Fire destroys cabin of New Hampshire man forced out of woods

AP ^ | By KATHY McCORMACK

[outpostinmass2]

The town was fining the land owner because of the squatter not properly disposing of human waste.

[RandFan]

I don’t doubt it.. I just think putting him in jail is crazy.

He is 81 and (I believe) non-violent.

[outpostinmass2]

When does the eviction moratorium end? I have seen no sign of that happening.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

There was a relatively new owner, also elderly, who derived income from harvesting lumber, and as outpostinmass2 pointed out, his dwelling was in violation of sanitary codes meant to safeguard water supplies, and the river. In addition, he did not have trash pick up, and there was no access road. He simply left his trash outside.

[Texas Fossil]

Jodie Gedeon, an avid kayaker who befriended Lidstone about 20 years ago, had been working with other supporters to help him, including organizing a petition drive and collecting money to cover property taxes.

Oh, so this is about a property tax foreclosure sale 27 years ago?

[Texas Fossil]

see my post #25

[Jarhead9297]

27 years, living by his own means. Live and let live.

[Tupelo]

Actually there is. It is called Adverse Possession or Adverse Tenancy. In some states, if you live (squat) on someones land for X amount of years and pay the taxes, it is yours. I have seen as low as two years and as long as 17 years. Source: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adverse+tenancy "Once adverse possession is completed, the claimant has full legal title to the property. The expiration of the statutory period eliminates any Cause of Action or liability for ejectment or trespass regarding the new owner's prior unlawful possession of the property. Once the time period is satisfied, the adverse possessor is considered the original owner of the land. He or she may use the land any way he or she sees fit provided it is lawful."

[PapaBear3625]

There was a relatively new owner, also elderly, who derived income from harvesting lumber, and as outpostinmass2 pointed out, his dwelling was in violation of sanitary codes meant to safeguard water supplies, and the river. In addition, he did not have trash pick up, and there was no access road. He simply left his trash outside.

I'm going to guess that the land-owner was OK for a while with the squatter being there, until he started talking to a lawyer who told him about the effects of a squatter on his land's resale value, as well as potential liability from the squatter's actions.

[Varda]

You're defending a squatter. When has America ever been “live free” on someone else’s property? Are you also for the government forced “moratorium” on evictions?

[RandFan]

Not defending squatting. I just think jail time is excessive...

[HighSierra5]

Maybe B.O. will let him squat on his Martha’s vineyard estate. I wish I could squat on B.O.s estate.

[outofsalt]

16 Posts!)

[jagusafr]

Most places, 15 years of “open and notorious use” qualifies for a claim of ownership by adverse possession.It appears the property was sold to a second owner, so maybe the squatter should have made his claim prior to that. But I haven’t done the case research to see whether that’s an issue.

[woodbutcher1963]

He was living on property he did not own.
He had a verbal agreement with the PREVIOUS owner to live there.
The owner SOLD the property to someone else who asked him to LEAVE.
He had NO LEASE or anything of a legal nature giving him any rights to be on the property.

I believe he was arrested for trespassing after being given several verbal and written warnings.

[backwoods-engineer]

Whether he was squatting or not depends on who you ask. Also, the AP and other communist news sources are reporting this wall to wall, because they want this done to every rural self-sufficient man in “Iowabamaho”, as they call the “Red” States.

[kenmcg]

“What happened to New Hampshire? I thought it was the ‘live free or die’ state?”

Since when does “live free or die” means you don’t have property rights?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Apparently the new owner was initially unaware of his presence, and has tried to “work with him” (through lawyers) for several years. The main issue for the town is the litter and sanitary conditions. My cousin-in-law’s grandfather-in-law was an old German guy, in his eighty’s who lived in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing. (”I don’t know vhy zeese young kids, dey tink dey need all zeese conveniences.” I admit, I’m spoiled.) It was a neat as a pin, and had a perfectly adequate outdoor latrine and hand pump. His son wanted to build him a modern house, but he wouldn’t hear of it.

[backwoods-engineer]

You really hate us, don’t you? You don’t understand rural folks, if you are asking those questions.

[larrytown]

it must be notorious (the owner has had notice of the use);

Thanks for posting this - from reading here and elsewhere, there has been only one owner in the time in question (they acquired property in 1963), and he only became aware of this squatter in 2015. The judge's order to vacate dates originally from 2017.

Sounds like some self-righteous dick decided to push the process and fire up the squatters digs. No very helpful.