boilermaker
NES Member
What are the neighbor and town going to do if the range just declares bankruptcy as the result?
They could potentially go after the Club officers if the club declares bankruptcy.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
What are the neighbor and town going to do if the range just declares bankruptcy as the result?
They could potentially go after the Club officers if the club declares bankruptcy.
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.
They would probably ask for the land.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?
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.
They would probably ask for the land.
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.
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.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.
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.
ignorance is not a defense. This sucks for the club and all the members.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'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?
ignorance is not a defense. This sucks for the club and all the members.
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
they lost an adverse possession case last year in land court
I may be wrong but I believe it's the adding on of the range in 2010 that perhaps became the major conflict?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?
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
That says it all. Jack.I fully agree, but... cuz gunz!
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.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