History repeats itself...

[stangin4lyfe]

Plenty of leases out there that allow for improvements to be made (like fencing so the lessor can manage the cattle better), but such improvements are then the land owners at the end of the lease. Spend $5K to keep you from spending $10K on something else? Just business decisions, IMO.

Generally you are correct, but in legal terms...the retained ownership depends how the lease was wrote.
Some alterations and/or improvements are removable and can remain with the tenant.

[GhostTX]

Generally you are correct, but in legal terms...the retained ownership depends how the lease was wrote.
Some alterations and/or improvements are removable and can remain with the tenant.

Oh, I agree. I was merely pointing out it happens and it's not unusual for people to make improvements to land they don't own and they're not going to be able to keep them.

[Forever_frost]

Find an example of that ever actually happening in the last 100 years.

Are you saying it's not the law?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Are you saying it's not the law?

calm down.

[stangin4lyfe]

Oh, I agree. I was merely pointing out it happens and it's not unusual for people to make improvements to land they don't own and they're not going to be able to keep them.

Those people also should know from the get go that they are not retaining those improvements as it's in the contract that they sign beforehand(the lease), but unfortunately...most don't read or fully understand what they are asked to sign.

[Forever_frost]

Find an example of that ever actually happening in the last 100 years.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html

Yep, I'm right, it's called adverse possession.

[racrguy]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...ers-46934.html

Yep, I'm right, it's called adverse possession.

It's still a requirement to have someone with a light walking in front of a car down main street warning horsemen of the approaching car. Do we still practice it, or require it be done? No.

Some laws are antiquated and aren't used anymore. Best I recall the last person that tried to use it got the boot.

[talisman]

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...ers-46934.html

Yep, I'm right, it's called adverse possession.

I didn't ask for a definition, I know what it is. I asked for an example of it ever actually being successful. All that says is it "can" happen.

[line-em-up]

Why would you put money in to property you don't own? This has stupid all over it, the more details that come out. On all sides.

People do that all of the time. Why would someone lease property and put a $10,000,000 building on it that they can't move? Land it so expensive to buy in downtown Dallas, so it is leased by the sq ft and then a big building is built on it.

I know of plenty of ranchers/farmers around here that lease other people's land for their cattle and then pay for fencing and other improvements.

[Forever_frost]

It's still a requirement to have someone with a light walking in front of a car down main street warning horsemen of the approaching car. Do we still practice it, or require it be done? No.

Some laws are antiquated and aren't used anymore. Best I recall the last person that tried to use it got the boot.

Will it still hold up in court? Yes. If you want to pursue it, go for it. If a cop wants to pull you over for violating it, he can. Is it generally worth the courts time? Probably not but it's still the law and this gentleman, improving the land where everyone can see, for decades counts as.....adverse possession. Hand the man the deed and let's have a steak.

[Forever_frost]

People do that all of the time. Why would someone lease property and put a $10,000,000 building on it that they can't move? Land it so expensive to buy in downtown Dallas, so it is leased by the sq ft and then a big building is built on it.

I know of plenty of ranchers/farmers around here that lease other people's land for their cattle and then pay for fencing and other improvements.

I have a gentleman using 2 acres of mine (has since before I bought the place) that he's dug stock tanks on and put up fencing. That cost him quite a bit. He also thins out the mesquite trees and brush because it benefits him, I let him because it benefits me.

[Forever_frost]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the "owner" of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the "trespass cattle" remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn't recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

"The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle." says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

"Why don't you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying 'Yes, pursue it.'" Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy's cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn't placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

"I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that, but they are considering it now."

[talisman]

Why are you ignoring my question, Frost?

[LANTIRN]

Can a mod combine these two threads? No reason to have this same argument going on in two places.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=54749

[YALE]

By your own statement, you agree it's his land. Public land is for public use, he's a taxpayer and an American so he's public therefore A + B =C.

A: Taxpayer
B: American Citizen
C: Member of public.

I'm so glad to hear you don't have an issue with sending armed forces against a rancher. I mean courts ruled against German Americans and Italian Americans and Japanese Americans during WW2 and said it was kosher to take their stuff and put them into camps so that was peachy keen with you right?

Your math would work if you bothered to check into any laws concerning the use of public land. It isn't a free for all, and you have to stick to your allotment. It used to be a free for all, and a lot of land got wrecked hard. I'm not against the government seizing property lawfully. That's a function they have. Your comparison is cute, but it isn't relevant, or even related. It's also pretty unlikely that he has prescriptive rights. Nevada became a state before his family got there, so it was public land then, unless they sold it to the government at some point.