Posted February 23, 200619 yr Claim to bike path’s land in dispute Foundation built 14-mile trail in ’80s without title search Thursday, February 23, 2006 Kelly Hassett THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH A local foundation built a bike path on private property without checking to see who owned the land. Now there is a gate across the popular bike path along Raccoon Creek in Newark, authorized by two sisters who have staked their claim to land they say is theirs. To further complicate the issue, a Newark man says he owns the land, and that he has no problem with hikers and bikers using the T.J. Evans Bike Trail. The city, which manages the trail, is looking for the title to clear up the mess. "We’re taking a step backward," said Doug Sassen, the city law director. The bike trail runs 14 miles from Newark to Johnstown. Full story at: http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/23/20060223-B1-03.html
February 27, 200619 yr What gets me is that the guy at the center of this is a prominent local real estate attorney who runs a title insurance company.... and he makes a blunder like this? Did he not even bother to do a property records search? What a twit.
February 27, 200619 yr I don't know all the particulars, but it seems to me that in some jurisdictions if a property owner fails to assert his rights against an encroachment for ten years, he forfeits his right to do so. I became aware of this when I looked into an encroachment by a neighbor who had extended a fence for her horse paddock into a woodlot that was part of our family farm. Maybe if the trail existed for ten years without protest from the sisters, there's nothing they can do about it beyond requiring fences so that trail users can't venture from the trail onto their land.
February 28, 200619 yr Its really easy to get out of people stealing stuff through adverse possesion. You need to squat on it for 21 years. Continuously for that period for that time. Exclusively for that period. Notoriously to the actual owner of that property. If they squatter can't prove that they have met all those conditions, then the actual owner gets the property back. Basicaly the real owners here wern't put on notice on what was happening, so they got their land back. I say fuck them, and eminet domain that land.
April 3, 200619 yr COMMENTARY Finders not keepers in bike-path dispute Monday, April 03, 2006 ANN FISHER The conflict over a chunk of land wrongly taken for a Licking County bike path a decade ago gives property-rights activists a legitimate argument against the use of eminent domain. Newark do-gooders appear to have erred twice when they put the deal together back then: They assigned values to the needed parcels and did not seek permission to use those they deemed worthless. Full column at: http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/03/20060403-C1-00.html
October 11, 200618 yr NEWARK PROPERTY DISPUTE Bike-path problem nears solution Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Tom Sheehan THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH NEWARK, Ohio — A land dispute that caused property owners to build a 6-foot-high gated fence across a bike path on the city’s west side might soon be settled. Newark officials propose to pay $15,000 to sisters Sarah Fuller and Flory Schultheiss to remove the fence and gate. The sisters, who grew up in Newark but now live in California, left the gate unlocked but posted private property signs. More at: http://dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/10/20061010-D3-02.html
Create an account or sign in to comment