Replies

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.