yes
Another interesting WY public access case
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
yes
chatgpt tells me that, generally speaking, easements do not apply to the land that it does not burden, aka in this case: public land.
i just think common sense would say that you have no right to tell someone what they can't do on publc land unless there is some more highly specific and unusual easement language in there.
i'm sticking with asshole entitled landowners, final answer.
i just think common sense would say that you have no right to tell someone what they can't do on publc land unless there is some more highly specific and unusual easement language in there.
i'm sticking with asshole entitled landowners, final answer.
Addicting
Well-known member
Just my thoughts.
But when he is on public or State land the easement does not apply. It would appear he has no easement with the BLM or State. That portion is just a road maintained by the landowner? Or does the BLM manage it.
His easement wouldn’t technically kick back in till he has to cross the next section of deeded private. Especially since easements are recorded on their perspective deeds.
Frequently Banned Troll
Well-known member
Another case of what’s mine is mine and what’s yours in mine.
Addicting
Well-known member
And which easement? The BLM’s, State’s or suing landowner.
Some seriously muddy water to wade through.
mevertsen
Well-known member
Yeah. That's certainly a good discussion.
Another thought for me, is
Where does the road in question start from a county road?
Private or BLM?
I also would wonder how the original easement came about.
Certainly a lot of intricacies, and no way I can make a real opinion on it, but interested to see how it shakes out in the end.
i dunno, i saw no mention of easements with the blm or state. but it seems the only party suing is the landowner.
also, it would be hard to believe the previous landowner was totally clueless to this going on.
my gut tells me there is no blm easement and my gut tells me that also doesn't really change anything.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What the cease-and-desist letter says is totally irrelevant. It could say, "I'm a typical crybaby landowner and just don't want anyone else using public land"...doesn't mean anything legally.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
If anyone is interested...
bighornspiritswy.com
casamaestri.com
and pulled from the tequila About Us
The worst things always come from Texas.
Bighorn Spirits
bighornspiritswy.com
contact - CASA MAESTRI
CONTACT US WHERE WE ARE Destiladora Del Valle de Tequila S.A. de C.V. Carretera Internacional #102 Colonia Santa Cruz de Los Espinos Tequila, Jalisco Mexico C.P. 46403. SCHEDULE A CALLIT WILL BE A PLEASURE TO SERVE YOU!Click Here
casamaestri.com
and pulled from the tequila About Us
The worst things always come from Texas.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,601
My first thought was of my lovely wife, and I got offended. My second thought was of her family, and I’m now coming around to your point.
JM77
Well-known member
I'm going through the access easement process in Wyoming. Title 24 of Wyo statutes guarantee a private road access to landowners. Without seeing the legal document it's anyone's guess what was agreed upon by the parties involved if the easement wasn't ordered by the court.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
Maybe someone shot a forky horn and set this battle ablaze?
And tequilaIf anyone is interested...
View attachment 395447Bighorn Spirits
contact - CASA MAESTRI
CONTACT US WHERE WE ARE Destiladora Del Valle de Tequila S.A. de C.V. Carretera Internacional #102 Colonia Santa Cruz de Los Espinos Tequila, Jalisco Mexico C.P. 46403. SCHEDULE A CALLIT WILL BE A PLEASURE TO SERVE YOU!Click Here
View attachment 395449
and pulled from the tequila About Us
View attachment 395450
The worst things always come from Texas.
Schaaf
Well-known member
birdseye
Active member
Initial filing by Plaintiff, Maestri: https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/DCGCC1277555.pdf
huh...not seeing any language on the easement exhibit that forbids grantee (Ten Braak) from accessing the adjacent parcels of State and/or BLM lands
Here's the Court Doc filed by Counselor for the defendant : https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/DCGCC1286569.pdf
pretty good rebuttal, imho. Maestri cannot represent nor sue on behalf of neither the BLM or State land (cuz he ain't on the deed, duh!) and looks like this cease & desist could be construed as intimidation and a violation of the 1885 unlawful enclosures act
Buzz, have you seen this? Anyhoo, move over Freddie Eshelman, Maestri is in the building!
huh...not seeing any language on the easement exhibit that forbids grantee (Ten Braak) from accessing the adjacent parcels of State and/or BLM lands
Here's the Court Doc filed by Counselor for the defendant : https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/DCGCC1286569.pdf
pretty good rebuttal, imho. Maestri cannot represent nor sue on behalf of neither the BLM or State land (cuz he ain't on the deed, duh!) and looks like this cease & desist could be construed as intimidation and a violation of the 1885 unlawful enclosures act
Buzz, have you seen this? Anyhoo, move over Freddie Eshelman, Maestri is in the building!
Last edited:
JM77
Well-known member
I have to agree that the grantor only has rights based on where the two track crosses private land. The easement in this case does not pertain to the public land the road crosses.That is validated by the surveys showing points of beginning and end. It would be interesting to hear from some of the lawyers on here. @VikingsGuy
seeth07
Well-known member
Condition three of the easement clearly defends their position for this action. They can't use the easement to access the public. It was an agreed term at the creation of the easement which is a legal binding agreement between both parties.
Now whether or not the original owner at time of the easement creation had to agree to this or not is another story.
Now whether or not the original owner at time of the easement creation had to agree to this or not is another story.
seeth07
Well-known member
Here is what may be interesting. The court could find it breach of agreement but what would the damages be to the plaintiff? The act of being on the public cant have any damaging effects to the plaintiff as they don't own it
Addicting
Well-known member
I read it and agree they cannot cross off the 20’ deeded easement to hunt.
Please provide the easement with the other two land owners to see if those lands have the same provision.
Because that easement is only good for their deeded land. The BLM and State have their own property rights and can do with them as they please.
Addicting
Well-known member
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the BLM files suit against the new landowner to be able to use the easement to access their property.
Similar threads
