Posted on 08/04/2021 2:02:01 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
or almost three decades, 81-year-old David Lidstone has lived in the woods of New Hampshire along the Merrimack River in a small cabin adorned with solar panels. He has grown his own food, cut his own firewood, and tended to his cat and chickens.
But his off-the-grid existence appears to be at risk.
...“You came with your guns, you arrested me, brought me in here, you’ve got all my possessions. You keep ’em,” he told a judge at a hearing Wednesday. “I’ll sit here with your uniform on until I rot, sir.” “It’s lying, cheating corrupt judges like you that are stepping on little people like me. But I’m telling you, sir, you step on me, I’m going to bite your ankle.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I don’t think it matters whether someone gave him verbal permission to live there. I believe the statute of frauds applies, which requires written contracts for pretty much all real estate transactions.
As a Realtor for many years, these types of cases are studied each year. The laws are different state by state, but adverse possession occurs after a statutory amount of time. Should a land owner not remove someone from the property, they risk losing the property.
Often you see this with property line disputes where fencing is put up wrong and if nothing is done over a period of time. The new property lines can follow what the new fence lines are.
Bottom line is, as a property owner, you need to be aware of what is happening on your property or you could end up on the wrong side of a judge's decision.
He had permission at one time, he claimed.
But then in 2017, permission was revoked. He was told to vacate and he didn’t.
It’s on him then.
And who knows if that story about a verbal agreement is even real. That is why you need stuff in writing; 27 years later and how can he expect that to hold water.
Maybe he could try and run an ad for the finding of the prior owner and this agreement; maybe that could help.
Actually, if the squatter has been cutting his own firewood, it’s like from trees on the property he didn’t own.
In that event, since the landowner was harvesting trees as income from the property, then the squatter was actually taking some of his potential profits.
Can’t just leave an old man alone
I live in Indiana. I have a neighbor lady from New Hampshire. She is a devout Christian and a Trump supporter. She moved here because her married sister and her husband wanted her to live close.
Her whole family are Trump supporters and think democrats are demons.
Charges for which the Default is to Decline Prosecuting (unless supervisor permission is obtained).
Trespassing
Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
Larceny under $250
Disorderly conduct
Disturbing the peace
Receiving stolen property
Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
Wanton or malicious destruction of property
Threats – excluding domestic violence
Minor in possession of alcohol
Drug possession
Drug possession with intent to distribute
A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge
Instead of prosecuting, these cases should be (1) outright dismissed prior to arraignment or (2) where appropriate, diverted and treated as a civil infraction for which community service is satisfactory, restitution is satisfactory or engagement with appropriate community-based no-cost programming, job training or schooling is satisfactory. In the exceptional circumstances where prosecution of one of these charges is warranted, the line DA must first seek permission from his or her supervisor. If necessary, arraignment will be continued to allow for consultation with supervisor. Thus, there will be an avenue for prosecuting these misdemeanors when necessary but it will be appropriately overseen by experienced prosecutors.
Note: this is essentially already happening for drug possession cases in Roxbury and Dorchester District Court.
If I recall the article, the previous owner of the land had a handshake deal. Nothing in writing. The new owner didn’t even know about the guy.
The issue here is that the property owner is liable for sanitary conditions on the property which flow into the Merrimack River. Budweiser used to be brewed using Merrimack River water. Not sure I want this guys fecal matter in my Bud Light.
So the property owner is saying, get out so you don’t cost ME money.
Worked on a title claim once where a 3x wide gravel drive was between house A and B. House A had used the entire driveway for 20 years for parking. House B had its own driveway on the other side of the dwelling.
House B sells to new owner and finds out 1/2 of house A drive belongs to house B. Title claim is made and it goes to court. The Judge ruled house A was entitled to ownership of the entire driveway right up to the edge of the B dwelling.
Well, this way he gets his Thoreau moment in the clink too! (It was Emerson’s cabin - but Thoreau DID have permission!)
The legend is what Thoreau really wanted and never got was Emerson’s Lake with the Palmers!
I know a bit more about it than I'd like to because of where I grew up in Montana. Montanans under the state constitution are guaranteed access to all navigable rivers and streams and any land between the high water marks. there have been many attempts by private landowners to restrict this privilege.
The Montana Stream Access Law says that anglers, floaters and other recreationists in Montana have full use of most natural waterways between the high-water marks for fishing and floating, along with swimming and other river or stream-related activities. In 1984, the Montana Supreme Court held that the streambed of any river or stream that has the capability to be used for recreation can be accessed by the public regardless of whether the river is navigable or who owns the streambed property.
Private landowners wanted to charge for access to fish the trout streams. Private landowners with ranches containing leased BLM sections did not want people to access the BLM-owned sections from the streams because they wanted to charge hunters for access to public land locked in by private land.
Also there is a law in Montana that you can walk any section line regardless of who owns it.
I had to know these "navigation laws" so that I could hunt and fish in the better areas and I never 'got pinched' by the law because I was always within my rights and carried a BLM map of the area I was in.
I still hate eminent domain used to allow private developers to take the private property of others.
if we didn’t have eminent domain for roads and bridges what a mess we would live in.
One of the advantages of our very rural CT town is there is no public water or sewer anywhere in town. In fact there is none within miles of the town line.
~~~
The you-must-pay mindset still pervades. They will punish you for not being on the grid. You can tell me if this has happened there yet, but in some places they require you to show proof of annual inspections or pay a fine. Now don’t get me wrong, I think periodic inspections are probably not a bad idea, but who decided the frequency of that? Someone pissed off people aren’t paying for services. That’s who.
What law(s) did he violate?
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.