Monadnock & NES needs your help

If I read that correctly that's the amount just to clean up the contaminated soil and return the land to as was before the new range was built. It doesn't give them ownership of the land. I hate to say it, but I think that is the end of Monadnock unless the SC rules differently.

Even if the range had a bottomless piggy bank, restored the land, made amends with the town, then what does the neighbor do with his new flag of land? It's literally from the 100yd berm to the 200yd line (but not the 220yd berm). The range could go back to 90deg rotated 100yd as it was pre-200yd. OK, so now the neighbor still owns a flag right next to a live fire range with club owned land all around it. Its a useless portion of the parcel.

It should be clear this is not about restoring a forest or some fictional wetlands as if there was a swamp. Putting the range back to the old orientation leaves the Perrys with zero usable land. The end goal here was never about their land vs club land.

Edited: I had the distances wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually curious what the options are from the neighbor and towns side are if this stands. If the range doesn't declare bankruptcy, but effectively has no money what then? There's no blood in the rock. If the range gave every penny towards restoration then the town wouldn't get peoperty taxes paid. So the land gets seized by the town. Then what? Do the Perry's go after the town for restoration costs?
 
I'm actually curious what the options are from the neighbor and towns side are if this stands. If the range doesn't declare bankruptcy, but effectively has no money what then? There's no blood in the rock. If the range gave every penny towards restoration then the town wouldn't get peoperty taxes paid. So the land gets seized by the town. Then what? Do the Perry's go after the town for restoration costs?
They would probably ask for the land.
 
What are the neighbor and town going to do if the range just declares bankruptcy as the result? No one gets a dime, the town inherits a gun range they they'll then have to clean up?

These people really think they're going to get a $650k payment from a range that at its peak had 300 members at $100 each and has had its revenue generation paths halted for 2 years? And to top it off the town apparently thinks its also going to get to fine the range?

These people are delusional. All they did was destroy part of their own town because one person bought a house next to a gun range, never did a survey and for 20 years never walked their own land.

The neighbor is going to get nothing and the town is going to get a giant albatross property it won't be able to do anything with because in order to sell it, it will need to demand lead removal.

The neighbor could have gotten $10k PLUS equal land congruent to their current plot 3 years ago and this would have been over. Instead they made both sides spend tens of thousands of dollars for nothing.

People are f***ing stupid.


Amen to that. First of all, this probably has to be the biggest stretch of imagination I have ever seen to declare a parcel 'wetlands'. Secondly, it's beyond me why the neighbors would not accept equal land given that the parcel in question sticks out like a thumb into a gun range property, IIRC. Oh wait, it's about being petty and/or shutting down the club. Also $650K is a ridiculous sum to clean up some small patch of dirt.
 
They would probably ask for the land.

Possibly. But this is how messed up liberals are: If the town takes possession of the land, it can waive itself from cleanup. BUT, if it sells/hands that land over to a another party the cleanup of the land becomes a requirement of the transfer due to the laws requiring it to be brought into compliance to both local and state regulations. If the range as a business is dissolved, the land no longer falls under state gun range protection laws and is subject to current regulations.

So in effect if they "gave" the club land to the neighbor, the neighbor would then be required to pay to clean it up.

Round and round we go.

We see this all the time in town governments. A perfect example is old schools you see rotting away when new ones are built. Many of them are full of asbestos and thus are never sold because the commercial cost of cleanup exceeds the opportunity cost.
 
The neighbor could have gotten $10k PLUS equal land congruent to their current plot 3 years ago and this would have been over. Instead they made both sides spend tens of thousands of dollars for nothing.

People are f***ing stupid.

it wasn't for nothing, they spent thousands of dollars and got exactly what they wanted. quiet and the club shut down. we did not get what we wanted, but t say they spent their money for nothing is not true. I love MRCG, miss the pumpkin and car shoots dearly. met some really amazing people at those. this neighbor is the lowest of the low, a true scumbag. if there is anything else we can do MRGC, please please let us know, although it may be too little too late at this point sadly
 
As I have said many times, this is a damn shame. But the club built on someone else's property, and not all that long ago. This is not trivial and yes if the judgment is upheld it's without question over. The Town themselves is preparing their own lawsuit as well. The club, I would hope, will seek council as to what is the best legal exit strategy and let it go. Sadly it is not a winning case for the club.
 
Amen to that. First of all, this probably has to be the biggest stretch of imagination I have ever seen to declare a parcel 'wetlands'. Secondly, it's beyond me why the neighbors would not accept equal land given that the parcel in question sticks out like a thumb into a gun range property, IIRC. Oh wait, it's about being petty and/or shutting down the club. Also $650K is a ridiculous sum to clean up some small patch of dirt.
FWIW, there is a company that cleaned up all the lead (AFAIK to EPA standards) on the two outdoor ranges at Braintree R&P and it cost the club ZERO. The deal was that the company kept and sold the lead and that was their "payment". Unfortunately, the judgment probably doesn't allow the club to investigate that as a financial solution and no doubt the property owner only wants one thing . . . permanently close down the club and effectively they got what they wanted.
 
As I have said many times, this is a damn shame. But the club built on someone else's property, and not all that long ago. This is not trivial and yes if the judgment is upheld it's without question over. The Town themselves is preparing their own lawsuit as well. The club, I would hope, will seek council as to what is the best legal exit strategy and let it go. Sadly it is not a winning case for the club.

The club "built" the archery ranges 70 years ago. Which is several owners of that parcel ago. The owner of that land has had weekly archery events on his property since the day he bought it 20 years ago.

No one knew the club was "on his land" since the club was created. Not the neighbors, not the club, not the town. Its not like the club secretly built for 70 years under everyone's noses.
 
The club "built" the archery ranges 70 years ago. Which is several owners of that parcel ago. The owner of that land has had weekly archery events on his property since the day he bought it 20 years ago.

No one knew the club was "on his land" since the club was created. Not the neighbors, not the club, not the town. Its not like the club secretly built for 70 years under everyone's noses.
ignorance is not a defense. This sucks for the club and all the members.
 
I'm actually curious what the options are from the neighbor and towns side are if this stands. If the range doesn't declare bankruptcy, but effectively has no money what then? There's no blood in the rock. If the range gave every penny towards restoration then the town wouldn't get peoperty taxes paid. So the land gets seized by the town. Then what? Do the Perry's go after the town for restoration costs?

I am going to fathom a guess that they don't actually give a shit about "restoration" Their ulterior motive has been to kill the club.

-Mike
 
If the town ends up with the land, someone should sue the town for nerve damage caused by lead exposure and let them feel the heat for awhile.
 
Actually. It is. There's an entire section of land law specifically about it.

I am kind of surprised this issue wasn't raised somehow when they bought their property 20? years ago as part of due
diligence or whatever etc. Unless SOP is to just gloss over where all the stakes are when purchasing parcels of
land.

-Mike
 
I am kind of surprised this issue wasn't raised somehow when they bought their property 20? years ago as part of due
diligence or whatever etc. Unless SOP is to just gloss over where all the stakes are when purchasing parcels of
land.

-Mike

Its clear he either never knew it was his and never walked the property. Had he done so, he would have seen the 15 or so full size archery targets and lanes.
 
70 years is a long time. I was wondering about adverse possession.

Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as "squatter's rights",[a] is a legal principle which a person who does not have legal title under to a piece of property—usually land (real property)—acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the land without the permission of its legal owner.[1]

In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property's owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property "springs up" in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property's new owner.[2] Over time, legislatures have created statutes of limitations that specify the length of time that owners have to recover possession of their property from adverse possessors. In the United States, for example, these time limits vary widely between individual states, ranging from as low as three years to as many as 40 years.[3]
 
The club "built" the archery ranges 70 years ago. Which is several owners of that parcel ago. The owner of that land has had weekly archery events on his property since the day he bought it 20 years ago.

No one knew the club was "on his land" since the club was created. Not the neighbors, not the club, not the town. Its not like the club secretly built for 70 years under everyone's noses.
I may be wrong but I believe it's the adding on of the range in 2010 that perhaps became the major conflict?
 
F*** the Perry's. It is 6 f*ing acres of useless land with no market value due to being land locked and behind other properties. It probably has a nominal value of like $1000/acre for a total of $6000. Go look up the plot plans for all the relevant land, and it's obvious no way were the Perry's going to go build a house down there on that little piece of land sticking out sideways from their 50 or so acres that their one house is already built on. They never even bothered to walk down there. If adverse possession wasn't going to work, then a simple "Here's $10k now the land officially belongs to the club, and it's a gun range so clean-up is irrelevant" would have been more than sufficient.
 
What I dont understand is the basis for the judge to rule against adverse possession assertion that the club made

AFAICT it met all the legal requirements adverse posession and it should have been bulletproof

NH requires that it has been 20 years
Continuous
In the open/no permission granted and the range acted in good faith believing it was actually their land

I fully agree, but... cuz gunz!
 
 
Not surprising. The town is fully aware the range will never be able to pay the other settlement amount. They now suddenly admit you can't squeeze blood from a rock and are trying to end spending WAY more money on city lawyers than they'll ever get back.

Its all utter insanity.
 
What I dont understand is the basis for the judge to rule against adverse possession assertion that the club made

AFAICT it met all the legal requirements adverse posession and it should have been bulletproof

NH requires that it has been 20 years
Continuous
In the open/no permission granted and the range acted in good faith believing it was actually their land
Adverse possession is very difficult to prove. It has to be open, adverse and continuous. Maybe the neighbor claimed he used the land every now and then.
 
Back
Top Bottom