So what if it wasn't the Federal government that owned the land, but rather Citizen B, let's say Rush Limbaugh owned the land. And Rush had allowed Bundy to graze cattle on it since 1870. Did Rush forfeit his land to Bundy because of his generosity? Can Rush now never repurpose his land, but must hold it forever in perpetuity, so Bundy can continue to graze on it.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of the Bundy's. They've built their home and business for decades on the use of land that didn't belong to them. And now they have no legal recourse to change their fate.
Actually, there are cases where property turned over to someone else to use and care for can become the property of the user.
Even just mowing, mending/ installing fences, taking care of the property, making improvements, can serve to justify transfer of property to the individual doing the uncompensated caretaking / improvements.
It’s basically figured as abandonment and a touch of squater’s rights.
That kind of depends on whether it was an informal friendly thing, or if it was a declared easement, especially one to encourage them to open a business or to settle adjacent to the property.
The Southwest has a number of odd divisions of owned property, but is not the only area. When I became a young adult, I was surprised that one could own a house, but not the land it resided on. Likewise, the minerals under the land might not be part of owning the property, nor water rights of streams flowing through it, nor grazing rights for wild vegetation on it, as well as right-of-way easements.
In most of the country between the original colonies and the Rockies, aside from the desert states, the land was lotteried, auctioned off, or simply opened for claim. In the west, there were large areas which were not suitable for habitation, and the federal government divided things up differently, with water rights and access rights being very major things - often more important than the land itself, and separate from the land ownership.
Does Bundy have those other rights? I don’t know...but to understand the situation, one has to understand that to say X owns property Y doesn’t necessarily meant that the ownership is all-inclusive.
In other environments, we have communities where some owners have lake rights, and others do not. We have the 10 feet beside the road that the town actually owns, as well as easements where the phone or power company has bought perpetual rights to put up poles, lines or bury cables, and nothing else and thus neither party can build on that land.
*So what if it wasn’t the Federal government that owned the land, but rather Citizen B, let’s say Rush Limbaugh owned the land.*
I believe Rush would lose his land to Bundy.
http://ngdlaw.com/articles/adverse-possession.htm
In Arizona, a person is entitled to legal ownership of property if his occupation of the property is hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for a period of 10 years.
there is also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Revision_Act_of_1891
which amened this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841
Do they now become slaves to the political whims of the ruling dictatorship, just because their business is on public land?
-PJ