I have a new hero.

[dikowt dowg]

3 decades in the woods and they put him in a place with three meals a day, running water, electricity and they expect the old bastard to be disappointed

^^This^^

 

[dikowt dowg]

Hope the land owner is proven guilty of conspiracy to commit arson.

And crowd sourcing serves a purpose for once.

Let this dude play out the string where he set up shop.

he's been there for a long time. I've read that back in the day, he would have been granted squatters rights.

 

[Kburjr]

Was a Manifesto found?

 

[Hu War Yu]

It's a tough one...I feel for the guy, but if he has, in fact, been squatting for nearly 30 years, then the law is not on his side.

At least most of his stuff was removed before the mysterious fire

 

[Rex Racer]

This story has been making waves here locally for obvious reasons. It sucks for the old guy that the new owners want him out there, but the truth is it's their land and he was there squatting illegally.

The fire that took out his shack while he is locked up definitely sucks and I hope whoever did it is prosecuted for arson. Here is a few photos of River Dave and his shack;

 

[jjc2009]

It's a tough one...I feel for the guy, but if he has, in fact, been squatting for nearly 30 years, then the law is not on his side.

At least most of his stuff was removed before the mysterious fire

30 years? He could make a claim for adverse possession if they waited that long to get rid of him.

 

[Skerpokes]

This story has been making waves here locally for obvious reasons. It sucks for the old guy that the new owners want him out there, but the truth is it's their land and he was there squatting illegally.

The fire that took out his shack while he is locked up definitely sucks and I hope whoever did it is prosecuted for arson. Here is a few photos of River Dave and his shack;

I could make do with that place

 

[moxie]

If what he says is true, and the owner really doesn’t mind that he’s there, the gov’t really should stay out of it.

Lidstone, who doesn’t have an attorney, insisted that his cabin is a hunting and fishing camp, not a home. He also argued that Giles doesn’t own the property but is being pressured by the town.

“He’s a heck of a nice old man, I’ve talked with him a couple of times. This is not his fault, this is not my fault,” he said at the hearing. “It’s lying, cheating corrupt judges like you that are stepping on little people like me. But I’m telling you, sir, you step on me, I’m going to bite your ankle.”

 

[Hu War Yu]

30 years? He could make a claim for adverse possession if they waited that long to get rid of him.

Well it sounded like the current owner didn't actually know he was there. I mean, it's his responsibility to check on his property and know what's on it, but I guess it had been in the family for so long nobody had gone out there in a long time.

 

[dikowt dowg]

I still like the guy. I hope they keep him fed well.

 

[moxie]

Well it sounded like the current owner didn't actually know he was there. I mean, it's his responsibility to check on his property and know what's on it, but I guess it had been in the family for so long nobody had gone out there in a long time.

And I like it better than him living in a tent on Main Street, shitting on the sidewalk and hassling people for loose change.

 

[Handicappers]

 

[Schmoopy1000]

he's been there for a long time. I've read that back in the day, he would have been granted squatters rights.

I was thinking about this story.
He also would have been grandfathered in against some of those zoning Bullshit that started all of this.

 

[dbldwn711]

30 years? He could make a claim for adverse possession if they waited that long to get rid of him.

he stayed there with the landowners permission. Tough to make an adverse possession argument. I like his chances under landlord/tenant laws better.

 

[Nosferatu]

Funny, that's exactly how I imagined you'd look.

 

[dbldwn711]

Was a Manifesto found?

sounds like that other guy who lived in the woods and his place burned down. The guy who did scuzz wrong.

 

[jjc2009]

he stayed there with the landowners permission. Tough to make an adverse possession argument. I like his chances under landlord/tenant laws better.

I don’t think you necessarily need the owners’ permission for adverse possession to apply. It’s the landowner’s responsibility to inspect the land and determine if anyone is encroaching on it.

I think the difference here is if title changed hands at all in that 30 year time period, the clock re-starts.

 

[HammerDown]

If this gets some publicity, maybe a landowner somewhere remote will let this old guy stay on their property?

The government can't just back down now.

"leave the guy alone" - the entire free world

 

[dbldwn711]

I don’t think you necessarily need the owners’ permission for adverse possession to apply. It’s the landowner’s responsibility to inspect the land and determine if anyone is encroaching on it.

I think the difference here is if title changed hands at all in that 30 year time period, the clock re-starts.

i don’t think you understood/I was clear what I meant.

if you stay on someone’s land with their permission you can’t “adversely“ possess their land. They are LETTING you stay there. Youre post only goes to the notice element of adverse possession. My post goes to a different element of proving adverse possession.

I found this quote about adverse possession in NH.

Adverse possession is a method of acquiring exclusive ownership of land even though someone else holds the title to that land. You may see it referred to as the "doctrine of adverse possession" or, less elegantly, as "squatter's rights" or "title by theft." Although many other states have put adverse possession into their statutes, New Hampshire has not, and it is in case law – which is as authoritative and binding as statutory law - that you will find most of the elements that must be proven in court. The elements of adverse possession are: the use must be adverse (without permission and hostile to the owner's interests); it must be notorious (the owner has had notice of the use); it must be continuous and uninterrupted; it must be exclusive (not in common with neighbors, or others), and it must be for a period of at least 20 years as defined in the statute of limitations for the recovery of real property (see RSA 508:2, I). Adverse possession applies only to private property, not to public lands, waters, highways or transmission lines.

 

[jjc2009]

i don’t think you understood/I was clear what I meant.

if you stay on someone’s land with their permission you can’t “adversely“ possess their land. They are LETTING you stay there. Youre post only goes to the notice element of adverse possession. My post goes to a different element of proving adverse possession.

I found this quote about adverse possession in NH.

Adverse possession is a method of acquiring exclusive ownership of land even though someone else holds the title to that land. You may see it referred to as the "doctrine of adverse possession" or, less elegantly, as "squatter's rights" or "title by theft." Although many other states have put adverse possession into their statutes, New Hampshire has not, and it is in case law – which is as authoritative and binding as statutory law - that you will find most of the elements that must be proven in court. The elements of adverse possession are: the use must be adverse (without permission and hostile to the owner's interests); it must be notorious (the owner has had notice of the use); it must be continuous and uninterrupted; it must be exclusive (not in common with neighbors, or others), and it must be for a period of at least 20 years as defined in the statute of limitations for the recovery of real property (see RSA 508:2, I). Adverse possession applies only to private property, not to public lands, waters, highways or transmission lines.

I mis-read what you wrote the first time. I thought you said they didn’t. I agree the possession must be hostile. I was also unaware they had permission.