Posted on 12/28/2020 11:49:54 AM PST by 11th_VA
The resolution of a decade’s-long court case brought by a Virginia property owner required White’s Ferry, the historic Potomac River crossing in Poolesville, Maryland, to stop using its traditional landing across the river.
As a result, the ferry operator announced its closure via a Facebook post at 10 a.m., December 28, 2020.
For over two centuries, the ferry has docked on the Virginia side of the river.
A Virginia court ruled the ferry could no longer dock on the opposite shore at White’s Ferry Road in Loudoun County.
In fact, the judge, Stephen E. Sincavage of the Loudoun County Circuit Court awarded damages to the Virginia property owners in excess of $100,000, agreed that White’s Ferry had been trespassing since the end of a licensing agreement in 2004 and through an injunction, prevented White’s Ferry from continuing to use the land. The decision was written in late November.
The owners of the land in Virginia, known as Rockland, complained that White’s Ferry was unlawfully occupying its land. White’s Ferry argued for its right to use the landing due to having customers and business operations on that side of the river for over two centuries.
The case has been postponed and delayed and dismissed throughout the years before the most recent decision, written by Judge Steven E. Sincavage on Nov. 23, 2020...
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
“All of the Potomac river right up to the shore in Virginia is part of the state of Maryland.”
Generally but not exactly.
I expect that behind the corruption is a deal to muscle out this ferry owner and then have another one come in afterwards and take over the route.
Lee crossed at White’s Ford on his way to Antietam. The ford is about three miles upstream from today’s White’s Ferry, which was known as Conrad’s Ferry during the Civil War. The approximate site of White’s Ford is marked with a sign along the C&O Canal towpath. It’s also close to a canal access point tucked into the woods along backroads adjacent to the Dickerson power plant.
I read the judge's opinion. It technically wasn't a fine, but an award of damages to reflect the cost of removing a retaining wall the ferry co. built without authorization. One would think that with an existing profitable business, the landowner and ferry operator would work out some sort of rental payment. Of course, it could be that the landowner is well-to-do and would prefer the additional privacy over a few thousand bucks of rent every month.
It is enshrined if you actually have a right of way. The ferry company did not have a right of way over the land of the plaintiff. This was a property rights case - nothing more nothing less. Conservatives should actually applaud the decision because it upheld private property rights.
I don’t know about wanting someone else to take over the ferry, but I’d bet a jelly donut and a cup of coffee that you’re right about some unstated motive. It may be that a development company wants to build riverside estates and wants to clear the access road; Leesburg is sprawling something awful and is well on its way to becoming an extension of Fairfax County, which means that they will now worship automobiles, two hour commutes and strip malls. I would also not be surprised if this turns out to be part of a power play to force another Potomac River bridge. Montgomery County has been holding the line on sprawl in the western part of the county, which is designated an “agricultural preserve,” but commuter tract housing is popping up all around Poolesville. Developers and commuters never saw a tree that they didn’t want to cut or a scenic byway that they didn’t want to turn into an eight lane expressway. Busting Montgomery County’s land use planning is a big objective for those who think DC would be improved if the suburban gridlock ran all the way out to Hagerstown.
“Right of Way” is enshrined in all property law.
Absolutely correct. The mere existence of the previous license agreement was an acknowledgement by both parties that the ferry company did not have a right to use the land. The problem is that the ferry company continued using the property after the license terminated. They should have just renegotiated the license when it terminated.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we conservatives should be happy with this decision because the judge affirmed the supremacy of private property rights. The people on this thread saying the judge is corrupt are beyond clueless.
Drove right by there one time and didn’t even realize it.
ML/NJ
The ferry has been operating for 200 years. There has been a landing and an access road for 200 years. That should carry a great deal of weight; I'll leave it to the lawyers to parse the doctrines involved, but closing a public thoroughfare or, in this case, a ferry that has been in continuous operation for 200 years is anything but a routine exercise of private property rights.
I read the judge's decision, though I didn't study it in detail. The judge (a Virginia judge siding with a Virginia plaintiff against a Maryland defendant) was at great pains to say that he wasn't vacating an 1871 court case that supposedly settled the access question; what the judge held is that the exact location of the landing and access road recognized in the 1871 case wasn't mapped well enough to precisely locate it down to yards, feet and inches on today's map. (Since the landing site is on the bank of a river subject to epic flooding, the exact site may well have moved a bit, though the roadbeds leading to the ferry site are probably reliable indicators.) The judge therefore ruled that he wasn't vacating the 1871 decision but he was, rather, simply ignoring it, as the precise boundaries are indeterminable by the judge's current standards of precision.
My layman's sense is that this may be the kind of trick that won't stand up on appeal, if the White's Ferry people fight it. I hope they can reach a deal quickly and that the ferry will resume operations. It's a colorful piece of regional history that would be missed.
Now. Let's see Plaintiff's title, because surely they encompass part of the 1871 Order. How did Defendant's counsel miss this; and/or the opportunity to insist upon a forensic survey restaking the 1871 Order.
Riverbank erosion is not that much of an issue if Defendant can show consistent egress to the same spot for a century -- 1871-1971 -- buttressed by the fact that this lawsuit originated from Defendant removing an old 'low wall' that the river had never bothered to swallow up.
Defense had the right theory of the case but didn't slam dunk it. I'd appeal it and get that forensic survey post-haste.
I'm surprised that the court didn't rule that an easement existed. If people customarily use land to transit or even to dwell and the property owner does not make a claim within a set number of years (usually seven), "squatter's rights" apply. The transfer of ownership does not restart the clock.
Yep. Build a bridge, run a spur to 119, and destroy that still-nice part of Maryland.
And Jubal Early, the former commander of Lt. Col. Elijah V. White, who purchased “Coonrod’s” ferry after the war, hence the name of the ferry. Ferry needed for the deeper water area at that point, more commonly used specific shoal areas to cross, and frequently Seneca Ford and at Point of Rocks. Mosby’s being the 43rd Battalion (Partisan Rangers) from Loudon and Fauquier counties. Elijah V. White’s “Comanches” being the 35th Battalion (Partisan Rangers). Both units raided for supplies and wreaked havoc on the C&O Canal and other private businesses.
The current owners of Rockland (run as a wedding venue, and other revenue means) have published a history of the contretemps. Posting after this.
With a name like White Ferry, you are going to offend a lot of people.
they aren’t going after people’s names yet, it is named after a real person. there are a lot of people with colors as there last name... white, black, brown etc.
Take the ferry up within a few feet of shore and sink it so that it’s a eyesore.
“Historic Rocklands” farcebook post of explanation. It has been a long, long contention with prior owners as well.
Quote:
“Historic Rockland
2 hrs · Today.
In 1871, Loudoun County condemned a landing at Rockland Farm of 1 perch by 16 perches for a Ferry landing called Conrad’s Ferry. At that time there were many ferries that crossed the Potomac River between Virginia and Maryland such as Edward’s Ferry and Sphinx Ferry. Unfortunately, there are no records that show where the condemnation for Conrad’s ferry occurred. In 1947, Elijah White wanted to reopen Conrad’s Ferry under the name White’s Ferry after a terrible flood which had closed Conrad’s ferry for a long time. They sent a letter to Rockland Farm acknowledging that they had no right to use Rockland’s property for the landing and asked the owners of Rockland Farm, for an agreement. In 1952, Elizabeth Rust Brown and Stanley Noel Brown, owners of Rockland Farm entered into a licensing agreement with White’s Ferry for $5.00 per year for the use of a landing at Rockland Farm so long as the ferry landing was never changed or enlarged under its current configuration. Since that time, White’s Ferry evolved from being a small operation of a few cars per day to a major commuter route.
Sixteen years ago, on July 4th weekend, White’s Ferry (without prior notification or permission from Rockland and without obtaining any government permits) unlawfully enlarged the ferry landing and built structures on Rockland. So doing violated a license agreement between White’s Ferry and Rockland that had been in place for more than half a century. Since then Rockland has been attempting to work out some fair arrangement with the owners of White’s Ferry. In response, all White’s Ferry has done is to delay, delay, delay, all the while making millions of dollars off the use of Rockland. Finally, after being stonewalled time and again by White’s Ferry, Rockland had no choice but to file suit on December 2, 2009. After many attempts to settle the case out of court which delayed the trial by years, the suit was decided in Rockland’s favor on November 23rd, 2020. The court definitively ruled that the owners of White’s Ferry had been and are trespassing and are no longer able to make use of Rockland without Rockland’s permission.
Since that decision over four weeks ago, Rockland Farm has made numerous attempts to reach White’s Ferry in order to negotiate a fair and equitable solution that will keep the ferry running. Rockland has offered to purchase White’s ferry, to be paid rent for its land, and to consider other arrangements that will keep the ferry running. On multiple occasions, White’s Ferry told Rockland Farm that it would get back to Rockland on certain dates, but missed their own deadlines. Multiple attempts to reach White’s Ferry have gone unanswered. All the while White’s Ferry continued, unjustly and now in violation of a court ruling, to make money off of the use of Rockland.
Rockland Farm knows that it is in everyone’s best interest to keep the ferry running and sent White’s Ferry an interim licensing agreement so that the ferry operation could continue without interruption until a deal between the two parties could be negotiated. Rockland Farm received no response from White’s Ferry. Having not gotten a response from White’s Ferry, Rockland Farm wrote to them last Wednesday letting them know that if Rockland did not hear back from them by noon on Monday, it would send a final notice of entry of Order to the court. Instead of engaging with Rockland Farm to negotiate a fair and equitable arrangement to keep the ferry running, the response by White’s Ferry was to close the ferry and walk away from the business.”
I think your last sentence is spot on. By signing a lease the ferry company was clearly acknowledging that it didn’t have a right to use the property under some kind of public access or “adverse possession” type of arrangement.
I am a big believer in property rights.
My train of thought was along the lines that the “property owners” might have given up their rights on or about the year 1795 because of the access road clearly shown on maps and the continuous use for approximately 200 years.
In other words, was the deed faulty for over 200 years?
Property owners should be aware of legal traps
I am not a lawyer but if I were and had this case, I would have pursued the matter over the validity of the deed....faulty for over 200 years and the present owners had no legal right to lease that over which they had no rights.
And were I the ferry owners, I would appeal on the basis that I had incompetent representation.
Now wouldn’t that be a fun case?
Ok, let's see it happen. Apparently it can be had for cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.