It will probably depend on what that statute specifically says. For example, if he had to do that solely for that purpose, that’s a high bar to meet. He could say sure I did it to keep them out but also to maintain my property value, keep my cows in, whatever. As far as them speaking with LE, that won’t matter. Criminal and civil are two different beasts. I think the statue they’re using as a defense is their only hope. Otherwise I just don’t see how they get around what is clearly a civil trespass. It requires no damages or intent.
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
Corner Crossing and Efforts to Legalize it in the Midwest/West
- Thread starter 2Sloe
- Start date
Agreed on the guilt finding but, isn't a monetary award to the landowner dependent on actual damages or negligence (punitive damages)?
With no fencing, his only argument is keeping the public from using public property, there by increasing his property value via default control. Public use of said property should, if we are going to argue in technical terms, have no bearing on his property value based on its current land use.
Punitive damages are to discourage that conduct in the future, they’re punishment. They would be different from his claims of actual harm. The law shocks me every day though. I’m just a redneck who is making the most of my gi bill.
I don’t disagree with the principle. But it’s just not that clear. The right to exclude is a fundamental property right. And if he doesn’t exclude someone could adversely possess that corner and he wouldn’t own it anymore. Clear as mud or what? Lol
How could there be justification for punitive damages if the conduct resulted in zero actual damages? I reserve the right to give you crap for your pursuit of the Barrister life but you have my most sincere appreciation for your service.
Would the hunters not also argue the same as they and we are the rightful owners of the other 2 corners?
Lawyers suck. And I love a good lawyer joke lmao. And Thank you. Here’s a hypo. And maybe even part of his claims. What if he leases to an outfitter who sells hunts, and because they have access to this ranch and that public they can support more hunters, making the lease more valuable. And they won’t want it anymore if anyone can walk instead of using a helicopter or whatever. Now he has actual damages.
He’s not required to give them access though. And you can’t adversely possess government property.
Mengle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 622
I see both sides, but heavily lean towards it being accessible for all.
I would be curious to see what folks true reactions would be if they were the ones who owned the land and if it were on a much smaller scale. I think a lot of folks would be sitting on the other side of the table and won’t admit it. Especially on the internet.
I would be curious to see what folks true reactions would be if they were the ones who owned the land and if it were on a much smaller scale. I think a lot of folks would be sitting on the other side of the table and won’t admit it. Especially on the internet.
I would argue that the outfitter should have accounted for the possibility of public access when determining suitable value of the lease he was to acquire. If public access at the corner becomes a thing, the outfitter could certainly see more hunting competition by the owners of the public ground. The owner of the private ground has suffered no damages, in fact he has a windfall by negotiating a higher lease based on property he does not own. If he presented control of the public ground as inducement for a higher lease price, it might could be argued the outfitter's potential damages were the result of a fraudulent negotiation by the private landowner. But that would be a matter for the private landowner and outfitter to sort out and has no bearing on the public's property.
This scenario really interests me. I have tried to work through the loss of property value being damages in my head and can't make sense of it. The only way that others would be able to walk in is if the hunters are found not guilty of civil trespass and others are aware that they can now cross that corner. But, obviously in a not guilty scenario no damages are awarded.
If the hunters are found guilty of civil trespass then others are put on notice that they cannot cross that corner, therefore there is no loss of property value.
I've testified as an expert witness on a land development issue once and on a property rights/easement issue once but, luckily I have never had to calculate damages. Leave that voodoo to the CPA's. lol
Newberg's podcast talks about a Wisconsin case where a private landowner pulled his trailer across a 10' strip of property owned by another landowner after being told repeatedly not to. Actual damages awarded were $1, punitive damages were $100,000. As @will4554 points out punitive damages are simply a punishment to discourage the behavior. My understanding of them is there has to be some sort of negligence involved but, I may not be correct on that.
The Government had surveyors divide the west up into nice neat square parcels of land and then awarded every other parcel to the railroads as incentive to encourage them to develop west. This resulted in the checkerboard effect of private/public.
Fraud is a whole other deal too. School is like getting into a club that didn’t mean to let me in. A real fish out of water type experience.
Pretty accurate. There were no actual damages in that case. I’m not sure what the reason for the 1$ amount was. That’s where the no damages required rule comes from.
I cant see an easy fix to the problem at all really. What makes the most sense to me is to do something like a forced 1031 exchange via emminant domain with easements to otherwise inaccessible public property. Private property owners would lose zero acreage outside of potentially a minimal walk in access easement for which they should be compensated for. All property owners rights should be protected and respected, not just private or public and getting all the hodge podge land consolidated is the quickest and cleanest route. Pick a minimum acreage for any remaining outlier federal property that is not sufficient for public use and maintenance, say 200 acres. Those tracts should be sold to private owners and the sales proceeds used for either new land purchase or maintaining the nearest public property.
Last edited:
Seems like in this case, they went WAY out of their way to not be negligent by using a ladder to move from public to public but also avoiding contact with the guys chain and sign. That sort of punitive damage award is a perfect example of the need for tort reform. There are certainly instances where significant punitive damages are warranted but there are so many that just leave you with WTH?
Agreed, I think the fact that the hunters went out of their way to avoid contacting the private owners property and got confirmation that their actions were legal by more than one law enforcement agency will help them avoid significant punitive damages.
The Wisconsin case was a guy just flipping off his neighbor and saying "I'm going to do it anyway". Significantly different circumstances.