Another interesting WY public access case

[mevertsen]

I disagree.

Okay. Please explain.

And I see a difference in this case vs the corner crossing g case as there was no law prohibiting it, but it was pure intimidation on the Elk Mountain ranch part.

My hang up is here is a clause for them to get written permssion for other access needs.

Edit...

And they signed the agreement.

So the new owners give a cease and decist order, and they either could not come to a new agreement, or just went straight to the court route. (Details I dont know for sure, so some assumptions being made there).

 

[BuzzH]

Okay. Please explain.

And I see a difference in this case vs the corner crossing g case as there was no law prohibiting it, but it was pure intimidation on the Elk Mountain ranch part.

My hang up is here is a clause for them to get written permssion for other access needs.

A cease-and-desist letter isn't intimidation?

Ok.

 

[mevertsen]

A cease-and-desist letter isn't intimidation?

Ok.

No.

If I grant easement to my neighbor, and I feel he is violating that, the cease and decist order is just a legal way in saying "STOP" before I proceed further.

To me that opens the door to negotiations.

 

[OreIdaElk]

Doesn’t it say to access land they own, the public land is own by all Americans so they have ownership in the public land and could access it?

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

View attachment 395485


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

This maps slightly better - note that the easement is non-continous through public lands.

I dont see any terms in the easement that address blm or state lands, and thats logical because the landowner has no jurisdiction over use/travel across them.

I dont think an easement can be written for a property owner to restrict activities on property they don't own that their easement is adjacent to/ending on.

 

[TOGIE]

No.

If I grant easement to my neighbor, and I feel he is violating that, the cease and decist order is just a legal way in saying "STOP" before I proceed further.

To me that opens the door to negotiations.

i can pay an attorney to write a cease and desist letter (we shouldn't call them "orders" until they come from a court) about anything i want. doesn't mean squat until a court agrees.

 

[TOGIE]

I dont think an easement can be written for a property owner to restrict activities on property they don't own that their easement is adjacent to/ending on.

one could, as it's just an agreement. and if the parties agree to certain terms, such as you will not access the public land that can be accessed by use of the easement, then they agreed in a legally binding document.

i don't see it in the easement agreement either and the map is very damaging to the plaintiffs case IMO. we'll see.

 

[mevertsen]

i can pay an attorney to write a cease and desist letter (we shouldn't call them "orders" until they come from a court) about anything i want. doesn't mean squat until a court agrees.

I don't even need an attorney really.

I can write one myself and have it delivered by the Sheriff or a process server.

My hang-up is the agreement they signed.

It wasn't a court order, it was an agreement.

I read the rebuttal, and key words that stick to me are

BLM, state lands, public lands.

Where the easement says "adjacent"

Also another thought....

In essence, if the grantees do get access to that blm and state land through their private easement, doesn't that give them exclusive access the public land (aside from the recent helicopter event that occurred)?

So if the court rules in favor of the grantee, it still doesnt do much for helping the rest of us ina accessing that land. And I'm sure they are going to invite everyone on the planet to hunt it, just because.

 

[TOGIE]

I don't even need an attorney really.

I can write one myself and have it delivered by the Sheriff or a process server.

My hang-up is the agreement they signed.

It wasn't a court order, it was an agreement.

I read the rebuttal, and key words that stick to me are

BLM, state lands, public lands.

Where the easement says "adjacent"

Also another thought....

In essence, if the grantees do get access to that blm and state land through their private easement, doesn't that give them exclusive access the public land (aside from the recent helicopter idea that occurred)?

So if the court rules in favor of the grantee, it still doesnt do much for helping the rest of us ina accessing that land. And I'm sure they are going to invite everyone on the planet to hunt it, just because.

exactly, my point is you can say anything in a cease and desist letter, doesn't have to be true, and it can certainly be construed as intimidation.

the agreement is indeed what matters and we must be reading different ones.

have you not actually looked at the map, provided by the plaintiffs, in the easement agreement as exhibit, referenced in term 4 of the agreement, that defines "adjacent lands" ?

adjacent is ambiguous until you accidentally define it in your own agreement

 

[mevertsen]

exactly, my point is you can say anything in a cease and desist letter, doesn't have to be true, and it can certainly be construed as intimidation.

the agreement is indeed what matters and we must be reading different ones.

have you not actually looked at the map, provided by the plaintiffs, in the easement agreement as exhibit, referenced in term 4 of the agreement, that defines "adjacent lands" ?

adjacent is ambiguous until you accidentally define it in your own agreement

Yes. I looked at the map.

My interpretation of "adjacent"

Is adjacent to the easement.

The grantees agreed to not access adjacent lands to that easement.

And it appears the easement starts on private land.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

More helicopter rides....

 

[mevertsen]

exactly, my point is you can say anything in a cease and desist letter, doesn't have to be true, and it can certainly be construed as intimidation.

the agreement is indeed what matters and we must be reading different ones.

have you not actually looked at the map, provided by the plaintiffs, in the easement agreement as exhibit, referenced in term 4 of the agreement, that defines "adjacent lands" ?

adjacent is ambiguous until you accidentally define it in your own agreement

Specic to the cease and decist order...

I could get on board with the intimidation part, if there wasn't a signed agreement the grantors felt the grantees were violating.

As compared to the Elk Mountain Ranch just making it such a pain in the butt, people didnt want to fight it. (Going back to when we lived and hunted there, and my family who still.lives and hunts there, and a cousin who is married into a ranch near Elk Mountain)

My dad and uncles all didn't do that corner crossing. My dad and uncle both specifically have submitted to it being private property.

 

[TOGIE]

Specic to the cease and decist order...

I could get on board with the intimidation part, if there wasn't a signed agreement the grantors felt the grantees were violating.

As compared to the Elk Mountain Ranch just making it such a pain in the butt, people didnt want to fight it. (Going back to when we lived and hunted there, and my family who still.lives and hunts there, and a cousin who is married into a ranch near Elk Mountain)

My dad and uncles all didn't do that corner crossing, whether that was because they believed it was illegal or because they just didn't want to mess with it, I cant say for sure. But my dad and uncle both specifically have submitted to it being private property.

even with a contract, the courts may determine that the plaintiffs are full of shit (ergo the cease and desist was toothless threat). and that's exactly what they are, threat of a lawsuit. means nothing until the courts take it up when a legit suit is filed.

cease and desists are something people often do to quickly get their way regardless of what is true. so, now the courts will examine the facts, examine the agreement, and determine what is true.

obviously easements are sticky and can be surprising. but i'm still gonna hedge my bet on the tequila maestros being too drunk and entitled, especially after reading the easement.

 

[JM77]

The huge contradiction in the easement wording is the fact that the easement DOES give access to the public lands. If the easement gets thrown out, the grantee can file for the court to get another. Chances are the current route into the grantees land will remain unchanged.

 

[mevertsen]

even with a contract, the courts may determine that the plaintiffs are full of shit (ergo the cease and desist was toothless threat). and that's exactly what they are, threat of a lawsuit. means nothing until the courts take it up when a legit suit is filed.

cease and desists are something people often do to quickly get their way regardless of what is true. so, now the courts will examine the facts, examine the agreement, and determine what is true.

obviously easements are sticky and can be surprising. but i'm still gonna hedge my bet on the tequila maestros being too drunk and entitled, especially after reading the easement.

Agreed with the easements being a sticky mess.

And I got to deliver a lot of those and similar in my career. But if someone paid for soemthing to be served, that was my job. "Don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind for me. What a PITA that was.

We'll see how it plays out.

 

[mevertsen]

The huge contradiction in the easement wording is the fact that the easement DOES give access to the public lands. If the easement gets thrown out, the grantee can file for the court to get another. Chances are the current route into the grantees land will remain unchanged.

Are you meaning the written easement gives access to the public lands,

Or, the easement physically crosses the public lands.

?

 

[Blowdowner]

Actually I think I likely side with the Maesri party and I would agree that it is about private land and the terms of that easement. So many people don't understand what an easement is and it gets abused.

That's absurd. If you're serious about that statement I'd expect you to build a suspension bridge for me to reach my cabin - It's about PARKING. If s hunter jumped over the fence along the easement and landed in public he'd be fine.

 

[cgasner1]

So let me ask this if a landowner gives you permission to hunt but says I don’t want you hunting on one part of the ranch would you go over there anyway? Way I would understand that is yes you can use my road to access your ranch. When you use my road to access the public ground you aren’t access your ranch and you have no business on my road. Sucks but I wasn’t the one that signed on the dotted line.