Another interesting WY public access case

[seeth07]

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.

Yes but to get to the blm land they are using the easement in which has those terms. They are breaking rhe agreement before they even get to the blm land.

 

[birdseye]

Maestri does not own, nor cannot control activities on the public land parcels. Imho, #3 is saying that the easement is not a general public access, meaning that old joe blow who has no connections or an invite from either grantor and grantee, just can't hop into his truck, drive 100 mi. to this place and use the easement/road to access the public parcels. Nothing says that the grantee (Ten Braak) can't utilize the public lands. What's Maestri expecting, that Ten Braak drives through the public pieces at 10 mph, stare straight ahead and dare not slow down or look to your left or right? I'm waiting for Maestri to provide a recorded deed showing he is the owner of the BLM and State pieces. My research shows the BLM to be owned by "the United States of America" and the Wy state pieces have a designated ownership of "Wyoming, State of" - I don't see "Maestri" "Maestro" "Big Horn Spirits" or the "Mexicali Taco & Tequila Stand and Donkey Show"

Again, Maestri DOES NOT OWN the BLM and State Lands and has no enforcement powers over activity conducted on these parcels. Don't tell me that this spirits and mexican/texican guru is leveraging the state's wildlife by outfitting on these public pieces....

 

[Addicting]

Yes but to get to the blm land they are using the easement in which has those terms. They are breaking rhe agreement before they even get to the blm land.

As long as they don’t step off that 20’ on his deeded land or hunt within the 20’. Once off that deeded portion and on public that easement is nothing, it’s a new landowner and terms.

 

[johnp]

If the grantor successfully sues to prevent access to public land if the grantee uses the easement. Couldn't that also mean the grantee would not be able to access any public land even if it butts up to the grantee's land ? After all , the easement was at one point used to get there.

 

[seeth07]

As long as they don’t step off that 20’ on his deeded land or hunt within the 20’. Once off that deeded portion and on public that easement is nothing, it’s a new landowner and terms.

You are missing the point. The contract applies to the very first entrance into the easement on the private property. As soon as that action occurs, the person using the easement agrees to the terms spelled out which clearly state that the user must use it for the sole purpose of egress to their landlocked private parcel. Any action afterwards up to the point of access to their parcel is part of that agreement.

 

[Addicting]

You are missing the point. The contract applies to the very first entrance into the easement on the private property. As soon as that action occurs, the person using the easement agrees to the terms spelled out which clearly state that the user must use it for the sole purpose of egress to their landlocked private parcel. Any action afterwards up to the point of access to their parcel is part of that agreement.

Not missing anything, but thanks for your response.

 

[cgasner1]

Easements are a serious pain in the ass I deal with them at work to much. Also a few year back I was trying to snag a lease to elk hunt killer property next to a big outfitted ranch. I really only wanted to hunt one section problem was that section was landlocked and the easement said only blood or someone married to the owner of the deed use that easement. If the paperwork says only for access of their property it’s pretty clear.

 

[birdseye]

Maestro needs something, something big to bolster his case. May I suggest "Waypoint 6" ???

 

[TOGIE]

Condition three of the easement clearly defends their position for this action. They can't use the easement to access the public.

Yes but to get to the blm land they are using the easement in which has those terms. They are breaking rhe agreement before they even get to the blm land.

This term?

"3. This Second Amended Easement is private. At no time shall this Second Amended Easement be construed to create a public right-of-way, and Grantees shall not advertise the access or otherwise provide access to the public as a means of accessing lands not owned by the Grantees."

the word public in there is referencing public rights of way and the public at large, not public lands. it is about not advertising to provide access to the public at large.

seeth coming in strong in defense of sniveling bitch absentee dickwad landowners!

if the tequila maestros didn't want the grantees accessing the public they would've wisely routed the easement around public.

i will grant, they may have overstepped by bringing along those folks in the name of an organization. but they were still invitees of the grantee. that's the only angle i could see. i just don't see where you're coming form with this other than fred eshelman must've given you a special invite to one of his most recent eyes wide shut parties.

 

[mevertsen]

You are missing the point. The contract applies to the very first entrance into the easement on the private property. As soon as that action occurs, the person using the easement agrees to the terms spelled out which clearly state that the user must use it for the sole purpose of egress to their landlocked private parcel. Any action afterwards up to the point of access to their parcel is part of that agreement.

I read exhibit e.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Grantee agreed to use the road for only access to their property and to not use the road to access adjacent land.

If the grantee agreed to the conditions, its on them to follow.

Thats a part of the condition of the grantor allowing access through their private property.

Seems the new owner could just as easily revoke the easement and say "tough luck, find another way to your land."

 

[mevertsen]

This term?

"3. This Second Amended Easement is private. At no time shall this Second Amended Easement be construed to create a public right-of-way, and Grantees shall not advertise the access or otherwise provide access to the public as a means of accessing lands not owned by the Grantees."

the word public in there is referencing public rights of way and the public at large, not public lands. it is about not advertising to provide access to the public at large.

seeth coming in strong in defense of sniveling bitch absentee dickwad landowners!

if the tequila maestros didn't want the grantees accessing the public they would've wisely routed the easement around public.

i will grant, they may have overstepped by bringing along those folks in the name of an organization. but they were still invitees of the grantee. that's the only angle i could see. i just don't see where you're coming form with this other than fred eshelman must've given you a special invite to one of his most recent eyes wide shut parties.

Read the next paragraph.

Part 4.

Grantees agreed to that as a condition of being able to cross grantor's property.

 

[TOGIE]

Read the next paragraph.

Part 4.

Grantees agreed to that as a condition of being able to cross grantor's property.

so that says they shall not hunt on the:

1. easement lands
2. burdened lands
3. adjacent lands

first two are ovbious.

now, since the easement literally doesn't exist on the public lands the public lands are not adjacent to the easement. i think 9 times out of 10 you're going to see a legal definition of adjacent in real estate to mean "sharing a boundary."

could be wrong, but otherwise just feels like a stretch. i too would like to hear what @Elky Welky or @VikingsGuy think.

 

[seeth07]

Seems the new owner could just as easily revoke the easement and say "tough luck, find another way to your land."

They can and they can't. The landlocked private property owner has rights to be able to access his property - and it sounds like the WY laws specifically state access by vehicle.

It may be possible for them to revoke and provide an alternate route. I'm not sure exactly if certain situations need to happen for that to be allowed or if its just possible for the grantor to do it at will

 

[mevertsen]

They can and they can't. The landlocked private property owner has rights to be able to access his property - and it sounds like the WY laws specifically state access by vehicle.

It may be possible for them to revoke and provide an alternate route. I'm not sure exactly if certain situations need to happen for that to be allowed or if its just possible for the grantor to do it at will

Understood. Didn't realize there was a specific Wyoming law regarding that.

Carry on.

For now, (after reading the easement),

My bingo card entry is

"Entitled small property landowners, who don't know how to read the agreement they signed"

 

[Forkyfinder]

I hope the next people fly in. Theres obviously some elk there and sizeable chunks of public.

 

[TOGIE]

there is an exhibit the appears to define the adjacent lands. it's just impossible to read. but if my eyes are indeed making out what i believe is labeled adjacent lands then i'm sticking with sniveling bitch entitled absentee landowner as it is not calling out the public land.




guys brown nosing these big landowners won't get you access!

 

[BuzzH]

Seems the new owner could just as easily revoke the easement and say "tough luck, find another way to your land."

You need to study up on Wyoming law.

 

[mevertsen]

You need to study up on Wyoming law.

Agreed.

I admitted to that in the post above.

Still agree that the easement is for access to their land only, and they signed the easement.

 

[BuzzH]

Agreed.

I admitted to that in the post above.

Still agree that the easement is for access to their land only, and they signed the easement.

I disagree.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I'm running into this very issue at work right now. I'm told by attorneys that this is likely an "overburdening" of the easement. My heart is always on the side of accessing public lands, but I'm guessing it won't go that way in this case.