Posted on 08/05/2021 11:03:06 AM PDT by Red Badger
Edited on 08/05/2021 11:48:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
CANTERBURY, N.H. — For 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at weartv.com ...
If he was there for 27 years, at least in some jurisdictions, he would own it. usucapio laws allowed someone who was in possession of a good without title to become the lawful proprietor if the original owner did not appear after some time
He said the original owner gave him permission. And so he is NOT a squatter. When the permission ended, so did his free ride.
Nope...It would have to be in writing.
Not so...in any jurisdiction. He had permission...he is neither a squatter nor can he claim adverse possession. Permission has ended!! He has kids...
It was the town administrator that went to the land owner letting him know about all the violations. The owner would have been liable for fines and upgrades, or kick the old guy out.
Whole mess was caused by government bureaucrat getting pissy over town not getting its cut and hyperbolic statement by a lawyer who wouldn’t even be involved were it not for the asswipe bureaucrat pressuring the land owner.
Bureaucrats and lawyers.....figures.
Flash forward 20 years later I spotted him running a used record store in south Minneapolis. His BO was off the charts. Guy got around. So did his hideous stench.
I for one enjoy a good b.o. story.
Not an easement but adverse possession.
That's the squatter's story. Since there is nothing in writing, there's no way to verify whether he's telling the truth or not.
Not just the landowner, but also the town as the structure lacks solid waster and septic disposal and also violates several building and safety codes.
The landowner was informed of the squatter's presence in 2015 and has been trying to get him out since then.
The squatter was ordered by a judge to vacate the property in 2017, but the squatter ignored the judge's order.
A lot of folks in the article, including his 77-year-old brother are calling on the town and the landowner to 'just leave him alone.'
I also noticed that none of these folks expressed any willingness to take in the squatter. Instead, they want to impose that 'charity' on the landowner against his will.
Not really as the squatter claims the original owner gave him permission to live there as a 'tenant.'
As I understand it adverse possession only applies when someone lives on a property without the owner's permission.
Biden said can’t be evicted until Oct.
He was ordered by a judge to vacate the property in 2017 and he ignored the ruling and stayed put.
Best part of the story is as soon as they hauled his ass off to jail, the property owner torched his shack, burning it to the ground.
(Technically, the cause of the fire is still under investigation but the property owner made no secret of his desire to demolish the shack.)
Excellent!
There was no recent sale, same owner since 1963.. current owner is 86 years old.
Nosey town selectmen notified the land owner of the squater and un approved septic..etc.. current land owner had him evicted in 2017.. been a mess since
Thanks for that info...so the selectmen is the root of the problem...
At that point the owner had no choice but to kick the guy off the property—while laying blame squarely at the selectman’s feet.
Basically, the guy was bothering nobody, including the current owner. A busybody bureaucrat pokes his nose in and threatens the owner so the guy is removed from the property.
The new way to live indigenously is that you have to be invisible to statist bureaucrat busybody jerks.
The entire thing becomes moot. The cabin was burned to the ground today.
If the guy had permission to live as a homeless dude on the property, the thing would not be moot. But some bureaucrat got involved.
The new owner was made aware of this guy’s presence in 2015. They started the process of getting him evicted.
So, if someone decides to live in a shed in your back yard long enough….people on FR think it’s cool?
I am amazed how fickle some of the people are around here. We should just let homeless bums build a place on your property?
Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. I thought that was a given around here.
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.