Reply to White’s Ferry

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "White’s Ferry"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So everyone here is ok with someone using your property to run a business and not pay rent?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics