Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[TOGIE]

Agreed, plus as far as I know, he has ZERO qualifications to appraise a dog house, let alone a large ranch.

this was basically my 1st thought reading about this.

since when are real estate agents experts in appraisal? seems like low hanging fruit for a cross examining attorney to rip to shreds.

 

[TOGIE]

legit question here, but i suppose it is exactly a part of what they'll be trying to tease out in court. do have some appraisal and RE experts here?

for a legitimate appraisal done on a ranch what exactly are the attributes that affect price? cause i feel like there are two prongs for the market price of a property. the 1st prong being objective qualities and the 2nd being subjective qualities.

basically i'm wondering, are access points to public land not otherwise accessible except via a property something that would be factored in to an appraisal of a property to begin with? or is that an attribute of a property that would only make a buyer willing to pay more for a property?

*let's pretend there's no corruption in appraisals here and they're all objective and fair all the time*

i guess i'm thinking that appraisal values and market values are two different things, right? isnt that true to some degree? if the government is assessing a tax value of the ranch, i can't imagine they would give two chits about its "access" potential. but if there is a bidding war for the property access potential might be something that increases the market value of the property.

are both of those valuations valid in this legal context or could their argument be moot simply because a legal valuation of a property would not bother to care about access? you'd think it only cares about size of property, structures on property, and other quantifiable properties of a ranch, etc.

i think we all agree their argument is moot for various reasons. but is there potential for it to not even have to be moot? in that it falls flat on it's face before the court even has to really tease it apart?

ultimately it seems that for one person the access might be valuable and a huge selling point but maybe not for another, so it's not something that can be objectively quantifiable in a valuation context.

or am i totally off base there?

 

[Sytes]

I turned down the purchase of a property because it had a public access route to a river bordering the property line in Missoula.

Hate to say it though subjectively speaking, the noise and garbage bad apple public land owners discard and disrespect of private property holds a direct interest in appreciation or depreciation of property value.

 

[grizzly_]

I turned down the purchase of a property because it had a public access route to a river bordering the property line in Missoula.

Hate to say it though subjectively speaking, the noise and garbage bad apple public land owners discard and disrespect of private property holds a direct interest in appreciation or depreciation of property value.

That's fine, I wouldn't buy a house next to a mink farm. It's certainly reasonable to consider the neighbors when looking at property, it's not okay to try and claim others property however, as is happening in Wyoming.

 

[Nameless Range]

I’ll ask an ignorant question.

If you lawfully do some thing that depreciates someone’s property, does that give them basis to sue you?

I can imagine all sorts of lawful things and behaviors by individuals that could depreciate the value of someone else’s property. I just don’t understand how this could be successful, and if it is, it seems one could be successful suing folks for all sorts of things they do on public land that are adjacent to private land.

Is this thing a bitter attempt at something or a legitimately concerning case?

 

[BrentD]

I’ll ask an ignorant question.

If you lawfully do some thing that depreciates someone’s property, does that give them basis to sue you?

Sometimes. Depends on what "it" is and whether "it" is protected or not, etc. Every state will be different and within a state the rules may flux.

Sometimes you just have to throw a law suite at the courthouse wall and see if it sticks.

 

[TOGIE]

I turned down the purchase of a property because it had a public access route to a river bordering the property line in Missoula.

Hate to say it though subjectively speaking, the noise and garbage bad apple public land owners discard and disrespect of private property holds a direct interest in appreciation or depreciation of property value.

but that's exactly it right? that's a subjective thing.

can an employee from the county assessors office look at a property and give it negative valuation marks because there is a public access point bordering the property? can they give it postiive valuation marks because the public land behind the property is only accessible through the land?

sure both things might affect the bidding should a property go to market. but what valuation can you use to sue someone? what someone is willing to pay or what someone says it's objectively worth?

this is even assuming they have a basis to sue to begin with, which like Nameless pointed out, and other reasons, you'd think they don't.

 

[Nicoli7153]

He should be suing the Federal Govt if that's the case. They are the neighbor. Try getting by Governmental Immunity

 

[BuzzH]

I turned down the purchase of a property because it had a public access route to a river bordering the property line in Missoula.

Hate to say it though subjectively speaking, the noise and garbage bad apple public land owners discard and disrespect of private property holds a direct interest in appreciation or depreciation of property value.

But you not buying that property did not depreciate its value...your refusal to buy was not based on the price. I also don't believe cutting the price would have made you purchase it. Someone else bought it.

Point is this depreciation of land value over access is a BS argument.

I heard the same thing when Montana was battling for stream access. The landowners and real estate agents hair was on fire. Crying about how it would devalue their property...what a crock.

Yeah, stream access in Montana sure devalued property on the Blackfoot, Clark Fork, Bitterroot, Gallatin, Jefferson, Yellowstone, Missouri, Flint Creek, Rock Creek, Boulder, Madison, Ruby, Red Rock...yada yada. Show me a single piece of property on any of those water bodies that has suffered a decline in value from stream access...good luck with that.

All a bunch of crap...corner crossing won't devalue land in the West a penny.

 

[BuzzH]

I’ll ask an ignorant question.

If you lawfully do some thing that depreciates someone’s property, does that give them basis to sue you?

I can imagine all sorts of lawful things and behaviors by individuals that could depreciate the value of someone else’s property. I just don’t understand how this could be successful, and if it is, it seems one could be successful suing folks for all sorts of things they do on public land that are adjacent to private land.

Is this thing a bitter attempt at something or a legitimately concerning case?

Not in my experience.

If you buy a piece of property and your neighbor brings in a bunch of old junk vehicles, etc. unless there's a HOA isn't much you can do.

Same thing if they don't want to take care of their yard, have chickens, a horse, even pigs in the rural areas.

If your neighbor isn't breaking the law or HOA rules...doesn't matter if his property devalues yours.

Exactly why there are HOA's to begin with, so you MAY have some legal recourse.

 

[Sytes]

but that's exactly it right? that's a subjective thing.

can an employee from the county assessors office look at a property and give it negative valuation marks because there is a public access point bordering the property? can they give it postiive valuation marks because the public land behind the property is only accessible through the land?

sure both things might affect the bidding should a property go to market. but what valuation can you use to sue someone? what someone is willing to pay or what someone says it's objectively worth?

this is even assuming they have a basis to sue to begin with, which like Nameless pointed out, and other reasons, you'd think they don't.

Agree 100%.

My point is there IS a legitimate interest in the "properties" surrounding one that interests a buyer and the property value reflects such. That is why I specifically shared it as a subjective position.

I believe their lawsuit is BS. BUT - you asked a question if it effects value of property. I have direct experience as I am sure most everyone here does when it comes to evaluating neighboring properties

 

[Addicting]

When is the court date again?

 

[406dn]

I can see the logic that the value of a property declines when the access to the entirety of it is altered. If you stipulate that the size this ranch includes the public land within the perimeter of the ranch.

But, every property carries the risk that its value might change, better or worse. Not much different than a purchase of a company stock. It gets bought with a set of assumptions that may or may not be the actual case.

I am in favor of corner crossing. It should have been clearly legal, instead of murky from the get go. I suppose before GPS technology the uncertainly of the exact corner gave the private landowners a better legal argument. But times change, now it is very possible to know exactly where you are. If there is a survey pin, you will be able to find it.

So, if the day finally comes, as it should that the public has a clear legal right across the corner, there are many properties that will lose some measure of their exclusivity. No one owes them a dime. No one took anything from them. The world changed with a new technology. Not much different than horses becoming obsolete with the advent of internal combustion engines.

 

[Sytes]

Yeah, stream access in Montana sure devalued property on the Blackfoot, Clark Fork, Bitterroot, Gallatin, Jefferson, Yellowstone, Missouri, Flint Creek, Rock Creek, Boulder, Madison, Ruby, Red Rock...yada yada. Show me a single piece of property on any of those water bodies that has suffered a decline in value from stream access...good luck with that.

8 critical factors that influence a home's value | Opendoor

Determining the right list price is a crucial step of the home selling process. We'll explain the most important factors that impact property value.

www.opendoor.com

• Location: If your home has a unique placement, such as on a busy street, golf course, or waterfront, look for comps that have the same placement.

 

[grizzly_]

If you lawfully do some thing that depreciates someone’s property, does that give them basis to sue you?

That seems like it would be a violation of the Bundle of Rights that is inherently attached to all property.... but I'm no attorney.

 

[Big Fin]

This week I met with the attorneys who were on my first two podcasts on the Wyoming Corner Crossing case. We are scripting two more podcasts on this topic for 2023, hoping to release the first one in January. Some of these are good questions for us to discuss on that podcast.

The core of the next podcast will explore the pleadings in the case, the facts being presented, the law being argued, any discovery documents that are public record, the options each party will have when the case is ruled on in summer 2023. We hope to cover what precedent it has for hunters whether a favorable/unfavorable decision.

As for expert witnesses, I was an expert witness many times in many civil cases. The plaintiff or defendant is responsible for convincing the judge that such person has the skills, experience, training, and other education to provide an expert opinion relevant to the facts and law in question. Sometimes you want the other side to have a half-assed expert witness, as you do get to depose that person. Often, that expert witness won't know shit from apple butter and the other side's experts will tear holes in the statements of the half-assed expert. You almost hope for that.

I hope the billionaire from NC hires the cheapest blowhard he can find. He'll get sized with a 3XL asshat if the defendants have good counsel and they hire highly qualified experts.

 

[Nicoli7153]

This week I met with the attorneys who were on my first two podcasts on the Wyoming Corner Crossing case. We are scripting two more podcasts on this topic for 2023, hoping to release the first one in January. Some of these are good questions for us to discuss on that podcast.

The core of the next podcast will explore the pleadings in the case, the facts being presented, the law being argued, any discovery documents that are public record, the options each party will have when the case is ruled on in summer 2023. We hope to cover what precedent it has for hunters whether a favorable/unfavorable decision.

As for expert witnesses, I was an expert witness many times in many civil cases. The plaintiff or defendant is responsible for convincing the judge that such person has the skills, experience, training, and other education to provide an expert opinion relevant to the facts and law in question. Sometimes you want the other side to have a half-assed expert witness, as you do get to depose that person. Often, that expert witness won't know shit from apple butter and the other side's experts will tear holes in the statements of the half-assed expert. You almost hope for that.

I hope the billionaire from NC hires the cheapest blowhard he can find. He'll get sized with a 3XL asshat if the defendants have good counsel and they hire highly qualified experts.

We need to make sure they have the funds to do so. Please let us know if that is needed. Rich guys seem to outspend the regular guys in court and force them in to submission.

 

[elkduds]

Hunters crossing a corner have not and will never change a law. So they did not devalue anyone's property. If my neighbor makes a legal change that alters my property value, I will take that up legally with him. Laws are made and applied by government entities including courts. The rancher bought the ranch under the belief that he had exclusive access to public property, because that had been the custom and practice. Not the law.

There are thousands of landowners operating under this assumption. The court correcting this by endorsing public access to public lands will be restoring a wrongfully taken right to the public, not taking any value from those landowners.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If Eshleman sues anyone for his property being devalued he should be suing himself for overpaying for exclusivity that isn’t protected by law.

The fact is he assumed an arbitrary value based on a particular belief that corner crossing isn’t legal. If the courts don’t share his belief and determine that corner crossing is not illegal he has only himself and the people who gave him incorrect information to blame.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I've been stewing on this one all day. There are a million things that could happen, which could depreciate the value of a property. Anyone is allowed to be bummed when they happen. But we're talking about a lawsuit against 4 men, for harming the value of a property by excercising basic rights. If Fred E doesn't think those rights exist and he wants to argue it in court, fine. But, there's something incredibly crass, to me, about using the argument that those basic rights would devalue his property. I mean, plenty of racist people complained that their property values were harmed by people of color moving into their neighborhood. Should we have indulged that argument too? Of course not! It's an extreme version of the same argument, though. I'm finding it difficult to express my thoughts on this legal strategy while also honoring the accepted norms of Hunt Talk speech...