Posted on 01/01/2006 9:52:44 AM PST by george76
When Terry Botnen built his cabin last spring...he thought he'd found his retirement dream.
He built a simple 20-by-30-foot cabin on 40 acres of ground atop a ridge. No power lines run to the remote location, so he used generators to supply power.
But since April, his dream home has turned into a nightmare.
Part of the attraction of the land is the big-game hunting and solitude. The 120 acres are bordered by Bureau of Land Management land...
The problem is that the three pieces of property are accessible only by an old road that crosses BLM land and then a corner of the CMR property.
Doug Watt (the seller) argues that the road has been used by his family for years to access the 120 acres.
"It's on every map Rand McNally prints,"...
But the CMR (Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge lands ) doesn't see it that way.
He was ticketed by a CMR warden for illegal off-road travel for using the old road.
DeLorme's Montana Atlas and...U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps... do show the road...
Botnen's attorney advised him to plead guilty and pay the fine...which he did.
A retired teacher and Vietnam veteran...on land he can't access except by a two-mile trek on foot or horseback...
"I'm a little guy," Botnen said. "How the hell do I fight the federal government?"
He blames the problem on the CMR.
"Basically, the CMR people are running roughshod over the landowners and people are not happy," Watt said.
For his part, Botnen said he'll continue his battle for access by writing letters to "every senator in the country.
"I find the whole thing quite irritating," Botnen said.
"It's just flat government abuse.
And I'm a believer in the government.
But not anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at montanaforum.com ...
You don't hve to click on the link. That's the whole story.
Criminal for sure. Suck it up, who knows best, you or the government?
People who are "believers" in government often find disappointment, one way or the other.
There is an unlimited supply of people who say they think being on a map implies legal existence of a feature. If someone wants to claim adverse possession, they need to do more than trespass on a neighbor's land.
What are the requirements that would establish this as an easemnent other than being in the deed?
Sheesh.
A simple survey would have noted this before he bought the property.
Maybe just a looksee at an old platt at the local courthouse.
You should obtain a survey of property before you buy it. Banks will require it.
What did the preliminary title report show? Prior to closing escrow on the land, he would have seen the easements and road use should have been checked on.
The government can't have him living all the way out there on his own. They might not be able to control his every move. So he has to be stopped. Government knows best.
Is it in the deed? Deeds don't usually lay claim to pieces of other people's property without some trouble down the line. The easement would be associated with the property it is on, not the property it leads to. If they wish to establish an easement by adverse possession, they must do certain things.
I thought that this was a tradition in most states--?
Established rights of way are neither trespass nor trespass, as best I understand. To reclaim a historically established path, cut or road a property owner would have to engage in "adverse possesion" by gates, blockages and signage for a long period of time. Twenty years in my state, if I understand that law correctly.
correction "neither trespass nor adverse possession"
If any of those trespassers can be id'd and have assets, you can sue them for trespass as an "intentional tort"-- it's not just a criminal matter, but can also be civil. You certainly can demonstrate damages.
Agree, just because it is on the map doesn't make it yours to travel on. However, in many States continued use will give you prescriptive or adverse possession. In Kalifornia per Code 1008 if you use it for more than 10 years (I think) it is your and you can record it. Many land owners make the mistake of ignoring or giving people permission to pass. We have a big deal here in Nevada where new owners buy property and then shut down what has been access routes to public land for 100 years. There will be a lot of turmoil before this is over. Also, Clinton and Bush both have screwed the public with the "Roadless Initiative".
It is the latter point I am asking about. If they use the road for a decade, what else would they have to do?
Not at all. There are plenty of landlocked parcels--no legal access--and that is the result of subdividing extralegally like they do in third-world shantytowns. Do it legal or it isn't done.
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.