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 ...
I'm not being petulant. I'm asking for a source of your claim.
***It WAS in the article. So now it is time for you to back off.
Nope. Nothing in the article supported your claim -- namely that Lidstone had permission to live there until the 'busy-bodies' got involved.
***Oh, so you’re just being a jerk. Got it.
You wrote the article was hard to access. It wasn't.
It's usually considered poor form to post a reply before reading the source material. But, you knew that already.
***The evidence supports that position. The family has owned the land since 1963, the guy said it was a verbal agreement and courts will acknowledge that if both sides proceed along the lines of a verbal agreement, then there was a verbal agreement.
What evidence? We only have Lidstone's word that there was an agreement. Giles doesn't acknowledge it. Giles says that until 2015 he didn't know Lidstone was living there. Are you calling Giles a liar?
***It was in the article. You said you read it. Perhaps the problem is in your reading comprehension capabilities.
I said it was a re-hash of this article that did not contain what you claimed. No point in getting defensive.
***I saw the pictures, it was actually quite a nice looking ‘house’ and nice looking house. So what is your point when you say ‘house’? As far as the claim about residence, he seems to be trying to rest on the claim that it’s a hunting lodge.
If it's a residence, it needs to meet local zoning ordinances, just like yours does and just like mine does. It's hard to claim it as a hunting/fishing lodge when it's been continuously occupied for the last 27 years.
But, the point is moot since the 'hunting/fishing lodge' has now burned to the ground.
Perhaps the busy-bodies who poked their nose into Giles' bizness and said that Lidstone should be left alone to squat on his land can step up and give Lidstone a new 'hunting/fishing lodge' to reside in.
Somehow I doubt their charity extends that far. They just want everyone else to be charitable.
No. Lidstone said he had permission.
Surely you can see the difference.
Where is your support for the claim that permission was revoked?
Did the owner get a permit to burn the shack?
Giles said he didn't know Lidstone was living on the land until 2015.
The owner did the legal maneuverings for removing someone who no longer has permission to be on the property. It took 4 years.
No. It took two years. Giles was informed in 2015. He tried to evict Lidstone in 2016 and in 2017 a judge ordered Lidstone to vacate the property.
From the article:
Property owner Leonard Giles, 86, of South Burlington, Vermont, didn’t even know Lidstone was there until the town administrator found out in 2015 and told him, expressing concern “with regard to the solid and septic waste disposal and the potential zoning violations created by the structure,” according to Giles’ complaint in 2016.
Lidstone, a bearded, small-framed, spritely man, has resisted efforts to leave since a judge issued an order for him to vacate in 2017. Following that, both sides had attempted to reach some sort of agreement for him, but were unsuccessful, according to court documents.
What doesn’t make sense about the article is that it said the family owned it since 1963 but the ‘current owner’ claimed this guy was a squatter.
The 'family' owned the land. It doesn't say the current landowner was the original purchaser. You're making that leap.
Giles lives in Vermont. It doesn't sound like he's visited the land too much. And, why should he? He owns it to sell the timber from it.
Giles said he didn’t know Lidstone was living on the land until 2015.
***In light of the evidence, probably a lie.
No. It took two years.
***2015, nosy apparatchik. 2017 Judge says get out. 2021, guy forced to leave (not even an eviction but on a contempt of court charge). That is a 6 year count.
Lidstone didn’t even know
***Lidstone CLAIMS he didn’t know. He didn’t visit the property for 20 years it would seem. Not credible.
. It doesn’t say the current landowner was the original purchaser. You’re making that leap.
***It says his FAMILY has owned it since 1963. Poorly written article.
Why should he? Because his claim is not credible. He sold timber from it, how did he know how much timber there was on the land? Stuff like that.
Surely you can see the difference.
***As I stated upthread, courts look at the BEHAVIOR of both sides of a contract when it’s verbal.
Where is your support for the claim that permission was revoked?
***My support is in the obvious.
Nope. Nothing in the article supported your claim —
***The courts look at how both sides BEHAVE in a dispute, asking if they acted in a manner consistent with an agreement being in place. Simple legal stuff.
namely that Lidstone had permission to live there until the ‘busy-bodies’ got involved.
***He did have permission. The courts would proceed in that manner.
You wrote the article was hard to access. It wasn’t.
***Then you were being unnecessarily petulant.
It’s usually considered poor form to post a reply before reading the source material. But, you knew that already.
***I posted it, this article was based on the original article, Yahoo News had that information. Your issue is with reading comprehension.
Kevmo:
The evidence supports that position. The family has owned the land since 1963, the guy said it was a verbal agreement and courts will acknowledge that if both sides proceed along the lines of a verbal agreement, then there was a verbal agreement.
Ol’ Dan: What evidence?
I just POSTED the evidence. The courts look at both sides when there’s a purported verbal agreement. That is how things work in a court of law.
We only have Lidstone’s word that there was an agreement.
***You have how both sides ACTED over 20 years.
Giles doesn’t acknowledge it.
***Giles is lying.
Giles says that until 2015 he didn’t know Lidstone was living there. Are you calling Giles a liar?
***Oh look, you anticipated my response. Courts look at how both sides ACTED. Look at how fast Giles acted when an apparatchik got in the picture. The court knows that if he was aware of a squatter from 20 years prior, he would have acted in the same timeframe.
Kevmo: I saw the pictures, it was actually quite a nice looking ‘house’ and nice looking house. So what is your point when you say ‘house’? As far as the claim about residence, he seems to be trying to rest on the claim that it’s a hunting lodge.
Ol Dan:
If it’s a residence, it needs to meet local zoning ordinances,
***Which is probably why the old guy was claiming it wasn’t a house. Nor a ‘house’.
just like yours does and just like mine does.
***If it is NOT a residence, those zoning ordinances do not apply.
It’s hard to claim it as a hunting/fishing lodge when it’s been continuously occupied for the last 27 years.
***Now we go back to your position of trying to prove sumthin over such a long time. It is not provable. So the owner went with the process of removing a squatter.
But, the point is moot since the ‘hunting/fishing lodge’ has now burned to the ground.
***True, but the old hippy will probably be suing the owner.
Perhaps the busy-bodies who poked their nose into Giles’ bizness and said that Lidstone should be left alone to squat on his land can step up and give Lidstone a new ‘hunting/fishing lodge’ to reside in.
***Perhaps. But they won’t.
Somehow I doubt their charity extends that far. They just want everyone else to be charitable.
***Perhaps the apparatchik busybody bureaucrat can step up and give him a new lodge to reside in. Or, he coulda just let the man die in a few years. Basically, he was an @$$#0/e.
When ownership on any property changes so do agreements. Verbal and otherwise.
I know a lady who has rented an apartment for almost 20 years. Owners are selling building but have stipulated in the sale the ladies rent cannot be increased for a year after the sale is final. Giving her lots of time to make other arrangements.
Why don't you ask some of the hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated illegals who are being sent to live in *your* town.
Tonight thousands of your new neighbors are being flown out of the border states to fill our entire country with covid positive illegals. They are going to work in restaurants where you eat, (even though they have tape worms) andtheir kids are going to sit next to your kids in school even though they are not vaccinated for anything.
No, I am asking this guy, squatting on the other’s guy’s land. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
Your argument is juvenile. I would expect that from a petulant 13 year old. Not an old woman. If your kids used that argument you would admonish them.
As is his right. I think you are incorrect with your facts, but it doesn’t matter. The guy wasn’t wanted on the property. So he should have moved.
The guy lives on the friggin river. Why do you think the townies got involved?
You guys don’t really comprehend what you read.
He held on for 4 or 6 years, depending on how you count.
Why do you think the townies got involved?
***Because the bureaucrat has nuthin better to do, that’s what I think.
Yep. The court did that and ruled Lidstone must vacate the property as he's a squatter with no right to remain.
***Giles is lying.
Well. There it is.
The court did that and ruled Lidstone must vacate the property as he’s a squatter with no right to remain.
***yeah, because his oral permission was revoked.
I doubt the court assessed fees going back 27 years.
I'm not sure how much involvement you've had in real estate transactions, but verbal agreements carry no weight.
Agreements in real estate must be in writing, and signed by both parties.
Yes, because these guys have nothing better to do with their time. What a simpleton answer.
Yeah, they love it when they find a little guy they can harass. Bureaucrat 101.
And now his house is burned to the ground and he is sitting in a jail cell.
When are you going to invite his stinky, ornery ass to stay in your home?
He might come across as a “mountain man.” But he is a bum.
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.