Think You Own Your Land??? Better Think Again!

[WRTN]

For those of you who own or purchased & making payments on a piece of land you plan to or are homesteading...............this may or may not come as a shock or surprise to all.

If you own land especially vacant land; this is something you MUST consider AND be VERY aware of.

Just because you have a legal property deed and pay property taxes on the property you own............. or "THINK" you own, does not mean that it cannot be legally taken from you without being paid a dime or much if any recourse.

Something to think about the next time you see a land owner putting up posted signs and fences or why land owners are not willing to let folks use seemingly vacant & unused land.



This land is your land?

EDITORIAL: This land is your land?

Courts abet Colorado couple in land grab

Howard Hawks' "Red River" isn't just any Western. It was the last movie playing in the small-town Texas theater in the Peter Bogdanovich/Cybill Shepherd film (from the Larry McMurtry novel) "The Last Picture Show." It was Montgomery Clift's first -- and many say John Wayne's best -- film.

And how does novelist Borden Chase's quintessential American tale of the first great post-Civil War cattle drive begin? Wayne's Tom Dunson and Clift's Matt Garth start one of the great Texas cattle herds with one bull and one cow and all the land between the Red River and the Rio Grande -- land which they simply grab.

Two Mexican pistolleros show up, early in the film, to tell the man and boy they can camp on the land while they pass through, but they can't stay, because the land belongs to a wealthy Mexican who lives far to the south.

"That's too much land for one man," Wayne declares. One of the men says it's his job to deal with such attitudes. Wayne cements his claim by killing him.

But things have changed since 1851. You can't grab a nice-looking piece of land in America today just because the owner has left it vacant.

Or can you?

In 1984, Don Kirlin, a commercial airline pilot, and his wife, Susie, a former teacher, bought two adjacent lots on the southern edge of Boulder, Colo. They live in a home a short distance away, but hoped to build their dream house on the land. They frequently walked their dogs past their property. They report they never saw any sign anyone was using it.

Nor did they think to worry about such a thing, Ms. Kirlin told the Los Angeles Times. After all, they paid their property taxes and homeowner fees. They sprayed for noxious weeds and repaired fences.

Unbeknownst to the Kirlins, however, for more than 20 years a retired judge named Richard McLean and his lawyer wife, Edith Stevens -- occupants of the house next door to the vacant lots -- systematically trespassed on the Kirlins' land.

They planted a garden and stacked their firewood there, the Times reports. They held parties there.

In 2006, Richard McLean and Edith Stevens went to court, claiming the land they had never bought was actually theirs under Colorado's adverse possession law, once known as "squatters' rights."

In October, Boulder District Judge James C. Klein ruled the couple had demonstrated that their attachment to the land was "stronger than the true owners' attachment." He awarded Mr. McLean one-third of the lot, worth about $1 million.

The wealthy squatters may have won in a court of law, but they have not fared so well in the court of public opinion, even in the famously left-leaning university town of Boulder.

Internet bloggers ridiculed Mr. McLean and Ms. Stevens as land-grabbers who used their knowledge of the law to steal from an unsuspecting neighbor. In November, more than 200 people flocked to the property, where they hoisted signs with slogans such as "Thou shall not steal" while shouting "shame" and "thief" at the McLean-Stevens home, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

The doctrine of adverse possession isn't new or obscure. But it's usually applied to rights of way. If your parents and grandparents allowed the neighbors to access their property or walk to a popular bathing beach across your property, you may have forfeited your right to fence off that path.

But to grab a chunk of land away from a taxpaying neighbor by the simple expedient of a woodpile and some tomato plants? And the court won't even ask why they didn't approach the owner with an offer to buy?

What should the Kirlins have done to protect their property rights -- hunted out every squash vine, burned their lots down to black stubble every year?

There's no longer a right to buy land, pay taxes on it, and hold it in hopes of seeing it increase in value?

The Kirlins vow to appeal. The courts should consider carefully. For if this ruling stands, property owners are in effect being advised that the courts won't enforce their titles, leaving them only one solution: A couple guys with big hats, jangling spurs and Walker Colts, smiling and explaining, "You are welcome to camp on this land for a day or two as you're passing through. But you cannot stay."

Ah, the roar of .44s in the twilight. If the courts won't protect our property rights, some just might resort to older ways.


http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/12197896.html

[machinemaker]

AHHHHHHH! Boulder at its finest! Time for Colorado the rewrite our laws. This and eminite domain laws are wrong. When a city can condem residentual or business property to sell to a private developer who promises to generate more sales tax for the city, (Walmart for example), things need to change.
kent

[Southern_Gent]

Many years ago, my father had a similar thing happen to him with some property he bought in Florida. Prior to buying this property, a neighbor had been using a portion of it for a driveway for several years. Once my father bought it, he fenced it so he could keep horses. The neighbor took him to court, even though she didn't own the property or even pay taxes on it. She lost. Indeed, I remember the judge asking her why she felt entitled to use the property and dictate what the true owner could and couldn't do with it, when she didn't pay one cent towards it.

It would seem, at least in this case, that Florida has better property laws than Colorado.

[MadTripper]

I have heard of this type of "squatters rights" locally as well. The reference I'm familiar with has to do with fencelines. If a person fenced a portion of the neighboring land in with his pasture, over time it was considered that persons. My property actually lost some acreage because of that many years before we purchased it. Kind of interesting and I often wondered what the theory behind that law was.

Tripper

[AlchemyAcres]

More commonly called adverse possession here in PA.
Basically, another can gain legal title of a piece property after 21 years of use in spite of the deed holder.

~Martin

[ryanmercer]

That's just crazy.

[ryanmercer]

So... if I succesfully steal a million dollars from someone, and use it for years and years... and don't get caught... is it going to be automatically mine after 20 years? Because, thats what just happened to those people, 1 million of their property was used for 20 some years, and then given to the people trespassi... using it.

[AlchemyAcres]

When they say..."possession is nine tenths of the law"...they're not kidding. LOL
Comes from English common law.
Add it to the ever growing list of stupid laws that make this the most regulated society in the history of man!!!!

Gotta love those 'rulers'!!!!

Bend over America!!!!

~Martin

[annabella1]

This law wasn't made for stupid reasons. It was made because of speculators who would file a claim for land and then do nothing with it. It was made to encourage people to develop and grow the land in this country. If it hadn't been in place, a lot of towns wouldn't exist today. I personally know of a couple of lots I'd like to clean up and turn into something everyone could enjoy. But I want to be able to call it mine if I invest the effort.

[AlchemyAcres]

No, not for strupid reasons, but for antiquated reasons....stems from a time bofore true land ownership was cammon...
Ridiculous and pretty crazy.....fuedalism is dictating what we do in the so called "free" society...
Regardless...puttin' it to good use or give it up isn't something i'm willing to accept...
there's always some better(?) way to put a piece of land to use...be it a power pant or a Wal-Mart or ! or a wildlife sanctiary or whatever...I hope we can resist that...although it's becoming very difficult!!

Folks have bought the "you're free" so shut up argument for so long...but they're finally starting to catch on! Maybe?

Who knows!!!

Is anything sovereign anymore?


~Martin

[annabella1]

The problem is the land is being put to no use. This is not like the municipality saying We are going to take the land you have developed and give it to someone else because they will make it better. This is someone has been using the land an developing the land for many years and the owners didn't do anything. In this specific case the Judge and his wife would have lost if the owners had done something --anything on that property. But they didn't. Sure the Judge didn't do much but he did it for years and proved it in court, and I think this was a misuse of the law. But I do not believe this to be a bad law. If the landowners had said that they were keeping the land fallow for habitat for some animal or plant, and had issued a cease and desist order during the first few years the Judge had been stacking wood on the land, they would have won the case, because they were doing something with the land. I agree don't take your land for granted. Use it, defend it, make sure everyone knows that it is yours.

[MadTripper]

The original owners should have planted a few cattails. That pretty much makes it a wetland and God forbid you touch that!

Tripper

[WRTN]

annabella1,

Just curious, how much land do you own?

Without realizing it, you have just reaffirmed the SCOTUS's latest ruling on eminent domain.

Land IS property and as such, this interpretation could be applied to ANY property. Perhaps Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have too much idle money and it should be take by someone who could put it to better use?

Taken to its full extent, why not have the government seize ALL land and then lease it out to the highest bidder subject to the retaking in the event an event higher bidder comes along?

What you indirectly suggest is a VERY slippery slope. (more like near vertical and greased)

[Gibbonboy]

The idea behind Adverse Possession, in PA at least, is that if the legal owner does nothing about your use of their land for 21 years, they obviously don't care that much about it. It's intended for "small-scale" incursions, such as your shed hangs a foot over the line, or a garden encroaches on your neighbor's land. It was never intended as a "squatters' rights" device. 21 years is a long time, and you should know where your lines are.
Also in PA, if you DO want to get an encroachment fixed, you need to go to court and have the judge issue a Writ of Ejectment. At that point, the trespasser can file for AP, but won't usually get it unless it's been over 21 years. I could see how in large ranching areas, or areas with absentee landowners, this issue would come up more often. Also, if you ask for permission to use someone else's land, you can not get AP, since you showed knowledge that it wasn't your land. AP only covers "accidental" encroachments, not intentional land grabs. Those are reserved for the gov't!

[WileyCoyote]

In our state, the law is - if you 'improve' a piece of someone else's property for 7 years, and they do not stop you nor notice, you can go to court and have that property declared yours.

30 years ago, a neighboring state was dredging its river every 18 months, and dumping the silt on private property owners' property in my state. Since it was wetlands, undevelopable, and rarely visited and never used by the owners, the neighboring state dumped the silt for 7 years - then filed claim on the property and won.

People I know have gradually expanded their property boundaries by caring for wooded and ignored property that bordered their own - and then filed on it after the 7 year term was up.

[Southern_Gent]

With regards to Eminent Domain, President Bush (the current one), issued an executive order in 2006 that limits the use of such practice. That true public use must be demonstrated, and not private gain such as seizing with the intent to build a strip mall or Walmart. That will place holds with regard to Federal siezure of land, but I'm not sure how it will filter down to states and local governments.

[machinemaker]

Folks this was in the City of Boulder in a subdivided urban development, in a county and city with some of the strickest zoning and land use laws in the country. In a city where you can not "own" a pet, but are rather its legal guardian, due to the animals civil rights. I am sure that this building lot in that area is worth half a million dollars, but may now not be large enough to build on. So let say that you buy a rare painting, book, rifle, (fill in the blank) as an investment or to enjoy when you retire or what ever, but because you keep it locked up in a humidity controled safe where the public can't see it or use it, should it be taken away from you for the good of the public? So two wealthy attornies use an obsolite law that was never intended for that use and get away with it. Time to not have the only path to politics be through a law degree.

[annabella1]

You are totally wrong to say that this has anything to do with eminent domain. Eminent Domain takes away land no matter what you have done with it. Eminent Domain was put in place to help municipalities improve transportation, infrastructure, and services to its citizens. However Eminent Domain is being seriously misused to increase the tax base instead of what it was designed for. The same as this law, it's not the law thats at fault it is the way it is being used.

[Gibbonboy]

When I first read the thread title, I laughed because I get people riled up with that exact statement all the time. I tell them, if you think you really own your own land, don't pay the taxes for 2 or 3 years and see who owns it.

Zoning/Deed Restrictions/Covenants are all completely out of control because a very few complained about the TV antennas, swingsets, etc. Some places (Carmel, CA and others) will tell you what color your house should be, as well as what types of plants are appropriate to the "cottage atmosphere" of the town. Some of these people would have a stroke if they saw my disaster of a house!

These people want to pull their vehicle into a garage, and hop right into their McMansions, with no interaction with the outdoor world at all. They don't mind that their ridiculously overpriced property has no real value, since it's 20 feet away from the next McMansion that some developer plopped down in a field somewhere. I travelled a lot this past summer, and got to see way more developments than I wanted to. First impression is "wow, these are some huge, expensive houses" then you start to notice that they're falling apart due to shoddy construction and homeowners that think watching HGTV and DIY will magically make their house better.

[ryanmercer]

The problem is the land is being put to no use. This is not like the municipality saying We are going to take the land you have developed and give it to someone else because they will make it better. This is someone has been using the land an developing the land for many years and the owners didn't do anything. In this specific case the Judge and his wife would have lost if the owners had done something --anything on that property. But they didn't. Sure the Judge didn't do much but he did it for years and proved it in court, and I think this was a misuse of the law. But I do not believe this to be a bad law. If the landowners had said that they were keeping the land fallow for habitat for some animal or plant, and had issued a cease and desist order during the first few years the Judge had been stacking wood on the land, they would have won the case, because they were doing something with the land. I agree don't take your land for granted. Use it, defend it, make sure everyone knows that it is yours.

Um isn't the land existing in it's natural state a good enough use? Do you want a skyscraper on every square inch of land on the planet?

[gardenfay]

annabelle1 i know you wrote that you thought this was a misuse of the law; and i understand your explanation of the purpose of the statute in the first place; but the thing that ticks me off is this. You say, the judge and his wife would have lost if the owners had done something - anything on that property. Well, folks in my opinion they did do something - they obviously wrote out a check for the taxes every year and that ought to be enough.

[gardenfay]

how would i find out if Oklahoma has a law like that? i just did a little searching out on the internet and i am coming up with tons of okahoma statutes; most outlining how the govt can steal land from private citizens for interstates, etc.

Any ideas would help. my siblings and i still own 10 acres of the homeplace. We have let the 70+ year old family friend and neighbor run cows on the place, plant haygrazer and remove the interior fences for the last several years. i don't think we would ever have a problem with him; but i know his son will inherit and dont know him. that why i want to find out about pertinent oklahoma statutes.

[WRTN]

how would i find out if Oklahoma has a law like that? *i just did a little searching out on the internet and i am coming up with tons of okahoma statutes; most outlining how the govt can steal land from private citizens for interstates, etc. *

Any ideas would help. *my siblings and i still own 10 acres of the homeplace. *We have let the 70+ year old family friend and neighbor run cows on the place, plant haygrazer and remove the interior fences for the last several years. *i don't think we would ever have a problem with him; but i know his son will inherit *and dont know him. *that why i want to find out about pertinent oklahoma statutes. *

This should get you started.


http://www.lawchek.net/resources/forms/que/advposs.htm

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=12+o.s.+93

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=60+O.S.+333

http://www.tulsalibrary.org/govdocs/doctidbits/May2003.htm#Squatters

[gardenfay]

Thank you very much, WRTN. I will get to check those out later tonite or tomorrow.

[WRTN]

Very welcome, although I think you may be in for some dry subject matter for reading. Better have a big pot of coffee to stay awake. ;D

[gardenfay]

Yea, that legal stuff is a real page turner, huh? hehehe
But i did look it over and that was exactly what i needed. So again -
Thank you very much

[gardenfay]

Going thru some of those court cases, etc. though, made me think about the focus of this thread again and I just have to wonder, what in the world ever possesses a person to try to steal land this way??
Makes me think of a family there in eastern OK where i grew up who owned a bunch of land and the story was that most of it was gained by getting local Indians drunk and stealing it. I know, i know, maybe it was just local gossip; but my word, i have wondered, what a legacy to leave your grandkids. Yea, we own half the county; we are damn good thieves and want to make sure everybody knows it.
hope there are still people in Boulder giving that old judge and his wife grief about their thievery.

I told a couple of people at church this morning about the deal in Boulder about - you are not a pet owner; you are a guardian - so you don't go infringing on the critter's rights. I think they thought i was lying. Wow, you have to wonder what we are coming to when we let stuff like that slide; but i don't know how we can fight it all. I guess just pick a few issues and do our best.

[edward_4576]

Now I've looked at some of these issues and one thing I found out is that if you are legally astute enough and have the money you can get a land patent. After you get a land patent for your property it's yours forever and can never be taken, even by the government.

http://www.teamlaw.org/LandPatents.htm

[gardenfay]

I have only heard of land patents in conjunction with mining claims. But I looked at the website and that is very interesting.
thank you.

[remington]

Note to self. Keep shotgun handy for squatters. LOL

[gardenfay]

Yea and other note to self - it is hard to protect land owned in a distant state. LOL

[woodburner]

I can certainly understand where adverse posession comes from. If land is not used (not building on it) but used for gardening, farming, hunting, hiking, conservation then why should someone own it? Land exists as part of the common good and we all should benefit from it. No-one should be allowed to hoard land for their own personal benefit unless it is being used for some constructive purpose so anyone who allows someone to use their land without a lease or some other written covenant or is ignorant of people using their land are not responsible enough to own the land.

This does not mean I agree with eminent domain - that is one of the most abhorrent practices of a government. Everything the government does now is driven by someone's bottom line - and it certainly is not mine.

But if you have land, use it and keep using it and know who is using it.

[gardenfay]

Well, woodburner, I will apologize before I begin; but I disagree with basically everything you said; specifically the first paragraph.
You said that if land wasn't used to build on; why should anyone own it? Well, someone always owns it and I believe that if they bought it or inherited it; it belongs to them and that is a very important aspect of our culture.
Nobody goes into my closet (okay, nobody that i know of anyway LOL) and takes the dresses i haven't worn in a while or that they didn't think i was wearing in a responsible manner.
I think it is perfectly alright for people to decide what to do with their own land; i dont even like the use of words like "hoarding" land. I know a rancher up here - Vietnam veteran, like my husband, they were both over there at the same time. Anyway, the man owns over 50, 000 acres from what i understand. So does his brother. The parents are still alive; but elderly and have already split up the land. Those of us who don't own big amounts of land or any land can look at them and say they are hoarding it or don't need it; but i think that is BS. Fact is, they own it.
Far as I'm concerned the only person "not responsible enough to own the land" is the person who looks at the person with land and tries to figure out devious ways to steal it instead of buying their own.

[machinemaker]

In some parts of the west 50,000 acres is hardly enough to raise a herd of cattle that will support a family. It does support several jack-o-lopes though.
kent

[annabella1]

Okay, so you think this law is no good? Then I suppose you think that people in Saudi Arabia should be able to buy thousands of acres here in the USA leave it fallow, and we can't touch it or do anything with it. With Adverse Possession we can easily use land that we need for that reason. Then there is land that you can't find the owner for, better not touch that it belongs to somebody. No I don't think all land should be sky scrapers, but if you want it to be a wildlife habitat you need to make your wishes known, and be aware of what is going on on your land.

[WRTN]

Okay, so you think this law is no good? Then I suppose you think that people in Saudi Arabia should be able to buy thousands of acres here in the USA leave it fallow, and we can't touch it or do anything with it. With Adverse Possession we can easily use land that we need for that reason. Then there is land that you can't find the owner for, better not touch that it belongs to somebody. No I don't think all land should be sky scrapers, but if you want it to be a wildlife habitat you need to make your wishes known, and be aware of what is going on on your land.

YES, this law IS not in accordance with what the Constitution guarantees in private property ownership.

Currently the law allows foreign purchase of US land. I'm not so certain I care for that but it is none the less the law.

People have a right to privacy and what they choose to do with their land provided it falls within the law is their own business and nobody elses.

annabella1, your remarks and views beg the question.........how much land do YOU own?

[Southern_Gent]

With all due respect, Annabella1, if a person is paying taxes on their land, then they can be reached. Obviously the check is coming from somewhere, and the taxing authority will have a mailing address on file. As for foreign ownership of US land, I wouldn't have a problem with the US changing the law so that only US citizens could hold property in the US. Many other countries hold a similar view to property ownership.

What woodburner had originally posted is the same mindset that many countries have when going through land-reform programs. Currently, Bolivia is engaging in such a practice, Venezuela has also pondered the idea. Both countries hold socialist views that all property belongs to the state, as do all in-country companies. I would be careful of supporting such views, as those who would wield power may have completely different views from you as what constitutes proper usage of land.

[sam12six]

I've made many friends mad by pointing out that everybody in the US who "owns" land is just leasing it from the government. In this I totally agree with Gibbonboy.

Covenants, on the other hand, I don't really have a problem with as long as you aren't forced to agree to them. I don't really have a problem with someone selling something with the condition that they sign a contract stating that they won't do this, or this, or this with it. Again, as long as you know going into it, I think it's fine.

As for foreign landowners, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Almost every other country has restrictions against people who aren't citizens owning land. Yes, there are always ways to get around those restrictions like renting it for 200 years for a one-time fee , or starting a corporation in that country that buys the land for you. The bottom line is even with the ways around the restrictions, at least you know those governments make some effort to keep citizens of other countries from capitalizing on their citizens when the economy is on the rocks.

Hmmmmm, wait a minute... the dollar's tanking... non-US citizens can buy land here...


Oh, BTW I don't agree with the "best and highest use" of land theory. I'm in the camp that if I'm paying for the land, I can do anything or nothing with it and that's no better or worse than the anything or nothing you choose to do with land you're paying for.

[gardenfay]

I like the way you worded that last paragraph sam12six - oh so true.

[annabella1]

wrtn I think it is very silly of you to continue to ask how much land I own, when it has nothing to do with my opinion of this law. Also most members of this forum who have read anything I have written can tell you how much land I currently own. I can tell you that I have lost property to eminent domain, oh yes I was paid for it but it was slightly less than what I paid for it. But the Law was used properly in this case (it was needed to straighten a dangerous curve in a road and improve the drainage in the area, the town we were in lost taxes on the deal also) At that time my husband had just had a stroke and we were in no position to establish on another property. One day I will have the acreage that I want and you can bet I will be aware of every inch of it. I still think that it's not the Law that's bad its the improper use of it. And I agree you do have a right to do nothing with your land. But if that's what you want don't let anyone else do anything with it without a written contract, or they can assume that you want them to have it. Perhaps I did not make myself clear before. Not only was this couple not doing anything with the land they were allowing the neighbors to stack wood and grow a garden on it without objection. Which means that they were either unaware of the use, or did not care about the use. This land wasn't stolen it was given away.

[gardenfay]

Sorry to disagree annabella1; but it was stolen. :'(

[WRTN]

wrtn I think it is very silly of you to continue to ask how much land I own, when it has nothing to do with my opinion of this law. Also most members of this forum who have read anything I have written can tell you how much land I currently own. I can tell you that I have lost property to eminent domain, oh yes I was paid for it but it was slightly less than what I paid for it. But the Law was used properly in this case (it was needed to straighten a dangerous curve in a road and improve the drainage in the area, the town we were in lost taxes on the deal also) At that time my husband had just had a stroke and we were in no position to establish on another property. One day I will have the acreage that I want and you can bet I will *be aware of every inch of it. I still think that it's not the Law that's bad its the improper use of it. And I agree you do have a right to do nothing with your land. But if that's what you want *don't let anyone else do anything with it without a written contract, or they can assume that you want them to have it. Perhaps I did not make myself clear before. Not only was this couple not doing anything with the land they were allowing the neighbors to stack wood and grow a garden on it without objection. Which means that they were either unaware of the use, or did not care about the use. This land wasn't stolen it was given away.


Anna, *I just asked the question one time and have continued to do nothing. *I have been the victim of eminent domain 3 times. *Each time it was stealing and I did NOT receive fair market value, not to mention being forced to pay taxes on capital gaines of property I was forced at gun point to sell. *Whether you realize or believe it or not yours and my land condemed was a theft. *

The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. *The courts have twisted and perferted this concept and basic right/guarrantee into "fair market value". *"Fair market value" gets further perverted and twisted by the state when they arbitrarily assign what they consider is "fair market value". *Just compensation means a full and perfect equivalent for the property taken. *

I didn't ask you the quesiton to be rude or hostile. *I asked to get you to consider what the true value of a particular piece of land is meaning what is its value to YOU? *If you own a secluded old growth forested piece of mountian river property and the state forces a 6 land highway through the middle of it and the state only pays you for the actual acreage taken. *What it is the value of the remainder of the land to you now? *Would you have purchased it if the highway was already on the land? *I wouldn't and the remaining value of the land to me and most people would be zero unless you sold it for commercial highway real estate. *

But this thread was not started on the subject or eminent domain, it was adverse posession. *If the presumption you put forward allowing seizure of property because you are not using it or allow others to use it, then this can be applied to vertually ANY private personal property. *Not exactly what my understanding of what the 4th amendment speaks to:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" *

Anyhow even this part kinda drifts off topic as well. *

I posted this to get folks to be aware of and think about this issue as this could create and really stressful, irritating, and EXPENSIVE problem for folks who have worked hard to buy a piece of land for their homestead out in the country only to find that when they do cut the strings to their city or suburban life and jobs to move to their homestead they find someone has taken it or a part of it. *

I have had to deal with characters who have moved survey markers or remarked property lines. *It happens. *Be VIGILANT. *

[Southern_Gent]

Sheesh, WRTN, it almost sounds like the developers are following you around. Were you actually evicted from your own land at gunpoint?

[WRTN]

SG, it wasn't developers. The first time it was the TVA which literally went to the courthouse and filed a new deed and siezed the wanted property to widen a powerline. Yes, the TVA has the power and authority to literally do this. Do some reading on the TVA Act of 1933. The legislation exempts the TVA from court procedings to condemn land.

In this case, the TVA lawyer called me all proud of himself telling me about how they took the land and there was nothing I could do about it. I agreed with him that all he said was true but pointed out to him that taking the land and gain legal and lawful access to it were 2 different things. My property was very steel and the powerline easements crose a very wide and deep creek bed on each side of my property. I also pointed out the I would NOT allow ANY TVA equiment, TVA Police, or TVA personnel on or to travel across ANY of my remaining property. I also pointed out that anyone or equipment caught on the property would be legally apprehended or confiscated. The TVA police were informed that no access would be granted to them as well. They made their threats and I called the local channel 5 news to tell them what was going on. A few days later it started to rain and it rains steady for over a week causing rampant flooding. My property was the ONLY property in the area along the powerline route that was not underwater. About 3 weeks later the TVA sent one of their contractor supervisor out to my house "hat in hand" explaining that my property was the only place not flooded and was ASKING for permission to work on the powerline easement and bring equipment across my property to get to it.

He used the "P" word a LOT as well as over to totally rebuild my 1/4 mile long gravel driveway with new gravel and do some extensive landscaping and several other things I wanted, no charge. The smart assed lawyer was removed from my case and ordered NOT to contact me again and I dealt with the contractor and the lawyers boss. We worked things out but it was kinda tense for awhile.

The 2nd time the Army Corp of Engineers extended and flowage easement onto my property. I just had to bend over and take it. I was going to build a pond and they stopped it.

The 3rd time, the Tennessee Department of Transportation widened the highway that ran along the front of the property. They wanted a little under 2 acres and offered me a paultry $1,500! I refused to settle with them and made good friends with the TDOT negoiatior which was real nice guy who worked for a company called Land Acquisitions Inc.

Turns out most of the other land owners either took the 1st offer and/or were REAL nasty and hostile to him as well as taking the issue to court.

I realized taking pretty much ANYTHING to court is useless and the only folks who win are the lawyers. I waited until the last 2 months before the settlement date. By then nearly all of the land owners had settled with TDOT allowing me to go to the courthouse and pull all the the sales agreements TDOT made with land owners along the highway route. I also wrote sent an email to Govenor Bredesen about this issue. It took me several weeks to write up a comparative real estate market analysis but as it turned out worth EVERY penny.

Much to my shock and surprise Govenor Bredesen replied to my email and had one of his staff assist me by "making a few phone calls and sending a few emails and the Land Acquisition guy was calling me wanting to know how we could come to an agreement and that he was getting some heat from his boss.

We met at his office and cordially negotiated. I had a good idea that commercial lake front real estate was worth a little more than approx. $1,000 per acre. My real estate market analysis research showed that TDOT had paid upwards of nearly $400,000 for some small businesses on less than an acres just a short distance from my house. I averaged out the high and low offers and told the guy I wanted $35,000. He explained to me that he was authorized to give me $2500 by his boss and he also told me that the max. amount he could offer land owner was $10,000 unless it was a business or the claim would have to go to court. I figured I would easily spend $10,000 in court so I said fine........I want $10,000. The guy said he would send up my counter reply but that he thought I would never get it. I submitted my 8 page real estate market analysis to him at the time. About 3 weeks later he called me back congratulating me and that the arbitration board agreed to my $10,000 counter reply and really liked my market analysis paper.

The negotiator (Joe) and I became good friends. He told me that I was the only land owner who disagreed with the offers given but spoke and treated him with dignity and respect. While my wife and I were signing the papers, Joes needed to make a fax and was having problems with the fax machine so I helped him get it working and I commented on what a nice machine it was and how I could use a nice fax, scanner, copier like that. We got to talking about what model it was and what it cost and Joe expressed his frustration about how it never worked right and I could have it if I wanted it. I jumped at the offer and it is still working like a champ almost 6 years later. ;D

Anyhow, my apologies for the long, rambling story. ;D I learned a LOT from that experience and from Joe.

[Southern_Gent]

Actually, WRTN, that was an interesting story and I thank you for sharing it. My condolences to you for having to go through such hardship. Eminent domain is a hot-button topic for me, usually followed with the thought of defending one's property with firepower. Yet, we all know where that would lead.

[gardenfay]

WRTN
I just wanted to say thank you all the information you have given on this thread. It was an eye-opener to me and I really appreciated it. I applaud you for what I would call making the best of a bad situation.

[Deberosa]

There is another kind of land "taking" that is happening at least on the west coast, not sure if it's gotten everywhere yet... It moved me to my very first attempt at political activism! In Washington it was known as Proposition 933, which was a proposal to roll back land use plans to the 1996 level or to compensate for damage to property value caused by land use law changes. It was defeated by the developers unfortunately. I put up signs and handed other signs out to people to bring this to the attention of voters but it was quite doomed by the "environmentalists".

What has been happening is a very loose determination of "wild area" or "wet Land" and if they decide your property contains or is near either you can no longer plant crops, raise animals, etc. Sounds innocent enough except for the definitions of those terms are quite arbritrary. They were declaring any standing water a wet land. There is 3 to 6 feet of rainfall in this area in a year - most of it in November through February so of course there is standing water!!!! Often gone within 24 hours but that didn't matter. So farms that were in business for many many years had acres of land taken out of production with NO compensation!

Developers buy up the now worthless farms, often through banruptcies and build houses on all of the parts that surround the "wet land".

The measure passed in Oregon and the claims are working their way through the court system and I haven't checked on it recently. The politicians recognized a bit of the close call they had in Washington and changed some laws but there is not much improvement. Your land isn't worth much if you own it but all you can do is watch the weeds and brush grow on it.

[gardenfay]

i have heard a little about that.
That makes me >:(

[WRTN]

There is another kind of land "taking" that is happening at least on the west coast, not sure if it's gotten everywhere yet... *It moved me to my very first attempt at political activism! *In Washington it was known as Proposition 933, which was a proposal to roll back land use plans to the 1996 level or to compensate for damage to property value caused by land use law changes. *It was defeated by the developers unfortunately. *I put up signs and handed other signs out to people to bring this to the attention of voters but it was quite doomed by the "environmentalists".

What has been happening is a very loose determination of "wild area" or "wet Land" and if they decide your property contains or is near either you can no longer plant crops, raise animals, etc. *Sounds innocent enough except for the definitions of those terms are quite arbritrary. *They were declaring any standing water a wet land. * There is 3 to 6 feet of rainfall in this area in a year - most of it in November through February so of course there is standing water!!!! *Often gone within 24 hours but that didn't matter. *So farms that were in business for many many years had acres of land taken out of production with NO compensation!

Developers buy up the now worthless farms, often through banruptcies and build houses on all of the parts that surround the "wet land".

The measure passed in Oregon and the claims are working their way through the court system and I haven't checked on it recently. * The politicians recognized a bit of the close call they had in Washington and changed some laws but there is not much improvement. *Your land isn't worth much if you own it but all you can do is watch the weeds and brush grow on it.

Debbie,

There are some options to make land such as this pay for itself. *If it is farm land or land that adjoins a creek or waterway within approx. 180 ft., the land may qualify for CRP (Conservation Reserve Program). *You will need to find your area FSA (Farm Service Agency) Office and NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service Office. (usually these offices are colocated). *It is a good program but require a good bit of cash up front but you will be reimbursed later via a cost share payment. *There are various practices that you can qualify for. *I chose to plant trees along stream side buffer zones on approx. *70 acres. *The NRCS likes to see these areas fenced off so they provided a 90% cost share for the fences and the trees were on a 50% cost share but things worked out so I got back about 95% of my up front cost.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp *

There is also the CSP program that various areas and water sheds qualify for, but you will have to talk to your local FSA/NRCS office. *

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/csp/

Be forewarned that it is a TON of paperwork and a LOT of work to establish the practice but they sweeten the pot by providing a $100 per acre sign up incentive payment and about $55 per acre per year rent payment. *You can sign up for 10 or 15 years. *

Again, it is best that yo contact your area FSA agent and discuss this with them. *

This program may not be for everyone as it can reduce your pasture area and you must fully establish the practice within the first 2 years or you must replant. *Trees and the preparations to plant them are NOT cheap. *Just a rough cost for you; to spray Oust cost me about $55 per acre and the tree planting cost about the same. *The cost of the trees depending upon how many you buy can run between 25 cent to 75 cent each. *

Anyhow check out the links if you are interested. *I figure if the government is going to impose environmental restrictions such as that, why not let them pay for it. *The 2008 farm bill was recently passed so there may be some new goodies in it that were not available last year. * ;)

The idea is to do the best you can to make the land pay for itself. Some other options might be to huntlease the land. Again, this may not be for everyone and you need to carefully vet the folks you hunt lease to as well as the insurance requirements.

[Deberosa]

It's not as simple out here. Horror stories with those organizations micromanaging more and more and more of your operation once they get a foot in the door.

Have a good friend with over 400 acres down the road. She runs a real estate office - the one that sold me Deberosa actually. She picked up some 933 signs from me and told me about a farmer friend of her's who went in for the 90% fence deal, but then once they were there they made him get rid of all domestic ducks, then block off the one end of the barn (run off) which left no way to get the animals out to pasture easily, then plant certain kinds of trees along the fence, and more and more. All paid partially for, but there is still all of those 10 and 20 percent portions that you have to deal with. The guy was incredibly stressed and had a heart attach in his barn and died.

However I have other acquaintances who were just starting to leverage everything free they could get their hands on for their 70 acres. We bought some chickens from them just about a year ago. Time to check back with them so see how all that free money worked out! I'll let you all know if I find out.

The big thing out here is "manure catchers" not sure what it is but of course they pay part - but they have such strict specifications that they cost 10 times more than they need to - concrete three feet thick!!!

I only have 4.5 acres - so if they came in here, found a mud puddle at the end of my driveway and said it had to have a 150 ft clearance, then I am toast....

Sorry for the rant, like I said this is the first issue I ever took a stand on in my life I felt so strongly about it!

[Kyhome]

A friend at works dad was having a few acres taken by electric company and he the son did all the talk between the two, he make known the number and type of trees on said land their value per tree in the next 15 or 20 years to harvest and number of veneer trees in the lot he got his Dad more than 25 times the first offerings by just pointing out these few points and staying calm in the talks. he made the best of a bad situation for sure. rick