White’s Ferry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that in other contexts, People on DCUM are all about property rights. For example, they are outraged when someone uses their parking space (even if the owner is not using the parking space). Sometimes people get upset even when others park on the public road outside their houses because they don't like looking at the parked cars.

Historical adverse possession is a thing in legal doctrine, tho. Long-standing adverse possession can create a right to use or an easement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judges awarded Rockland 100k in damages. I think it's disgusting and I think Rockland is just trying for more money.

Wouldn't, under common law, the ferry have some claim to this land? They've been using it for 230 years. I thought that if you allow someone to continue using your land, they can claim it's theirs.

I have no idea of the facts of this case, but claims of adverse possession must meet certain criteria. One of the elements is that the person using the land does so without the owner's permission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So everyone here is ok with someone using your property to run a business and not pay rent?

Because they had an agreement in place since 1952. And even that wasn't considered a new deal- it formalized what had been going on for 100+ years, including since an 1871 condemnation of land for the purposes of establishing a landing at White's Ferry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges awarded Rockland 100k in damages. I think it's disgusting and I think Rockland is just trying for more money.

Wouldn't, under common law, the ferry have some claim to this land? They've been using it for 230 years. I thought that if you allow someone to continue using your land, they can claim it's theirs.

I have no idea of the facts of this case, but claims of adverse possession must meet certain criteria. One of the elements is that the person using the land does so without the owner's permission.

They had a lease agreement before 2004. This wasn't just a case of letting someone use the land and then crying foul after 214 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges awarded Rockland 100k in damages. I think it's disgusting and I think Rockland is just trying for more money.

Wouldn't, under common law, the ferry have some claim to this land? They've been using it for 230 years. I thought that if you allow someone to continue using your land, they can claim it's theirs.

I have no idea of the facts of this case, but claims of adverse possession must meet certain criteria. One of the elements is that the person using the land does so without the owner's permission.

If there was a licensing agreement within the relevant time period (e.g., 20 years), then you can't claim adverse possession because you weren't using the land continuously as your own without permission for a long enough period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everyone here is ok with someone using your property to run a business and not pay rent?

Because they had an agreement in place since 1952. And even that wasn't considered a new deal- it formalized what had been going on for 100+ years, including since an 1871 condemnation of land for the purposes of establishing a landing at White's Ferry.

So once you have an agreement, you aren't allowed to end it? Really? That can't be your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Ironically, I would have thought Marylanders would be rejoicing since the state does everything it can to block connections to Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, I would have thought Marylanders would be rejoicing since the state does everything it can to block connections to Virginia.

We have the ability to think logically, and individually.. I love the ferry, and actually didn't start using it until the lockdown in March. Now we've used it quite a bit.

STILL, the VA property owner should be entitled to monetary compensation. I hope they come to some resolution that allows the ferry to stay open, and both owners to be entitled to profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everyone here is ok with someone using your property to run a business and not pay rent?

Because they had an agreement in place since 1952. And even that wasn't considered a new deal- it formalized what had been going on for 100+ years, including since an 1871 condemnation of land for the purposes of establishing a landing at White's Ferry.

This is interesting. I wonder why White's Ferry even entered an agreement at all in 1952? It seems that they already had adverse possession satisfied.

I think the 1871 condemnation gives credence to the claims that White's Ferry SHOULD enjoy an adverse possession claim/easement to this very day. The 1952 agreement shouldn't even be valid if that small portion of the land was condemned.

I think this is really a ploy by the farm owner to get Virginia to pony up big bucks for the land via eminent domain.

[Anonymous]

I’m going to guess she was offered a LOT of money to use that part of her property for a bridge and a roadway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to guess she was offered a LOT of money to use that part of her property for a bridge and a roadway.

Maybe stop guessing and read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, I would have thought Marylanders would be rejoicing since the state does everything it can to block connections to Virginia.

Not when they know they have to cross into Virginia for jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everyone here is ok with someone using your property to run a business and not pay rent?

Because they had an agreement in place since 1952. And even that wasn't considered a new deal- it formalized what had been going on for 100+ years, including since an 1871 condemnation of land for the purposes of establishing a landing at White's Ferry.

This is interesting. I wonder why White's Ferry even entered an agreement at all in 1952? It seems that they already had adverse possession satisfied.

I think the 1871 condemnation gives credence to the claims that White's Ferry SHOULD enjoy an adverse possession claim/easement to this very day. The 1952 agreement shouldn't even be valid if that small portion of the land was condemned.

I think this is really a ploy by the farm owner to get Virginia to pony up big bucks for the land via eminent domain.

If you read the court case, it seems they couldn't get the 1871 road case to match up with the current landing location. Defendants say they're the same, but plaintiffs say that the 1871 landing was up river. Maps weren't that good back then I guess.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Md will put up a barrier blocking Va's view of Mds Potomac River?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this not a historical easement? It's been in use for over two centuries.

Not when it's between two private companies.

I'm from a different state originally where shoreline can't be privately owned. Does Rockland really own all the way to the water? There's no public easement? I live on the potomac too and thought that there was.

Maryland owns all the river and up to the Virginia shoreline, particularly in that upper portion of the Potomac. In VA, land owners can own up to the waterline. This is why you won't see personal docks on the VA side of the upper Potomac- you need permission from MD to build.

MD's rights to the shoreline get more varied as you go south of DC. You'll see a proliferation of docks in areas where VA owns the water.