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 ...
Yep. After 27 years of no contact, the busy-body bureaucrats decided to 'raid' Lidstone's house and evict him because he was pooping in the river. </sarcasm>
I have been involved in real estate and have seen deals go sour.
The thing people don’t realize is a verbal agreement IS an agreement. If both sides agree it was in place then it is enforceable. When one side claims a verbal agreement and the other side lies & says it didn’t exist, the courts look at the BEHAVIOR of both sides, especially over long term, to see if they ACTED as if there was an agreement in place.
Once the owner explicitly says the guy has no permission, then the court can proceed appropriately.
You claim they MUST be in writing but it is not the case. It’s just not enforceable.
I recently had verbal agreement entered into a court case I was involved in. By criminal section 633.5 I had the right to record my landlord because he was violent. It is a very low standard of admission of evidence: a reasonable person standard.
So I was recording where the guy claimed that even though we did have an oral agreement, it was not enforceable. The court disagreed with him.
Not every agreement in real estate must be in writing.
They raided his house because he was in contempt of court.
I agree he is a bum. But he had the right to stay there for 23 years, and overextended his stay as an unwelcome tenant once the oral permission was revoked. So he engaged his rights in a court of law. He lasted 4 years or so.
When are you going to acknowledge that you aren’t following the law? He was up against a landlord who burned his house to the ground the first chance he could get. THAT is stinky and ornery. Dude probably lied his ass off as well.
The guy who owned the property rescinded any permission (real or imagined) when this bum was going to start costing him money.
He dragged his feet until he was finally found in contempt. And then he antagonistic to the judge—not a good plan.
The owner saw an unwanted structure built on his land. He burned it to the ground.
Due process was served…for several years.
Why are you insisting on holding this bum in high esteem? Because he is old? My God, he has 20 + years of free living. Because kayakers liked him? Because he talked back to the judge?
What am I missing?
So what was the reason? You seem to have your finger on the pulse of this huge conspiracy. 27 years of shitting in a trench near the river is reason enough.
The environmental laws in these places are insane. But they are applied across the board. I am willing to bet there was a denial of a permit for some million dollar project and that person said…but that bum can shit wherever he wants!
So, we are supposed to allow the law to be applied however “we” want?
The arguments I am seeing are childish based on an impression from a picture and a 300 word story.
The guy is a bum. A hobo that never leaves. You wouldn’t want him on your property. You would be the first person calling the sheriff to oust him from your land.
This bum worship is hilarious.
The owner saw an unwanted structure built on his land. He burned it to the ground.
***Then he’s guilty of felony arson. No doubt there were some personal belongings in there.
Why are you insisting on holding this bum in high esteem?
***I hold the apparatchik bureaucrat in low esteem. I hold the obviously lying landlord in low esteem. I hold this bum in ... well , I guess I’d call it medium esteem, having seen he got a lot of years of free rent.
Because he is old?
***Just let him die there, what’s the big problem?
My God, he has 20 + years of free living.
***And it likely would have gone on until his death and the owner can tell that rat bureaucrat that it’s just a hunting lodge.
Because kayakers liked him?
***Good enough reason.
Because he talked back to the judge?
***Good enough reason.
What am I missing?
***What you are missing is the unwanted meddling of a commie level apparatchik bureaucrat who ruined a good arrangement.
What you continue to ignore is that the court did look into this matter and ruled against the squatter.
The squatter ignored the judge's ruling and as a result the squatter was thrown in jail for contempt.
I recently had verbal agreement entered into a court case I was involved in.
What was the verbal agreement? The devil is in the details.
No, he was ruled in contempt of court after he ignored the judge's ruling to vacate for four years.
You are a fool. My guess is you’ve never held a public office and had to apply laws appropriately. It’s a bitch.
It’s not arson if it’s a shack on your property. You can burn down whatever you want.
Your logic and application of equal justice is asinine.
Had you spent the time to read my previous posts you would have found we're on the same side.
My sarcasm was directed at the poster to whom you replied.
He ruled against the squatter AFTER PERMISSION was REVOKED. He doesn’t seem to be facing fines for squatting for 23 years beforehand because of the actions of both parties involved. That is what you continue to ignore.
In my case the details of the verbal agreement did not matter but it was enough to stop the judge from assessing fees past the point that permission was revoked, admitted by both sides. My landlord claimed it was unsubmissible as evidence since it was verbal, he never gave permission; he was overruled by the judge due to the section 633.5 recording admissibility rules. Overall result: An enforceable verbal agreement. Plus, I can pursue criminal charges if I want.
It IS arson if there is personal property from 27 years of occupation on the property.
Your application of justice favors arsonists and lying landlords.
There was no verbal agreement between Giles and Lidstone.
In my case the details of the verbal agreement did not matter but it was enough to stop the judge from assessing fees past the point that permission was revoked, admitted by both sides.
As I wrote, the devil is in the details. In your case, it was "admitted by both sides."
This is not the case in the instance of Giles v. Lidstone. That's why the court ordered Lidstone to vacate the property.
Giles said that Lidstone did not have permission to be there and the court ruled in his favor. Lidstone was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
It's pretty cut and dried.
Speaking of poor reading comprehension, the articles about the fire clearly state that all of Lidstone's personal property had been removed prior to the fire.
And you're kinda... shallow.
There was no verbal agreement between Giles and Lidstone.
***Sure there was. It was closed down as soon as the bureaucrat was gonna start charging money.
As I wrote, the devil is in the details. In your case, it was “admitted by both sides.”
***I knew you would focus on that. The ISSUE before the JUDGE was whether the verbal agreement stuff PRIOR TO THE verbal thing admitted by both sides was admissible and it WAS. You just blithely go over that aspect.
In your case, it was “admitted by both sides.” This is not the case in the instance of Giles v. Lidstone. That’s why the court ordered Lidstone to vacate the property.
***The case with G vs L is that it’s obvious there was no permission to live there, moving forward from about 2016.
Giles said that Lidstone did not have permission to be there and the court ruled in his favor.
***From 2016 onwards. But the court did NOT assess squatting fees going back 23 more years.
Lidstone was unable to provide evidence to support his claim.
***Not from 2016 onwards.
It’s pretty cut and dried.
***From 2016 onwards. What you are NOT looking at is the 23 years prior to 2016. The judge assessed no squatting fees because there was a verbal agreement in place and the plaintiff did nothing to mitigate his supposed losses.
Having been in that situation, it is DEEMED that the personal property is removed. You have 10 minutes when the sheriff’s dudes show up. They don’t even honor a federal stay of eviction in place.
But it becomes a giant... whatever. It requires wherewithal to hold a lying weasel of a landlord’s feet to the fire.
You’re the shallow hal who won’t look at the behavior of the 2 parties prior to 2016.
I suppose it is too much to expect.
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.