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][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-[b] 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.[/b][/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

I guess we will see if the appellate court agrees.[/quote]

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.[/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