Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

An easement is seldom a property transfer but a right of use....For example, one has a right of way, not the property the right is exercised on. I do not believe one gets a tax liability and if one did, then the obligation would only begin when the property transferred (after the court deemed it so), not when the easement was first established.

 

Prescriptive rights are the law here in Indiana and they could be the same in Nevada. You can lose your own land to prescriptive rights.

 

There are no back property taxes....not under the law.

 

Going to court to get an injunction is a legal action, sending him a notice that he is trespassing is an action.
They don't have to forcibly remove him, the court order stands.

 

Creating a grazing area does not imply rights, continued use of grazing when the terms of the grazing area are violated does...

 

Oh, so there was a court action against Bundy within the 5 years of him disputing the BLM?

Doesn't that mean the "prescriptive rights" nonsense is not valid?

From the link 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.

 

Indeed. America is watching the spectacle of a guy who spent the past 20 years freeloading off the government now being applauded by a bunch of right-wingers spouting pseudo-patriotic frippery as a defense.
The arrogance, lawlessness and militance of their dishonest rhetoric is very revealing.
Thanks for playing.

 

I am of the mind as the arguments defending this guy fall, the next ones will be more and more bizarre and obscure.

We have gone form the BLM unfairly targeting this guy (turns out this is multi decade legal battle) to Harry Reid taking this for his profit (turned out to be completely untrue) to some very strange claim over rights that appear not to fit the situation.

 

The last court action that I know of was in 1998. Then waited 11 years to even put up "No Grazing" signs. Legally, I think Bundy has a prescriptive easement as they got a court order for Bundy to stop grazing on the land and never took any further action to enforce the court order.

On top of the easement, did they fence the property properly?

Unless the land was fenced along with the proper signage, they had no right to do what they did. Legally all they could do is drive the cattle back on to Bundy's property, not coral them causing harm.

 

Kinda like watching Al Sharpton but Bundy did not get an invite to the WH.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, denying the elephant in the room and other facts just to ridicule the law and the people quoting it? Now that is funny.

 

Well, that can be your opinion, but it does not seem to accurately reflect the actual reality going on here.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure what Al Sharpton has to do with anything here, so I will kindly ask to be left out of it.

 

Al Sharpton owes more money than Bundy does.

 

He knows that. That's why he doesn't want to acknowledge it. Just like Reid's involvement has been proven. Just because think progress says he's not doesn't make it so.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Can you show that the BLM land was properly fenced with the required signage?

This is very important considering the court case below.....

Unless the land was fenced along with the proper signage, they had no right to do what they did. Legally all they could do is drive the cattle back on to Bundy's property, not coral them causing harm.

 

Okay, I am not arguing the legal options, I understand the easement claim, of course I am more familar with home owner and local ordinance easement issues. That being said, is this an easement issue, if so, he will need to make his case.I don't know the past claims he made, because he hasn't been successful.

 

No he does not. That is the whole point of the court battle.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Can you show that the BLM land was properly fenced with the required signage?

This is very important considering the court case below.....

Unless the land was fenced along with the proper signage, they had no right to do what they did. Legally all they could do is drive the cattle back on to Bundy's property, not coral them causing harm.

Post your links please.

 

I'll refer to Professor Peabody's post to you. Perscriptive rights are something new to this discussion and it was never entered in the conversation when the court ruled against Bundy. It sounds to me that another court appearance with an experienced attorney will help determine where this will end. I am curious the response from people like you who consider an American ranching family to be terrorists, when it is simply a civil matter that we are talking about here

 

So why didn't Bundy use this for his defense in the court? He gave up those rights by not paying after he had paid before. Perhaps there is a transcript from the court proceedings.

- - - Updated - - -

Bundy should have made that claim over the last 2 decades this has been going on. Also this isn't a right a way issue. What you folks are trying to do is negate personal property rights unknowingly through not knowing the law.

 

prescriptive easement n. an easement upon another's real property acquired by continued use without permission of the owner for a period provided by state law to establish the easement. The problems with prescriptive easements are that they do not show up on title reports, and the exact location and/or use of the easement is not always clear and occasionally moves by practice or erosion.

He had permission with a lease agreement. He is a deadbeat who refused to pay his lease.

So if this is the case all a person has to do is move into a house and refuse to leave when they stop paying the rent, and a thousand militia members will descend on the property to protect that deadbeat too? This isn't anything like what is described in the definition and that presidency shouldn't even come into play. But I guess the right lawyer, and the right buttered palm of the right judge could just about anything is possible.

Maybe he should just claim influenza, rich and not responsible for his actions.

So if he actually owns the land due to some ridiculous technicality, wouldn't he owe at least over 20 years of back taxes to the state, or is he somehow exempt to any and all of the rules/laws everybody else has to follow?

 

so how long would a homeless man have to sleep in a park to own the park?

 

That is all possible, and it could well be hashed out in court, by a competent attorney

 

If he stops paying the parking meter today, about 20 years.

 

Well to bad this has already been hashed out in court!

 

somehow I do not think once something has gone to court you get to claim no action so the property is yours because of how long the court battle took

that would mean if I did not pay my taxes for 20 years, the gov could not collect the money owed to them as I had it for 20 years (even though they had been trying to collect it during that time)