- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ranch owner wants U.S. Supreme Court to hear corner-crossing case
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:04 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:04 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Man accused of killing 3 over property dispute in Colorado arrested in New Mexico
LINK
This was another case that went south
Other neighbors not involved in the shooting have accused Clark of harassing them, denying them court-ordered use of part of his property to access their property, and posting signs saying he was armed, court records said.
According to the Custer County Sheriff’s Office, multiple people were shot over what they believe was a dispute between neighbors over easement lines.
The shooting broke out early Monday afternoon as a surveyor was working on a property owned by Rob Geers near Clark’s, near Westcliffe about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southwest of Colorado Springs. The town is set in a valley between two mountain ranges and the area is home to both farms and ranches as well as vacation homes.
LINK
This was another case that went south
Other neighbors not involved in the shooting have accused Clark of harassing them, denying them court-ordered use of part of his property to access their property, and posting signs saying he was armed, court records said.
According to the Custer County Sheriff’s Office, multiple people were shot over what they believe was a dispute between neighbors over easement lines.
The shooting broke out early Monday afternoon as a surveyor was working on a property owned by Rob Geers near Clark’s, near Westcliffe about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southwest of Colorado Springs. The town is set in a valley between two mountain ranges and the area is home to both farms and ranches as well as vacation homes.
1
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:04 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
He’s claiming that his property value was based on holding exclusive access and that it was sold to him as such. He may be trying to get some money out of the seller who misrepresented it, and taking it as far as it’ll go in the court to decide the issue is the only way to go about it, but even if that’s his only intention he’s putting 4 guys at risk of jail time just to make a point, so he can get fricked either way.
ETA- rancher is a ^
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:06 pm to The Torch
quote:
By the looks of that they were just asking for trouble the way it's set up.
It goes back to the old railroad grants. The government sold the railroad alternating sections then the railroad sold their portions off while the fed kept theirs.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:51 pm to Loup
pretty simple solution, landowner needs to build a fence at the corners. no way to cross without trespassing.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 2:56 pm to bushwacker
quote:
pretty simple solution, landowner needs to build a fence at the corners. no way to cross without trespassing.
that's what they did in this case. The guys built a ladder that never touched the private property.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 3:01 pm to Loup
quote:
that's what they did in this case. The guys built a ladder that never touched the private property.
LMAO.
dude needs a higher fence. i'd get a chopper to drop me in the area if there were some shooter elk.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:06 pm to Loup
quote:
that's what they did in this case. The guys built a ladder that never touched the private property.
The facts of this situation obscure the harm done by this decision.
I think a lot of people would feel differently if someone were hopping the corner of their own property to go from one privately owned parcel to another. .
Posted on 5/22/25 at 4:53 pm to TigerDeacon
quote:
I think a lot of people would feel differently if someone were hopping the corner of their own property to go from one privately owned parcel to another. .
Absolutely not, and I especially wouldn’t feel entitled to a piece of public and treat it as my land. If it were private they’d be granted an easement and there’d be a road though his land. I deal with this exact scenario with timber land behind me that has no road frontage, it is part of owning and is an inherent risk to buying land.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 5:09 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
I hope The ruling ends up that the public lands should have a 30 foot right of way to let trucks through.
Owners should find out after they fricked around.
Owners should find out after they fricked around.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:15 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Absolutely not, and I especially wouldn’t feel entitled to a piece of public and treat it as my land. If it were private they’d be granted an easement and there’d be a road though his land. I deal with this exact scenario with timber land behind me that has no road frontage, it is part of owning and is an inherent risk to buying land.
Again, you are letting the facts of this specific situation get in the way of the possible outcome of the court case. I'm not referring to public lands (especially this case),j I'm talking about private lands. Depending on your individual fact situation you may or may not have to give access to someone that is landlocked.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:40 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
But I thought that this had been asked and answered. The crossing of the corner was not deemed a trespass since no foot was set upon the property.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 11:25 am to TigerDeacon
quote:
Again, you are letting the facts of this specific situation get in the way of the possible outcome of the court case. I'm not referring to public lands (especially this case),j I'm talking about private lands. Depending on your individual fact situation you may or may not have to give access to someone that is landlocked.
I understand your point, and as a landowner who has been through it I’m telling you I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over someone corner crossing from their land onto their land. If blocking access to the other parcel doesn’t entitle me to use it, why on earth would I care?
Posted on 5/23/25 at 12:02 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
He’s claiming that his property value was based on holding exclusive access and that it was sold to him as such
His beef shouldn't be with the hunters. It's really with whoever ensured him that this was the case. If he has it in writing that this was advertised, then he has a claim against whoever sold it under the guise of those conditions.
If it was just insinuated and not specifically stated, then he's an idiot who should've done the due diligence to know the laws.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 12:06 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I understand your point, and as a landowner who has been through it I’m telling you I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over someone corner crossing from their land onto their land. If blocking access to the other parcel doesn’t entitle me to use it, why on earth would I care?
Yes but it could be applied to a situation bigger than someone stepping over your corner.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:57 pm to TigerDeacon
I think you’re confused on the “facts of the case” you keep referring to. This decision is inherently linked to federal public lands and essentially upheld the Unlawful Enclosures Act, nothing the Supreme Court would presumably rule on could be easily applied to a dispute between two landowners, nor airspace above private property in general. I said I wouldn’t care if a private landowner corner crossed over me because I genuinely wouldn’t give a shite, but it has no bearing on any precedent this would establish.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 3:43 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I think you’re confused on the “facts of the case” you keep referring to. This decision is inherently linked to federal public lands and essentially upheld the Unlawful Enclosures Act, nothing the Supreme Court would presumably rule on could be easily applied to a dispute between two landowners, nor airspace above private property in general. I said I wouldn’t care if a private landowner corner crossed over me because I genuinely wouldn’t give a shite, but it has no bearing on any precedent this would establish.
Bad facts make bad law.
Don't act like this outcome wouldn't be in every CLE update on real property I understand that this case deals with federal public lands. However, I fear a supreme court ruling based on bad facts would muddy the water. Do they have to jump over the infinitesimal point where the two diagonally placed parcels touch or do they get vehicle access? I haven't read any facts of the case other than mentioned in this thread but it doesn't seem the property owner was enclosing any federal lands, only his own. Not saying what his motive was in that but it seems like that was all he was doing.
Good for you that you would allow someone to cut your corner. A large portion of people wouldn't. I just had a case where people were trying to cut the corner on a state of Louisiana parcel. Didn't fly.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 4:17 pm to Loup
quote:
old railroad grants. The government sold the railroad alternating sections then the railroad sold their portions off while the fed kept theirs.
what size are these parcels? They just sections or are they bigger?
Posted on 5/23/25 at 5:40 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
A checkerboard of public and private land. How the hell does this even happen?
Looks like a recipe for disaster...such as this lawsuit. Surprised these lawsuits aren't happening all over these areas.
Looks like a recipe for disaster...such as this lawsuit. Surprised these lawsuits aren't happening all over these areas.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 7:28 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
, a wealthy North Carolina pharmaceutical executive
frick THIS GUY!
Posted on 5/24/25 at 3:12 am to jrobic4
The state could and should just eminent domain a fricking access road to all the public land fricking problem solved, and an example of what happens when you a prick.
In the meantime time I would surround that mfer with every green jeans I have and follow every guided trip he has booked for years.
frick him and anyone else that thinks like this
In the meantime time I would surround that mfer with every green jeans I have and follow every guided trip he has booked for years.
frick him and anyone else that thinks like this
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News