GRANTING PERMISSION TO A STRANGER TO PROSPECT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

[ghostminer]

There has been a thread recently posted on this site concerning asking for permission to prospect on private property. If you are the land owner & a stranger asks you for permission to prospect for gold or other minerals on your land what should you do? It seems like the NICE THING to do is say sure, I don't see any problem with that. After all, you don't want to look like a mean person. Here's the problem with this thinking. By granting permission to the stranger you have granted him or her access to your mineral rights without recourse or royalties. What if this stranger decides he likes what he is finding & decides to stay or keep coming back, possibly with his or her friends. Now you have a problem. They will claim you granted access & rights & they are choosing to exercise them. You have opened yourself up to a legal term known as Adverse Possession. They now have a claim to your mineral rights which fall under the category or legal term Chattel, which dates way back to 1600's English Parliament & still holds legal standing in many common pleas courts in the good old U.S.A.
These people now become Disseisor's under the purist form of definition. They have now disposed the true owner of the mineral rights from such rights. There is legal standing that may favor the Disseisor more so in one state than another. Actual use of these rights may come to the forefront in certain court decisions. This would fall under the category of Open, Notorious, & Continuous Use. They may claim Exclusive Use of these rights & are exercising them to the exclusion of the land owner.
You will now end up in court fighting for your own mineral rights. If you are contemplating allowing someone access to your mineral rights you need an iron clad contract to protect yourself. Never give verbal authorization. If you do, be aware of what you may be opening yourself & your family & heirs up to.

Regards,
Ghostminer

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[placertogo]

I do agree with you up to a point. Most hunting, at least in the eastern U.S., is done on private property. The fish and game is a public resource and the taking of same requires licenses, subjects to bag limits, etc. There is still the issue of hunters and anglers getting injured on private property. Here in the east we are seeing more and more land posted. Mineral rights are another matter, but prospecting is done on either private or public property. You are correct about granting someone unlimited mineral rights without a contract. Much prospecting is done also on public property but not public lands existing under Federal but under various state laws. Perhaps, States, cities, and towns should also ban gold panning because public mineral rights would become the property of anyone who happens to find gold.

 

[ghostminer]

The subject at hand concerns private property & mineral rights. Let's keep the discussion to that subject matter.

 

[placertogo]

The subject at hand concerns private property & mineral rights. Let's keep the discussion to that subject matter.

Then you are correct. “Just say no.”

 

[placertogo]

The subject at hand concerns private property & mineral rights. Let's keep the discussion to that subject matter.

But I will ask you this: Why should public officials, who have the responsibility to safeguard the valuable mineral rights for the benefit of the public at large, not totally ban prospecting on public lands for the very same rationale you mentioned? Once they let people prospect, you give them and inch and they take a mile as you suggest.

 

[ghostminer]

You keep coming back to a different subject. Again, this is for mineral rights on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I am not suggesting anyone is " taking a mile ", I am referring to law as it applies to PRIVATE PROPERTY & what an unsuspecting land owner may be opening himself up to. No more, no less.

 

[dave wiseman]

The main issue here in the California motherlode gold country is liability.The people I know/or know of won't give access to anyone anymore..too many lawsuits..injuries etc.

 

[placertogo]

The main issue here in the California motherlode gold country is liability.The people I know/or know of won't give access to anyone anymore..too many lawsuits..injuries etc.

I do understand that, and although the issue is starting in California, it will spread throughout the U.S. Look at dredging. CA got its foot in the door and it caught on all the way to here in Maine. We don’t have CA’s total dredging ban yet, but they are working on it. The public officials who write the rules and regs for parks, forests, beaches and other public lands are now on a roll also. Just convince private landowners to cease giving permission to pan, and it is all over except for landowners themselves, and the friends of and contributors to, our public officials.

 

[placertogo]

You keep coming back to a different subject. Again, this is for mineral rights on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I am not suggesting anyone is " taking a mile ", I am referring to law as it applies to PRIVATE PROPERTY & what an unsuspecting land owner may be opening himself up to. No more, no less.

What you do not understand is that Public Property is merely a special case of Private Property. Under law, it is property and subject to the same trespass statutes which provide for those without permission to be driven from the property, by force if necessary. Instead of being owned and under control of the man/woman whose door you knock on, it is under the control of a bureaucrat whose job it is to determine if and when you may prospect upon it. The bureaucrat is the “unsuspecting” person who may open up the “landowner (i.e. the general public)” to liability and the possibility of an ordinary gold panner acquiring adverse possession to mineral rights belonging to the general public.

 

[placertogo]

You keep coming back to a different subject. Again, this is for mineral rights on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I am not suggesting anyone is " taking a mile ", I am referring to law as it applies to PRIVATE PROPERTY & what an unsuspecting land owner may be opening himself up to. No more, no less.

I am not trying to be a wise ass. I actually agree with your viewpoint. I am only saying that the same concerns faced by a Private Property owner are faced by those managing Public Property. We are now, here in the East, hearing the very same arguments you gave for the Private Property owner to deny access being used by Forest Service, State forests, beaches, streams, etc. to deny access for gold panning, mineral collecting, etc. (all possible mineral rights litigation). “What If someone gets injured. What if you find a lot of gold and end up taking over our park or forest for mining?”

 

[placertogo]

I suspect the anti-prospecting anti-mining people are happy to see us disagreeing about an issue that concerns us all. When they get all the landowners refusing access and all the Forest Supervisors, BLM staff, Game Wardens, etc. refusing access, they are all going to sit back together laughing at us.

 

[Bonaro]

I dont think adverse possession is that great of a threat in this circumstance. There are a number of requirements before a property can be considered adversely possessed. One of which is length time of hostile and exclusive possession which varies state to state but it's often 7 years. The greater threat is liability if the trespasser hurts himself and decides to sue.
All of this can be easily avoided with a rental agreement. If someone knocks on your door with a request to prospect, simply have him agree to a simple rental agreement that releases you from liability, specifies a term and has conditions about use. The "rent" can be $1 if you want.

 

[placertogo]

I dont think adverse possession is that great of a threat in this circumstance. There are a number of requirements before a property can be considered adversely possessed. One of which is length time of hostile and exclusive possession which varies state to state but it's often 7 years. The greater threat is liability if the trespasser hurts himself and decides to sue.
All of this can be easily avoided with a rental agreement. If someone knocks on your door with a request to prospect, simply have him agree to a simple rental agreement that releases you from liability, specifies a term and has conditions about use. The "rent" can be $1 if you want.

Most of the landowners whose land I do gold panning on are happy with the trash I show them I have cleaned off their land for them and they feel they have gotten the best end of the deal.

 

[Goldwasher]

Getting verbal permission once. Does not grant you the right to come back again. It most certainly does not grant you any rights over the property owner.

The person you give permission to has the same rights to your minerals as a guy you hire to dig a ditch for a new waterline to your horse trough.

Lack of a written contract/permission isn't smart as it creates a he said-she said situation for both parties if something comes up.

There are situations where removing squatters can be difficult. But, even so. the situation invoked in this thread is just not reality.

It doesn't qualify as adverse possession.

Liability is the main reason for turning someone away.

 

[placertogo]

Getting verbal permission once. Does not grant you the right to come back again. It most certainly does not grant you any rights over the property owner.

The person you give permission to has the same rights to your minerals as a guy you hire to dig a ditch for a new waterline to your horse trough.

Lack of a written contract/permission isn't smart as it creates a he said-she said situation for both parties if something comes up.

There are situations where removing squatters can be difficult. But, even so. the situation invoked in this thread is just not reality.

It doesn't qualify as adverse possession.

Liability is the main reason for turning someone away.

Liability is a fear created by our American legal system. Carried to its extreme you don’t let your kids have their friends over for playtime, don’t give neighbors’ kids a ride to the park with your own kids, put “no trespassing” signs all over the perimeter of your yard, and on and on and on. Perhaps you are safer from litigation, but what an awful way to live your life.

 

[JeffA]

Liability is a fear created by our American legal system. Carried to its extreme you don’t let your kids have their friends over for playtime, don’t give neighbors’ kids a ride to the park with your own kids, put “no trespassing” signs all over the perimeter of your yard, and on and on and on. Perhaps you are safer from litigation, but what an awful way to live your life.

WELL SAID placertogo

 

[Jim in Idaho]

My understanding of adverse possession law is that you have to NOT know the land is being used. And it has to be used, without your knowing, for several years before an action for possession will be considered. However, I am no legal expert.
Consider this definition:

Adverse Possession
Overview

Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain common law requirements are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time, as defined by a statute of limitations.
Common Law Requirements

The common law requirements have evolved over time and they vary between jurisdictions. Typically, for an adverse possessor to obtain title, his possession of the property must be:

Continuous--A single adverse possessor must maintain continuous possession of the property. However, the continuity may be maintained between successive adverse possessors if there is privity between them.
Hostile--In this context, "hostile" does not mean "unfriendly." Rather, it means that the possession infringes on the rights of the true owner. If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile and it is not really adverse possession. Renters cannot be adverse possessors of the rented property, regardless of how long they possess it.
Open and Notorious--Possession must be obvious to anyone who bothers to look, so as to put the true owner on notice that a trespasser is in possession. One will not succeed with an adverse possession claim if it is secret.
Actual--The adverse possessor is actually in possession of someone else's property. The true owner has a cause of action for trespass, which must be pursued within the statute of limitations.
Exclusive--The adverse possessor does not share control of the property with any one else (unless in privity with himself). He excludes others from possession, as if he was actual owner.

Statute of Limitations

A typical statute requires possession for 7 years, if under color of title, or 20 years if not. The threshold, however, varies by jurisdiction.
Jim

 

[Goldwasher]

Liability is a fear created by our American legal system. Carried to its extreme you don’t let your kids have their friends over for playtime, don’t give neighbors’ kids a ride to the park with your own kids, put “no trespassing” signs all over the perimeter of your yard, and on and on and on. Perhaps you are safer from litigation, but what an awful way to live your life.

Insurance does cover most of those things...and when you own a home it does allow people to go after your assets.

As long as you aren't neglegent your pretty safe.

It is lame that you have to have a no tresspassing sign to avoid " negligence"

If someone comes on your property with no mal intint and gets hurt... or you end up shooting an intruder. Having signs posted can make a difference in your case.

I think that is absurd. The people who are supposed to be in charge of our civility (legislature) put the burden of compliance on the passive party(home owner)

And give the bad guys and morons every excuse...and lawyers every reason.


So, yep I agree