29th, 2008 12:28 PM
I forgot what I mentioned.
November 29th, 2008 05:03 PM
An unfortunate circumstance, purchasing land you have no right to.
Want to bet some bunny hugger with too much free time on their hands, angered at the trees along their bike path being harvested, did some digging and ratted him out to the NPS?
As for the rest, there's more to it than that media segment, bet both halves of that farm on it.
As for what I would have done? Consulted an attorney.
One thing, though, despite a certain sympathy for his situation:
It was most unwise of Mr. Gross, following his local law enforcement explaining that the NPS had a right to be where they were, to pursue the manner in such a way that a NPS deemed in prudent to have a NPS LEO on scene, and that despite that LEO's presence, Mr. Gross chose the course of action that he did. A course of action with a relatively predictable result; arrest.
Too bad the reporters decided the police report and court record details didn't fit whatever spin they were trying to put on things. We really cannot comment too much one way or the other without knowing the details.
Maybe more info will come out.
November 29th, 2008 08:52 PM
On the contrary, I believe it's the other way around. He has EVERY right to that land and uncle can stuff it. How is it that we as a society have been dumb enough to allow a government to "own" land? What does that tell you? Oh yeah, we have no rights to private property because we can only own what the government tells us we can own.
Originally Posted by Erik
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
November 29th, 2008 10:47 PM
Government ownership of property
I don't understand your thought here. Why should the government not own land or property?
Originally Posted by packinnova
It happens all the time. Land is purchased and a school, jail, or city hall is put on it. Land is purchased and a court house is built on it. Land is purchased and a government research laboratory is erected on it.
How else could government operate schools, jails, courthouses, city halls? Would they be expected to always lease?
The property owned by "the government" is titled in the name of a governmental entity, but it can be sold or further leased out to generate income for other legitimate governmental purposes--perhaps actually saving tax payer money. Buildings and property can and do appreciate and yield positive returns to the owner--us.
What would the alternative to government ownership be? I think the Brits tried quartering their troops in the homes of civilians. That is why there is a prohibition against this practice written into the US Constitution. Would you prefer that practice to buying up property and building military barracks?
I do sort of understand the "limited government" position you tried to stake out, and don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but how could things work in a real practical way without actual ownership of property? Would the owner of a home in which a court was holding a trial be able to kick the court out if he didn't like what the ruling might be? What right would the court have to use a home anyway? And wouldn't that be more intrusive than government ownership?
November 30th, 2008 11:21 PM
Well that's being a bit too fired up considering we are working off of pretty limited, one-sided information that is currently under litigation it appears. The NPS looks to be holding their cards close to their chest so I bet they have some pretty big ones. The main point here at this stage is he THOUGHT he had every right to that land. Assumptions are not evidence of ownership. Lesser attorneys can close on real estate pretty much off of assumptions but title-insurance companies will make them look into it before covering it. Legit attorneys will strongly advise a proper title search, insurance and a survey. They don't want any headaches either. Doesn't look like he looked into it to hard to me and took the cheapest route thinking he knew what he was looking at. Your homeplace is the most important asset you will ever own. Saving a few bucks on the front end and not having a decent closing attorney, decent title-search, skimping on title-insurance and using a 50 year old Plat is a good way to get burned on the backend. You don't own what you THINK you own. You own what is legally described. Plain and simple. You can take it by adverse possession and other ways but these laws are tedious and this is a man who is obviously not too detail oriented. He's complaining about stakes in his hay field which is obviously in the video still a slash pile he hasn't even bothered to clean up, pile up and burn yet. But hey, it sounded good right? I'd hate to see the baler that ran over that crap.
Originally Posted by packinnova
As a surveyor who has succesfully settled boundary disputes for private landowners with the National Forest Service it's not some big steam-rolling machine that is hell bent on always winning and getting more land in my experience. They understand that blunders are possible, records get lost and sometimes fraud happens down the line. They will ALWAYS send their own surveyors out to check against the adjoining property owner's surveyors work. If they agree things click real easy. If they disagree then lawyers get involved. If the adjoining owner is going to be present LEO's are not typically around. If they know the guy is a potential [Edited] they will have LEO's present. Looks like they made a good choice. I don't care if he threw the stakes at the ranger or in the river he obviously was on a pretty good tirade; with his kids watching no less. I always tell my guys that if someone tells you to leave then you leave, whether it's their property or not. Live to work another day. Come back with LEO and people generally act very different. If they don't then lawyers get involved and on rare occasions somebody gets hauled off. That is SUPER rare.
I agree 100% on title insurance as previously mentioned. Title insurance is a cheap no-brainer and is the best protection. The property survey and title search are the only real ways to make a good effort to protect yourself BEFORE closing on the property. I always tell people that whether they use me or not they need to have their property re-surveyed if their plat has some age on it. He obviously did not. He obviously hasn't bothered to contact an attorney to look into his records. He hasn't contacted a surveyor to look at his records. If he has then he doesn't want the news crew to know about it and what's that tell us? He's just going on what he thinks he knows and his side plays very well on TV. I guess the guy really came out smelling like a rose using that 50 year old plat to close on his property huh? I'd bet that the title insurance and a good survey would have been less than 1-2% of his purchase price.
Agreed. The title of the thread probably should change from "government on your property" to "government on what you thought was your property but never really looked into."
Originally Posted by Erik
Last edited by Captain Crunch; December 1st, 2008 at 01:01 AM.
Reason: Deleted a language workaround.
By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 19th, 2010, 02:13 PM
By PastorPack in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: August 26th, 2009, 01:29 AM
By bluesteel in forum Member Buy, Sell & Trade
Last Post: May 31st, 2009, 11:16 AM
By Captain Crunch in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: April 16th, 2009, 01:06 PM