Get it in writing

[SilverLeaf]

Just saw this article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that is sort of a word of warning, I guess, to always get tapping leases and agreements in writing.

The quick synopsis is: 30 years ago a couple was forced to sell their land (and sugarbush) to a suburb for a park. They were given an oral agreement by the city that they could keep tapping their trees, and have done so every year since. Now they are 80, and suddenly the city notices what they're doing and puts a stop to it, saying "it's not in the contract".

You have to read the whole thing. It does seem a little naive that they didn't get it in writing (even 30 years ago), but you really have to feel for the couple. Seems to me this is a clear case where the city could have a heart and bend the rules a bit.

Also - check out their corn-crib sugar house! Now that is awesome!

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/83607007.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

[Frank Ivy]

I read the whole thing and didn't see anything about "forced to sell." Where was that mentioned?

I suppose I'm just an old crotchedy cynic.

How is letting private people get free use of public land "the right thing" unless everybody has the same right?

They sold the property to the public. Presumably they made money on it - taxpayer money.

And who doesn't know that you can't use property that isn't yours? Unless you have permission? And that "oral" permission from a govt. employee is meaningless because that employee doesn't own the land?

Once again, not to be a total bastard, but it seems to me these people sold the land and then just kept right on using it because it was right there and secluded enough so that they wouldn't be noticed.

I would love to put them on a lie detector -

"Did you really believe that had a legal right to tap these trees?"

If they fail the LD test, charge them 30 years worth of sap.

If they pass, let 'em use the woods until they die.

[SilverLeaf]

Frank, the article says, "Although they appear on park district books as willing sellers, Don, 89, and Elaine, 87, said they felt forced into the sale and accepted a price rather than wrangle in court." It was clearly an eminent domain kind of situation.

I'm giving the couple the benefit of the doubt here, as the whole thing appears to me as a he said/she said kind of thing. Somebody at the city made a verbal promise to them, which they naively took at face value. But apparently that somebody wasn't anyone with the authority to do so.

[bobbyjake]

It happens everywhere. Merck Forest and Farmland in Rupert, VT agreed that when the Town gave up "Old Town Road", Rupert residents could continue to use the road. Merck has had it gated for at least thirty years. All of the folks who know the truth are dead.

http://www.merckforest.org/

[Frank Ivy]

Frank, the article says, "Although they appear on park district books as willing sellers, Don, 89, and Elaine, 87, said they felt forced into the sale and accepted a price rather than wrangle in court." It was clearly an eminent domain kind of situation.

I'm giving the couple the benefit of the doubt here, as the whole thing appears to me as a he said/she said kind of thing. Somebody at the city made a verbal promise to them, which they naively took at face value. But apparently that somebody wasn't anyone with the authority to do so.

AAaaaah - I didn't see the "next page" link.

Regarding the whole "wo is us" line - not buying it.

It was either eminent domain or it wasn't. If it was, then they WERE forced. If not, then they weren't forced.

They were in their late 50s at the time of the sale. Old enough to understand what was going on.

As for the "permission," it smells like a load to me.

Anybody reading this board right now, if any one person in town management said to you, "sure, go ahead into the forest and take as much fallen wood as firewood as you care to. It's ok."

Would you think that that's ok?

How about if they said - "sure, you can go into the town park and pick as many apples as you want."

It's a land contract. All contracts for land have to be in writing. It's fundamental. That's why there are deeds. That's why they put your deed in a public record book. That's why liens and encumbrances are recorded on paper and filed in the record books.

Can you imagine how bad things would be if you bought 50 acres of nice maples, and then, when you go to tap for the first time, there are a bunch of neighbors drilling holes in your trees?

And when you ask them what they are doing, they tell you, "we have verbal permission from the previous owners." And when you ask your lawyer he says, "Yup. They got yuh. They can tap."


Bottom line, they were in their late 50s when they sold. They presumably got fair market value. They presumably had a lawyer represent them at the closing. They presumably could have easily mentioned to him, "you think they'll be any issues with the promise that Bob the town surveyor and Kim the town clerk made to us regarding our right to tap these maples indefinitely?"

Come on people. There's a time for sympathy and a time for accountability. They sold the land. They were older adults when they did it. They had every opportunity to have a one-line right of way included on the record. They did not.

There are billions of people in the world who need our sympathy much more than these naive folks.

[Frank Ivy]

It happens everywhere. Merck Forest and Farmland in Rupert, VT agreed that when the Town gave up "Old Town Road", Rupert residents could continue to use the road. Merck has had it gated for at least thirty years. All of the folks who know the truth are dead.

http://www.merckforest.org/

And so your claim is what?

That the, presumably, hundreds of "residents" were all duped by believing that some words passed at an angry town hall meeting would bind land owners forever?

Come on.

We're not selling maple syrup at a state fair here.

Every adult who is above 90 IQ should know that a right-of-way, easement, whatever has to be in writing.

If you didn't before you read this, then hire an attorney before doing any land deals.

[SilverLeaf]

I'm a little surprised my post riled someone up a little... :confused: my intent was just a "word to the wise" kind of thing.

At any rate, Frank, a couple points and then I'm off my high horse on this:

It was either eminent domain or it wasn't. If it was, then they WERE forced. If not, then they weren't forced.
If an entity comes to you and says, "sign here, or we will begin eminent domain condemnation proceedings on your property" then you're "forced", whether or not it officially goes to court under the eminent domain category or not.:cry: At that point all the court process does is to review the pricing structure, so perhaps this couple didn't feel that it would change anything. The article's not clear, but seems to imply that this is the scenario.

I don't know the exact details about who they talked to or what they were told any more than you do. They clearly did not have a legally-binding contract for this, but I'm on the "innocent of maliciousness until proven guilty" bandwagon. For all we know, given the limited info, some park & rec clerk could have told them they were writing their name down in some "special park use permits" file cabinet that later on was thrown away in a moment of bureaucratic incompetence. Just because they didn't sign something and keep a copy doesn't mean they weren't given a strong impression that everything was fine.

It's not inconceivable to me that they were just a nice, albeit naive, couple who, under the duress of the situation, did not seek adequate legal counsel and therefore did not properly understand property law. I know a lot of people exactly like that, and in fact am witnessing firsthand something eerily similar to this right now, with a high-voltage power line going through my area (including on my family's land). A lot of my neighbors are very upset and are throwing their hands up in frustration. They're running around like a bunch of chickens, squawking at anyone and everyone who'll listen, but not putting their energy into the one thing that would actually help them: getting a lawyer. And I guarantee you if the utility representative came to them, looked them in the eye, and said "we'll still let you do x, y, and z on your land" but then didn't put it in writing, a lot of these people would still naively put their trust in the utility, because there was a hand shake involved. They're not stupid people, but they're definitely acting in a non-savvy manner.

Maybe this whole over-trusting thing is an upper midwest thing, or maybe it's just a "some people are naive" thing. I don't know. Or maybe my problem is just that I'm just too naive to believe that a simple octogenarian couple who were donating the syrup to their church would have been intentionally stealing that sap from the city for 30 years. On that count I am guilty as charged.;)

[KenWP]

I am going to put a fly in the milk here. Verbal agreements made many many years ago have been and are still upheld in courts. There is also that fact that in some cases people have been useing other peoples land for something for years and it actually has become their legal right to do so when they took it to court. Such cases are where fench lines are put in the wrong place and somebody built something on the wrong side of the line, rodas through other peoples property and so on. I have a situation here where my well was put in back in the 50s or 40's and then they split the property with the well being left on the other poperty. When ever the property changes hands this has to put in the title from now on. Or until somebody actually puts a new well in and retires the old pipe line. Which could happen anytime as I actually have a well drilled on this side now but the old well is still my legal right to use. I didn't have to have the road put into my title when I bought as they haven't used it for so long its got foot thick trees growing in it now.

[maple flats]

I truly think they were likely forced in their minds to sell. Many older people were taught to believe people, "a man's word is as good as gold". If it were me I would take the town to court over this. I believe some "public servant" could have and would have said that to get what he wanted. I wonder if the park has a plaque in his honor? (dis honor). He likely thought the matter would go un challenged and forgotten in a few years. This IS the type of thing we have the second ammendment for, to protect us against tyrany in government. I'd bet these trusting good citizens were taken advantage of by a smooth talking high pressure "public servant" As KenWP says, verbal agreements are sometimes upheld, and long term use can give legal rights and not just in Quebec either.
In fact I bought an old RR bed several years ago with a survey, and the land was sold buy the city to me. The survey was done after the sale to reclaim some land a neighbor had built his garage on where about 35% was on the land I bought. In the end, as I persued it the courts determined the garage could stay and he had lifetime use, upon his death I could remove the part on my land. This is a little different but the point is that courts sometimes rule in favor of the one encroaching. Itr was finally resolved when I bought his property, straightened out the property lines and incorperated it in one whole piece which I sold for a handsome profit.

[BarrelBoiler]

if these folks have tapped for 30 years without complaint that 10 yrs over what it takes to establish a "commonway" in somestates