Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Irrelevant]

Wyoming Corner Crossing Case Deepens with New Charges and Civil Lawsuit

Editor’s note: In October 2021, four Missourians hunting in Wyoming were cited for criminal trespass after “corner crossing” from one square parcel of public land to another across adjoining corners—presenting an opportunity to test an infamously murky legal issue. This article is the third...

www.themeateater.com

 

[Wind Gypsy]

From the civil case "Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully interfered with Plaintiff’s right to use, control, and enjoy its Property by ‘corner crossing’ through the Property and trespassing across the Property, even if Defendants did not step onto the surface of the Property.”

I would love to see how a couple seconds of intrusion into a corner of airspace impacts the plaintiffs right to use, control, and enjoy it's property.

 

[BuckRut]

From the civil case "Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully interfered with Plaintiff’s right to use, control, and enjoy its Property by ‘corner crossing’ through the Property and trespassing across the Property, even if Defendants did not step onto the surface of the Property.”

I would love to see how a couple seconds of intrusion into a corner of airspace impacts the plaintiffs right to use, control, and enjoy it's property.

I'm sure he is saying he couldn't enjoy the hunting on his property because he had to spend on this time dealing with these guys.

 

[huntin24/7]

Finally watched the video of this. Ranch manager Steve comes off as quite the derp a derp yocal.

 

[338win]

It might have been explained earlier, but what is an educated guess for the probability of the land owner to win on the civil/tort side of the house since its not the same standard as a criminal case?

 

[Addicting]

I'm sure he is saying he couldn't enjoy the hunting on his property because he had to spend on this time dealing with these guys.

@VikingsGuy
Would the landowner who filed the suit need to be present to claim his enjoyment was being hampered?

If he is not physically there enjoying it how can he know that a arm or leg crossing air space ruined his enjoyment at that moment?

 

[RobG]

From the civil case "Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully interfered with Plaintiff’s right to use, control, and enjoy its Property by ‘corner crossing’ through the Property and trespassing across the Property, even if Defendants did not step onto the surface of the Property.”

I would love to see how a couple seconds of intrusion into a corner of airspace impacts the plaintiffs right to use, control, and enjoy it's property.

I think the landowners are scumbags for lumping this onto a legitimate legal question, but the civil suit is consistent with Randy's info saying that this is at minimum civil trespass. I can see the angle, like tree branches above your property (which have no time constraint), but there doesn't appear to be any damages so it is just a harassment suit.

 

[300stw]

realistically if this goes sideways on either front for the hunters, civil or other, i imagine most landowners will be able to file a civil suit at a minimum on in number of people every year. if so is the court system going to pick and choose which cases to work on. my property in idaho gets numerous violations everyday by school kids walking down the sidewalk, hands over the top of the fence pestering the dog and goats, "their invading my airspace and i cant take my after noon nap" thats gotta be worth few hundred ea offense, and 30 kids a day, i hit the lottery,,,,,
i see the corner cross, swinging a leg over airspace, as this commonsense of a deal, maybe i am not smart enough to see the bigger picture,,,,,

 

[Thx1138]

Hunt talk radio has a new podcast regarding Corner Crossing, it will be a 3-4 part series. The first one lays the historical foundation. Episode 2 will bring in 2 Montana attorneys and weigh in on Civil and Criminal trespass and ad Coelum doctrine. https://hunttalk.libsyn.com/

 

[VikingsGuy]

@VikingsGuy
Would the landowner who filed the suit need to be present to claim his enjoyment was being hampered?

Let me start by saying that in my opinion there is no harm in corner-crossing remote land to access public land even if found to be a technical violation of airspace.

As for your specific question, "enjoyment" of property is a broad term that is not directly limited to personal joy. It's one of those dumb legal redundancies that get called out because of tradition more than utility. I could own a farm in Iowa that I never set eyes on, but pay others to farm on my behalf. A trespasser who interrupted the spring planting would have disrupted my "enjoyment" of the land because now my crops are not planted. My "enjoyment" in this example is my peaceful farming of the land to grow crops (even if by proxy).

 

[VikingsGuy]

if so is the court system going to pick and choose which cases to work on.

In civil cases, the court does not get to pick and choose which cases get heard. All properly filed cases "get their day in court".

In criminal cases the county attorney, states attorney and district attorney decide what cases to bring and the court must hear all such properly filed cases.

 

[Addicting]

A trespasser who interrupted the spring planting would have disrupted my "enjoyment" of the land because now my crops are not planted.

Maybe that’s not a good example given this case as you can assign a negative value to it pretty easily. Less crops, more fuel, lost revenue….

However, assigning a damage to lack of enjoyment because someone on public land is doing something you don’t like seems frivolous. I am curious to the argument of how it acquires a negative value requiring damages.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe that’s not a good example given this case as you can assign a negative value to it pretty easily. Less crops, more fuel, lost revenue….

However, assigning a damage to lack of enjoyment because someone on public land is doing something you don’t like seems frivolous. I am curious to the argument of how it acquires a negative value requiring damages.

I started my post by saying I didn’t see a case for harm that I view as credible. But I was answering a specific narrow question - can an absentee owner be denied “enjoyment” - that answer is yes, in theory.

Who knows what they will come up with. Spooking their cows, interfering with hunting operations on their adjacent land, time and cost associated with defending property lines. I have no idea, but I view them as having an uphill battle on damages unless WY has minimum statutory damages for trespass or they provide for fee shifting in favor of prevailing party.

 

[Badlandcat]

Not sure about WY but in Wisconsin, the vertical plane at the property line applies to any portion of a tree. So you can literally cut off every tiny branch of a tree so long as the cut is made on your side of the property line. I've literally seen a tree trunk cut to the property line in a scenario where the one neighbor wanted the tree gone while the other wanted to keep it. So the guy that didn't want it said fine, watch this. Took his chain saw and cut through like 3/4 of it and stopped at the property line.

In Montana it's illegal to do that without the owner's consent. The property owner can sue for damages to the tree and will win.

 

[Badlandcat]

Pro tip, cut the roots on your side so it falls onto his property .

The person cutting the roots would be responsible for damages.

 

[Thx1138]

In Most states, you still have the right to trim a tree hanging on your side as long as you don’t kill it.

• If branches or roots belonging to a neighbor's tree hangs over your property, you have a right to trim it back to the property line (at your own expense).

Property Line and Fence Laws in Montana - FindLaw

FindLaw's legal primer on the property line, fence and tree-trimming laws of Montana.

www.findlaw.com

 

[TheJason]

I do not have a dog in this fight. However, Seems several things are amiss. The agency that controls the land should have issued the citation (i.e. a BLM Officer). I understand the Sheriff route but the land in question is owned by the BLM (i.e. Federal) how does that happen? One other thing I do not understand is everyone is assuming they climbed the ladder in a forward motion. If they climbed the ladder sideways they never intruded on private property their shoulders never intruded on private property. Is there video of how they climbed the ladder? I wish someone could tell me why this case is not in Federal Court? Where it should be. No ones airspace was invaded. Greed rules this world anymore. If you do not own it is not yours to say what the next person does on it. Correct if I am wrong.

The case is a violation of Wyoming statute. Therefore, a BLM ranger does not have jurisdiction. A trespass charge is filed on behalf of the allegedly aggrieved party. In this case it is EMR.

The BLM did not claim nor suffer a trespass. If they did (i.e administratively closed area) then you are correct in that a BLM ranger would issue the citation and it would go to federal court.

The county sheriff is the primary agency of responsibility for trespassing charges at the state level. It is appropriate they responded. It would not be appropriate for BLM to respond for an alleged state violation.

Make sense?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

The case is a violation of Wyoming statute. Therefore, a BLM ranger does not have jurisdiction. A trespass charge is filed on behalf of the allegedly aggrieved party. In this case it is EMR.

The BLM did not claim nor suffer a trespass. If they did (i.e administratively closed area) then you are correct in that a BLM ranger would issue the citation and it would go to federal court.

The county sheriff is the primary agency of responsibility for trespassing charges at the state level. It is appropriate they responded. It would not be appropriate for BLM to respond for an alleged state violation.

Make sense?

At least you tried.

 

[JM77]

At least you tried.

A different way to say it is the landowner is complaining of trespass on private property. A BLM ranger told me he has no jurisdiction to trespass anyone on a private land violation.

 

[Treeshark]

Who is the EMR by the way?

Elk Mountain Ranch- they are the owner of the private land that was supposedly trespassed upon (which is why the BLM isn’t involved and the sheriff is).