Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

No, squatters rights rights are not recognized in any state that I ever worked in. There is no easement. There was an easement which he could have continued had he paid the necessary fees. He chose another path. He has paid no fees since 1993, therefore, no rights of any kind.

 

Federal land... state law on squatting doesnt apply.

also read Taylor Grazing Act

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17217648517619106766&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
here's legal presidence
PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Bunkville allotment is part of a grazing disctict as well as the other allotments in his area.

 

That's the beauty of taking things to court; especially if you have a really seasoned and slick attorney, because what one judge rules one way, another judge just might rule differently . . . if the attorney is convincing. You never know.

 

That's the beauty of it he lost his day in court. which of course they cited the Taylor Grazing Act and established the federal governments ownership of the land.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/218708956/number-cv-s-98-531-jbr

 

Don't know about out there, but in my state you cannot claim public land by adverse possession or prescriptive rights. The abstract argument is that as a member of the public, one cannot hold land adverse to themselves, but in reality, it is just a matter of public policy in the same way that government land is not subject to the same obligations as private land.

 

I don't really see that. Prescription, like adverse possession, in states I'm familiar with, is a disfavored equitable remedy that requires actual hostile use under a claim of right (and several other elements that vary by state) rather than reliance on some theory of privity of title/contract. That means there are no legal "rights" at issue, only a prayer for equitable relief. Otherwise, we are just talking about a regular old easement running with the land, not a prescriptive easement. I have a strong hunch that facts of the parties' ongoing relationship over the years extinguished any possibility of prescription. I also don't think we'll be seeing a judge march out on the slippery slope of granting relief to citizens based on prescription against federal land. That does not address, of course, the possibility that Bundy may be in privity somehow to prior easement holders (which seems to be what you are claiming) and so may have an -actual- legal easement via that privity somehow. Once more though, I'm not a real estate attorney.

 

And they have not left him alone which is a good thing. He needs to pay like everyone else. That is the bottom line and it has already been settled in the courts. And what is so funny coming from the Op is that Harry Reid has nothing to do with that.

 

Question - where state law and federal law coincide and cover the same topic, which is preferred?

 

No, he doesn't own it. I had an easement for a driveway across my property to a land locked lot, I still had to pay the taxes on the whole property because it was mine. my neighbor just has the right to cross it.

- - - Updated - - -

Prescriptive Easement Law & Legal Definition

A prescriptive easement is an easement upon another's real property acquired by continued use without permission of the owner for a legally defined period. State law, which varies by state, defines the time period required to acquire a prescriptive easement. Prescriptive easements may be difficult for an owner to discern, since they do not show up on title reports, and the exact location and/or use of the prescriptive easement is not always clear and occasionally moves by nature of the prescriptive use.

A prescriptive easement arises if someone uses a portion of an owner's property openly, notoriously, and without the owner's permission. A prescriptive easement involves only the loss of use of part of a property, for example a pathway or driveway. State law should be consulted for the exact statutory requirement for an easement by prescription in each state. Easements can be further broken down into easements appurtenant and easements in gross. The characterization of an easement will affect the right to transfer the easement to another. Easements appurtenant are adjacent to the servient estate (the underlying land). If the dominant estate (the property which enjoys the benefit of an easement over the servient estate) is sold or otherwise transferred to another, the easement appurtenant over the servient estate transfers with it.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prescriptive-easement/

- - - Updated - - -

Like the rawstory or stink progress?

 

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. There were plenty of barrels on Bundy's side. Plenty of boneheads with guns looking for trouble.

The issue eventually will be resolved peacefully in some way after the armed boneheads disappear back into the woodwork.


It is very evident that a large number of people do not trust the government to act honourably and with justice. What has USA come to?

 

The USA has come to the conclusion it's government does not act honorably or with justice. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Where are the native Americans that once inhabited the area? Our government decided they wanted the land more. Nothing's changed much has it.

Without a little bone in ones head you'll suffer severe brain damage.

 

Lol...Bundy has something called "freeloader mentality".
You know, the sort of thing that makes right-wingers apoplectic when minorities or the poor do it.
But don't let intellectual or moral consistency intrude into your partisan hackery, billy.

 

LMAO...So you support the right of squatters to take over your property if you aren't occupying it, eh?

 

You never fail to sink to the level that I have come to expect from you Joe.

The Bundy family has contributed to this nation with their hard work for more than a century. They have supplied the needs of every American family, and this civil matter that you liberals have labeled terrorism, only examples the pathetic level that people like you sink to. In other words, it is liberals that hate anyone who is hard working contributors. So move along and troll someone else

 

You probably could make that case for Bundy's father. However, his son became a freeloader.

 

It's a civil matter, not a terrorism matter. Stop the insanity, America is watching

 

"prescriptive rights" is just more right wing, anti-Obama, blabber to hide the fact you think this unpatriotic idiot has the right to not pay taxes to a Federal government you have an irrational and illogical hatred and fear of.

 

And the BLM notifying Bundy that it was fining him for trespass is a positive step to prevent trespass.
They don't have to shoot him, they can send him a letter.

 

Take a deep breath and try to calm down.
The idea of prescriptive rights existed long before Cliven Bundy and the BLM began squabbling (unfortunately for you).http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_proscriptive_easement

 

From the article in the OP.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.


But it appears that this case has been in the legal system since 1996, which is well within the 5 years claimed in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ween-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

March 18, 1996: The federal government, which owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada, is still worried about potential violence if they try to remove illegally grazing cattle from protected land. Two more pipebombs had exploded in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in the past two years. The Justice Department has 12 lawsuits pending against Nevada cattle ranchers. A federal court in the state struck down the Nye County ordinance that caused trouble the year before. Not that ranchers took that as reason to stand down, however. One local resident told USA Today,"A single district court decision in one district doesn't settle it. It's just a single day in the year of a revolutionary war. We're going to continue on with the fight." Bundy is also continuing to graze on federal lands. "I'm still saying the state of Nevada owns that land, and the federal government has been an encroacher. I'm not moving my cattle. We have ... rights."

Bundy states that his rights derive from the fact his Mormon ancestors were using the land far before the federal government claimed authority over it. One Elko County rancher, Cliff Gardner, has decided to take his case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that states' rights mean the federal government has no authority over the land where his cattle graze.

1998: A federal judge issues a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He represented himself..



It appears that the article in the OP is not noting that this case has fallen within the 5 years.

 

Generally federal law takes precedence.
For example, some states have legalized Marijuana, state, county and local officials cannot interfere with marijuana growing that follows the state laws, but federal officials can raid those facilities, and arrest the growers.

 

It's the law Joe, of course I would have the local police run them off well before 10 years passed. How about you?

 

1998: A federal judge issues a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He represented himself.

The BLM had to take action to remove the trespass within 5 years of the court order or Bundy would have his prescriptive easement.

It's been 16 years.

 

Not under the law....for it to be an easement, there has to be a law ignored. In my neighborhood there is a large apartment complex. There is a fence blocking access to the property which sits across from a grocery store and drug store. Folks in the neighborhood have used a series of paths through the fence for well over a decade despite the no trespass signs. Every few years the apartment owners block the gates and every few years the neighborhood folk cut their way through again. In Idaho it takes 5 continuous years of such use to grant the easement, which is why the apartment complex does not try to arrest anyone. They would lose in court.