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" ???