White’s Ferry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I know several people who rely on the ferry to get from their VA residences to their jobs in western MoCo. This is going to be a big problem for them.
Also may hurt VA tourism as many MD folks use the ferry to visit the wineries on the VA side.

[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.

Read the judge's decision. White's Ferry had been operating under a licensing arrangement since 1952, which essentially just formalized what had been going on for 100+ years. Furthermore, White's Ferry's defence is based on arguing that the landing and approach are in a public right-of-way established in 1871 for the ferry.

In general, White's Ferry has always seemed a little shady to me. So I was predisposed to think they did something shady. But reading the decision, I don't think that's the case. Rockland clearly is just using a technicality to rip up of a longstanding agreement that never envisioned rental payments from White's Ferry to the property owners on the Virginia side.

If I'm understanding the case correctly, the 1952 agreement gave White's Ferry permission to operate, but they had to get written permission to build anything (besides maintenance activities). In 2004, White's Ferry built a new retaining wall on the Virginia side, which is presumably referring to the wall protecting the hairpin turn/ramp at the landing. Rockland argued that building that retaining wall violated the 1952 agreement, and so they terminated it.

If you look at the location of the retaining wall, it's quite clear that it does not impede Rockland in any way. It separates the immediate area in front of the landing from the roadway of Route 655, which is at a higher elevation. It looks like the new retaining wall just created more space for cars to turn while getting on/off the ferry. But the wall didn't infringe into any land that could plausibly be used for any other productive purpose.

I'm not sure I understand everything in the decision talking about the 1871 condemnation of land. But the judge seemed to be agree that the order intended to establish a landing at White's Ferry. But, then goes on to say it's not clear that means a landing at the location where White's Ferry was operating. Really? I don't know if that's the right legal decision, but it sounds awfully obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rock land farm owner will make between 600k and 1million?

But in turn destroys a 200 year old business and the sympathy of locals. Time for the farm to move out?
Are y’all depositing your money there considering the events?

Don't give the farm your business.
What a greedy nasty person.

Did any of you actually read the article? The landowner on the VA side that filed the lawsuit, “Rockland” is NOT the same Rocklands Farm in Poolseville that you all seem to be referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rock land farm owner will make between 600k and 1million?

But in turn destroys a 200 year old business and the sympathy of locals. Time for the farm to move out?
Are y’all depositing your money there considering the events?

Don't give the farm your business.
What a greedy nasty person.

Did any of you actually read the article? The landowner on the VA side that filed the lawsuit, “Rockland” is NOT the same Rocklands Farm in Poolseville that you all seem to be referring to.

I think that is an important point.

But the Rockland Farm in VA is also a business, they are a wedding venue and planner.

[Anonymous]

Virginia being Virginia, they have a history of pulling their "land" out of longstanding agreements. Right Alexandria?

[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.

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

That depends on how how it's written. Recorded easements, for example, often can't be easily removed from property. Now, this was done a bit differently from a legal perspective, but conceptually is quite similar to granting a perpetual easement. If you own a house, there are probably perpetual easements running through your property.

Anyway, in this case, the judge's ruling suggests that Rockland was only able to terminate the 1952 agreement because White's Ferry had constructed a new retaining wall at the landing site. And that might be perfectly valid from a legal perspective, but certainly sounds like Rockland was just looking for a technicality to tear up a 150+ year old arrangement. White's Ferry was running before they bought the land. It's not like something meaningfully new happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the judge's decision. White's Ferry had been operating under a licensing arrangement since 1952, which essentially just formalized what had been going on for 100+ years. Furthermore, White's Ferry's defence is based on arguing that the landing and approach are in a public right-of-way established in 1871 for the ferry.

In general, White's Ferry has always seemed a little shady to me. So I was predisposed to think they did something shady. But reading the decision, I don't think that's the case. Rockland clearly is just using a technicality to rip up of a longstanding agreement that never envisioned rental payments from White's Ferry to the property owners on the Virginia side.

If I'm understanding the case correctly, the 1952 agreement gave White's Ferry permission to operate, but they had to get written permission to build anything (besides maintenance activities). In 2004, White's Ferry built a new retaining wall on the Virginia side, which is presumably referring to the wall protecting the hairpin turn/ramp at the landing. Rockland argued that building that retaining wall violated the 1952 agreement, and so they terminated it.

If you look at the location of the retaining wall, it's quite clear that it does not impede Rockland in any way. It separates the immediate area in front of the landing from the roadway of Route 655, which is at a higher elevation. It looks like the new retaining wall just created more space for cars to turn while getting on/off the ferry. But the wall didn't infringe into any land that could plausibly be used for any other productive purpose.

I'm not sure I understand everything in the decision talking about the 1871 condemnation of land. But the judge seemed to be agree that the order intended to establish a landing at White's Ferry. But, then goes on to say it's not clear that means a landing at the location where White's Ferry was operating. Really? I don't know if that's the right legal decision, but it sounds awfully obtuse.

This is my take, as well. It's a really interesting case.

You can see the layout here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1555069,-77.5232973,3a,75y,167.45h,73.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZA7_yk6PyD6-lgvrhCqtoA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Essentially, Rocklands argues that the state highway ends at the blacktop asphault. The concrete ramp is Rocklands property.

You can see the retaining wall next to the cars. It's holding up the earth so cars can maneuver on the ramp. Rocklands used the re-building of the retaining wall as an excuse to rip up the 1952 agreement, arguing that the retaining wall was in a slightly different location that the original retaining wall.

What's interesting is that if the ferry landing was owned by the state, presumably White's Ferry would pay a lease fee to the state (like any other contractor operating on public lands). Right now, White's Ferry gets the best of both worlds - operates on private and pays no fee to anyone. Eventually, the Ferry will need to fork over money to someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At best, that's a technicality.

Maybe Rockland is right legally. I personally think the judge's ruling sounds obtuse, but I recognize that's the way the law works sometimes. Still, I think Rockland is morally wrong here. Since at least 1871 there was an understanding that the ferry would operate there, and with vague legal agreements to back it up. Yes, you may be able to quibble over some minor details, but the intent was quite clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At best, that's a technicality.

Maybe Rockland is right legally. I personally think the judge's ruling sounds obtuse, but I recognize that's the way the law works sometimes. Still, I think Rockland is morally wrong here. Since at least 1871 there was an understanding that the ferry would operate there, and with vague legal agreements to back it up. Yes, you may be able to quibble over some minor details, but the intent was quite clear.

I guess we will see if the appellate court agrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the judge's decision. White's Ferry had been operating under a licensing arrangement since 1952, which essentially just formalized what had been going on for 100+ years. Furthermore, White's Ferry's defence is based on arguing that the landing and approach are in a public right-of-way established in 1871 for the ferry.

In general, White's Ferry has always seemed a little shady to me. So I was predisposed to think they did something shady. But reading the decision, I don't think that's the case. Rockland clearly is just using a technicality to rip up of a longstanding agreement that never envisioned rental payments from White's Ferry to the property owners on the Virginia side.

If I'm understanding the case correctly, the 1952 agreement gave White's Ferry permission to operate, but they had to get written permission to build anything (besides maintenance activities). In 2004, White's Ferry built a new retaining wall on the Virginia side, which is presumably referring to the wall protecting the hairpin turn/ramp at the landing. Rockland argued that building that retaining wall violated the 1952 agreement, and so they terminated it.

If you look at the location of the retaining wall, it's quite clear that it does not impede Rockland in any way. It separates the immediate area in front of the landing from the roadway of Route 655, which is at a higher elevation. It looks like the new retaining wall just created more space for cars to turn while getting on/off the ferry. But the wall didn't infringe into any land that could plausibly be used for any other productive purpose.

I'm not sure I understand everything in the decision talking about the 1871 condemnation of land. But the judge seemed to be agree that the order intended to establish a landing at White's Ferry. But, then goes on to say it's not clear that means a landing at the location where White's Ferry was operating. Really? I don't know if that's the right legal decision, but it sounds awfully obtuse.

This is my take, as well. It's a really interesting case.

You can see the layout here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1555069,-77.5232973,3a,75y,167.45h,73.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZA7_yk6PyD6-lgvrhCqtoA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Essentially, Rocklands argues that the state highway ends at the blacktop asphault. The concrete ramp is Rocklands property.

You can see the retaining wall next to the cars. It's holding up the earth so cars can maneuver on the ramp. Rocklands used the re-building of the retaining wall as an excuse to rip up the 1952 agreement, arguing that the retaining wall was in a slightly different location that the original retaining wall.

What's interesting is that if the ferry landing was owned by the state, presumably White's Ferry would pay a lease fee to the state (like any other contractor operating on public lands). Right now, White's Ferry gets the best of both worlds - operates on private and pays no fee to anyone. Eventually, the Ferry will need to fork over money to someone.

This was one thing I didn't understand. But I suppose the argument would be that the 1871 order establishing a "landing at White's Ferry" implicitly means it was intended for White's Ferry. Though, I don't really know what they would derive their legal authority to build a new retaining wall on the land. Whether it's a public right-of-way or private property, it seems like they'd need permission from someone.

Though, I think building the wall suggests that, at least at the time, they viewed that as Rockland land, and thought they could squeak it by as a maintenance activity under the 1952 deal.

Does anyone know when the animosity between Rockland and White's Ferry started?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At best, that's a technicality.

Maybe Rockland is right legally. I personally think the judge's ruling sounds obtuse, but I recognize that's the way the law works sometimes. Still, I think Rockland is morally wrong here. Since at least 1871 there was an understanding that the ferry would operate there, and with vague legal agreements to back it up. Yes, you may be able to quibble over some minor details, but the intent was quite clear.

I guess we will see if the appellate court agrees.

Sure. Again, I'm not trying to make a legal argument here. I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't understand legal precedents and where the burden of proof falls on some these claims. Certainly it seems like White's Ferry shouldn't have built on the retaining wall on the land without approval from *someone.*

Rockland might very well legally be in the right here. But doesn't mean they're not the sleazy party here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the judge's decision. White's Ferry had been operating under a licensing arrangement since 1952, which essentially just formalized what had been going on for 100+ years. Furthermore, White's Ferry's defence is based on arguing that the landing and approach are in a public right-of-way established in 1871 for the ferry.

In general, White's Ferry has always seemed a little shady to me. So I was predisposed to think they did something shady. But reading the decision, I don't think that's the case. Rockland clearly is just using a technicality to rip up of a longstanding agreement that never envisioned rental payments from White's Ferry to the property owners on the Virginia side.

If I'm understanding the case correctly, the 1952 agreement gave White's Ferry permission to operate, but they had to get written permission to build anything (besides maintenance activities). In 2004, White's Ferry built a new retaining wall on the Virginia side, which is presumably referring to the wall protecting the hairpin turn/ramp at the landing. Rockland argued that building that retaining wall violated the 1952 agreement, and so they terminated it.

If you look at the location of the retaining wall, it's quite clear that it does not impede Rockland in any way. It separates the immediate area in front of the landing from the roadway of Route 655, which is at a higher elevation. It looks like the new retaining wall just created more space for cars to turn while getting on/off the ferry. But the wall didn't infringe into any land that could plausibly be used for any other productive purpose.

I'm not sure I understand everything in the decision talking about the 1871 condemnation of land. But the judge seemed to be agree that the order intended to establish a landing at White's Ferry. But, then goes on to say it's not clear that means a landing at the location where White's Ferry was operating. Really? I don't know if that's the right legal decision, but it sounds awfully obtuse.

This is my take, as well. It's a really interesting case.

You can see the layout here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1555069,-77.5232973,3a,75y,167.45h,73.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZA7_yk6PyD6-lgvrhCqtoA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Essentially, Rocklands argues that the state highway ends at the blacktop asphault. The concrete ramp is Rocklands property.

You can see the retaining wall next to the cars. It's holding up the earth so cars can maneuver on the ramp. Rocklands used the re-building of the retaining wall as an excuse to rip up the 1952 agreement, arguing that the retaining wall was in a slightly different location that the original retaining wall.

What's interesting is that if the ferry landing was owned by the state, presumably White's Ferry would pay a lease fee to the state (like any other contractor operating on public lands). Right now, White's Ferry gets the best of both worlds - operates on private and pays no fee to anyone. Eventually, the Ferry will need to fork over money to someone.

This was one thing I didn't understand. But I suppose the argument would be that the 1871 order establishing a "landing at White's Ferry" implicitly means it was intended for White's Ferry. Though, I don't really know what they would derive their legal authority to build a new retaining wall on the land. Whether it's a public right-of-way or private property, it seems like they'd need permission from someone.

Though, I think building the wall suggests that, at least at the time, they viewed that as Rockland land, and thought they could squeak it by as a maintenance activity under the 1952 deal.

Does anyone know when the animosity between Rockland and White's Ferry started?

The Ferry viewed the re-building of the retaining wall as "maintenance" in compliance with the 1952 Agreement whereas the owners viewed it as construction that required approval.

The 1952 Agreement was with the original owners of the Rockland estate (Elizabeth and Stanley Brown), whereas the heirs now control it (the plaintiff is Betsey Brown, trustee of the Rockland Farm Land Trust). I will bet money that the "problems" between Rockland and the ferry company arose when the heirs took control of the Rockland land.

[Anonymous]

Rockland getting eviscerated on social. Hopefully they get the message and reverse course. Would be too bad if this was the generation that got greedy and lost the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

At best, that's a technicality.

Maybe Rockland is right legally. I personally think the judge's ruling sounds obtuse, but I recognize that's the way the law works sometimes. Still, I think Rockland is morally wrong here. Since at least 1871 there was an understanding that the ferry would operate there, and with vague legal agreements to back it up. Yes, you may be able to quibble over some minor details, but the intent was quite clear.

I guess we will see if the appellate court agrees.

Sure. Again, I'm not trying to make a legal argument here. I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't understand legal precedents and where the burden of proof falls on some these claims. Certainly it seems like White's Ferry shouldn't have built on the retaining wall on the land without approval from *someone.*

Rockland might very well legally be in the right here. But doesn't mean they're not the sleazy party here.

That's basically what the judge spelled out in his ruling. In Virginia law, is on the onus of the trespasser (White's Ferry) to prove that they complied with the landlines. The 1871 Condemnation order to legally give White's Ferry access to the Virginia-side landing didn't spell out exactly where that landing was to be located. It described the size of the land to be used, but didn't pinpoint the exact spot with a drawn map or physical placement with words.

So White's Ferry can't prove that the current landing is the exact land that was condemned by the court in 1871. Therefore, White's Ferry cannot prove that they are NOT trespassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rock land farm owner will make between 600k and 1million?

But in turn destroys a 200 year old business and the sympathy of locals. Time for the farm to move out?
Are y’all depositing your money there considering the events?

Don't give the farm your business.
What a greedy nasty person.

Did any of you actually read the article? The landowner on the VA side that filed the lawsuit, “Rockland” is NOT the same Rocklands Farm in Poolseville that you all seem to be referring to.

I think that is an important point.

But the Rockland Farm in VA is also a business, they are a wedding venue and planner.

Yeah, I feel really bad for “Rocklands Farm” which is a lovely winery and event space and is now having its name dragged through the mud through no fault or knowledge of its own. They have been posting on social media this has nothing to do with them.