Abandoned property, owner out of state

[johnnycat]

In my years of detecting I have detected several places without permission, (As probably a few of us here in this forum have done). However...you just don't feel comfortable about it. Heck, finish your research and track the owner down.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[rmptr]

This brings up an interesting sidenote that I saw on the News last year.
Did you know that in parts of the country you can use someone's land for a bunch of years without their permission and if the owners never say or do anything about it, you can claim it as your own? It's called "adverse domain". Here's what happened in Colorado:

http://consumerist.com/consumer/law...of-property-to-litigious-neighbors-325431.php

I followed the link, Taro... Looked JUST LIKE where I once lived in CA mountains!

I was a tenant, a guest in 2nd home of friends, and cleaned up the landscaping for them while I stayed there.
Was about to build them a small storage/carport thingy and I checked the property markers...

I discovered the adjoining neighbor had encroached upon my friends property, pretty much because THEIR house was built illegally too close to the property line! And they knew it! They were well into the process of "taking" a small portion of my friends property...SO they could ADD ON to their house!

When I called them on it, and had to get enforcement involved because they were landscaping "over the line", I became a real bad guy because they were bigwigs downtown...
They quickly sold the property and built elsewhere when their plan for an addition fell through.
rmptr

 

[rmptr]

I own property in another state, so I'm sure some of the neighbors think it is abandoned...it's not. Make that call and attempt to get permission.

grizzly bare

From my experience, it could be the adjoining neighbors who would want that property MOST!

Next time you are there, ask them to keep an eye on it for you...
Post the Private Property/No Trespassing signs appropriately and make sure you check them from time to time. Mark your property corners with at least small flags and maintain them. Take pictures. Dated !

If you do find something amiss, you MUST protect your interests.
Twine between sticks can constitute a fence line!

If someone drives over part of your property for 15years to get into their haybarn, they could possibly get an easement against your property, if you did not immediately object.
rmptr

 

[Tom_in_CA]

AceDigger has the best advice I've ever read. C'mon guys, who really cares?

 

[deepskyal]

What spawned my interest was an article in the Post Gazette a week or so ago about houses that were condemned "BY THE CITY" because of unpaid taxes and the property had been left to disrepair.
The city is tearing them down because of absentee landlords and slumlords.

Yes, I did own property and people frequently trespassed. My yard was a shortcut to the local park and swimming pool. I fenced what I didn't want people to walk through and payed my $1.50 for a cheap no trespassing sign.
You couldn't tell where my property ended and the park began because there were no boarders or fences.
People frequently retrieved golf balls driven into my woods and yard, retrieved their kites from my trees, and even knocked on my door to get their rocket off my roof.

I also lived in the city of Pittsburgh, next to an abandoned property, and it was a sh** hole. Absentee landlords are a scourage around here.

If they don't care what their own property looks like...why the heck should we. They simply become firetraps and crack houses.

The other property I'm looking at, in the summer, you'd never even know it was there. Once the trees and brush fill in, it blends into the landscape...which is at the base of a hill and no other house around for a quarter mile or so. This time of year...you can make out the old stone foundation. The property has long been forgotten. It's just a tiny lot that a mill person probably owned years back. From the size of the trees growing up in the middle of the foundation...It's probably been gone 25-30 years.

Do you really think someone has an interest in it?

I think some of you are just going to the extreme in your points of getting permission for something that long abandoned or something some nasty slumlord or absentee landlord left as their legacy for the public to clean up. It is MY tax dollars that now have to pay to clean up their mess.

I give respect where respect is due. I'll follow the code of ethics to the point I feel necessary...but it's a very grey area when it comes to permission to me.
Al

 

[blurr]

What spawned my interest was an article in the Post Gazette a week or so ago about houses that were condemned "BY THE CITY" because of unpaid taxes and the property had been left to disrepair.
The city is tearing them down because of absentee landlords and slumlords.

Yes, I did own property and people frequently trespassed. My yard was a shortcut to the local park and swimming pool. I fenced what I didn't want people to walk through and payed my $1.50 for a cheap no trespassing sign.
You couldn't tell where my property ended and the park began because there were no boarders or fences.
People frequently retrieved golf balls driven into my woods and yard, retrieved their kites from my trees, and even knocked on my door to get their rocket off my roof.

I also lived in the city of Pittsburgh, next to an abandoned property, and it was a sh** hole. Absentee landlords are a scourage around here.

If they don't care what their own property looks like...why the heck should we. They simply become firetraps and crack houses.

The other property I'm looking at, in the summer, you'd never even know it was there. Once the trees and brush fill in, it blends into the landscape...which is at the base of a hill and no other house around for a quarter mile or so. This time of year...you can make out the old stone foundation. The property has long been forgotten. It's just a tiny lot that a mill person probably owned years back. From the size of the trees growing up in the middle of the foundation...It's probably been gone 25-30 years.

Do you really think someone has an interest in it?

I think some of you are just going to the extreme in your points of getting permission for something that long abandoned or something some nasty slumlord or absentee landlord left as their legacy for the public to clean up. It is MY tax dollars that now have to pay to clean up their mess.

I give respect where respect is due. I'll follow the code of ethics to the point I feel necessary...but it's a very grey area when it comes to permission to me.
Al

I think the point is, if someone is posting with the question of whether or not they should ask for permission, they probably already know the answer. If you don't feel it necessary, go for it.

John

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi TreasureTales. Why the emphasis/response on me? Seems that several others here have posted the same opinion.

But anyhow, this "trespasser" thing on the most silliest little spits of land, reminds me of a local news story occuring right now, in my area: A certain man bought a property a few years ago, along a large creek here. One day, a hiker's dog came up from a trail near the river, and was barking at his sheep. The man went down to investigate, and saw that a hiking trail, which equestrians and hikers were using, cut through a corner of what was technically, his property. It was a well-worn path that followed the meandering creek. The man did his homework, looking at his property blue-prints, and determined that the a portion of the trail was inside his line. So he erected a fence and a no-trespassing sign. But wait! in order for hikers and equestrians to avoid this portion of the trail, they would now have to wade through a section of creek, or climb a sheer cliff, etc... So some hikers and equestrians complained to the county that this effectively cut off a trail (of which the other 99% percent went through public park land) was now in-accessible. So the park's dept. tried to talk to the landowner, but he would not cooperate. It eventually made the newspaper, because some people were claiming that 70 yrs. of use (I guess the previous property owner never cared or fenced it) made it, effectively "public".

The only reason I bring up that real story, is that it occured to me: For ~70 yrs, all those people were TRESPASSING! How dare they! They should have known and inquired, and not just "assumed" that a trail through a park, continued through public park sections at every turn! Of all the NERVE!! Next thing you know, they'll probably be selling crack to 3rd graders! Tsk Tsk. The newspaper's quotes on the equestrian's arguments kept using the word "used" when referring to the test of time, for whether or not hsitoric use for XX # of years constituted abandonment, or "implied dedication". In my mind, I kept substituting "trespass" instead of "use".

Here's the link. See if anyone here can see the connections to this and some of the T'net questions on similar questions: http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_8162143

 

[rmptr]

Regarding Tom's trail by the river...

Indeed, by the years of public use, that PROPERTY has lost it's right to exclusive use by the landowner.

If parks dept did not proceed, (which they should have), a few local folks could have petitioned any judge for an injunction against that newest owner of the property to remove the fence at the vicinity of the trail.
Owner would not lose ALL rights, and would certainly retain the right to pay tax on that portion of land, but the recreating public would have an easement, to pass over that portion.

In cases such as that, it's generally best to donate that portion of land to a charitable organization, write it off on taxes, then that organization can donate it to the city parks dept.

Owner escapes liability for accident upon his property which could far exceed the value of the whole enchilada!

rmptr

 

[Tom_in_CA]

TreasureTrails, you say the instance in this thread is different than my news link, because in Al's scenario: "There is a property owner and there is a name that can be tracked." But wait, the people in my news link, those someone(s) starting 70+ yrs. ago, could have done their homework and determined that: "There is a property owner and there is a name that can be tracked." Why aren't those equestrians (the past ones anyhow) villified? Did you read the story in my link?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You say: "But it is up to the property owner to make it known he wants to restrict access to his land" BINGO! You got it And the flip side of that coin, for the remote spots withcut-through trails, no signs, fences, etc....? Bingo No, you're not wasting your time, I think you're making great progress

 

[jorge del norte]

The problem with places like this is that they are hard to hunt because......simply no one cares for the property........grass to high.......trash everywhere.....I've hunted places like this before....and they turn into a bad hunt......nervous....beer tabs......I personally like public places......
although I have been hunting some .LLC to be developed sites as of late......before they do construction, or during......these seem a better deal.....

 

[jorge del norte]

you don't want to get caught.......there was a guy on here last year that got caught......and he felt like a scumbag.....and everyone told him so........repeatedly.

think before you hunt.......

 

[corklabus]

Hhhmmmm.......If considered truely abandoned and taxes have not been payed and it's a SMALL property............. Are these not usually sold for a song at the county courthouse at auction or regularly sold for back taxes ? It may be a cheap solution to your problem and then when you're tired of it, you could possibly make a small profit. Othewise, my first thought would be at least TRY to contact the owner for permission. The phone call is the cheapest piece of mind. If after a reasonably honest effort nothing works, then let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Burdie]

you don't want to get caught.......there was a guy on here last year that got caught......and he felt like a scumbag.....and everyone told him so........repeatedly.

think before you hunt.......

You won't get any better information than this.
Burdie

 

[deepskyal]

Let me reiterate...the properties are abandoned...according to the city...not me.
Just because a name is attached to a parcel does not mean someone owning it gives two hoots about it.
Here's a link to the article that shows how the city and local residents feel about those properties and what is being done.

http://search.post-gazette.com/redir.asp?path=/pg/08029/852989-85.stm&date=1/29/2008+5:06:00+AM.

Razing 600 houses in a year........lots of real uncaring owners in the Greater Pittsburgh area. That's 4 million dollars of tax payers money to raze private property?

Now why should I or any other opportunist feel any shame for metal detecting such a place? I think it's a great opportunity to find some coins or other relics from places that date back to the turn of the century. It's simply a new resource we need to tap since everything else is going off limits these days. I am NOT harming anyones property that cares about it. The code of ethics is a guide, not the bible. I'm not trashing or trespassing on someones property that has an interest in it....they own it in name only and only until it is nothing more than a vacant lot.

And that example about the horse path....two totally different issues.

Just like those that crossed my yard. If I hadn't put up a fence in a small area, which by the way did not block access to the park, no one would have ever known it was private property. My yard blended right in with the park too, no distinct boundry. And I surely didn't expect every Joe Blow that walked in my woods to know it was private, nor did I expect anyone hiking to have done property searches to see what was in their route. It was never posted private so no one from one generation to the next would know where the lines began or ended. The only reason for the fence was to keep people away from my shed and keep the dogs in. My shed was broken into once...wasnt going to let it happen again. That's why I got the dogs. I didnt want to deprive others from their shortcut. That guy you refered to sounded like he was just being a selfish jerk, blocking access because he thought he could.
Al

 

[DAYTONA TOM]

i have moved all around the us and let me tell ya there are states that a man has the right to defend his
land goto mo and walk in the hills they shoot to kill there and i know people in nc,fl,mi tat would do it in a hartbeat some people buy land to hunt and come by to check out the deer and other game there.
the mdthing is all abought our code you neen to reed it sometime is it worth the chance to get shot
not me. i do my homework and i do alright dont forget that people fight over land that's not even their's
we all have to much to loose anyway best of luck to ya if we don't hear from ya back we'll know that you've
been shot . i hope you do the right thing so we can keep you around to enjoy the sport

 

[deepskyal]

If I am walking through the woods, on public land, and am approached by someone telling me I am trespassing on private property, I would leave but not before stating the obvious...how am I suppose to know where your property begins and public property ends if you don't put up a fence or post it.
Come on...that's just common sense. I also think a person quite arrogant when they think they can bully the public when it is them making the mistake of not defining their boarders when it isn't obvious.

I was chased off property once and it had nothing to do with detecting. Just a bunch of rednecks in the back woods of Virginia acting stupid. They pulled guns and claimed that it was their quarry pit we were swimming in. Nothing there was posted and being in the military at the time...if i would have been armed...well...things would have got ugly.
On the other hand, I've been in the Allegheny National Forest and come across No Trespassing signs posted in the middle of nowhere and could only wonder as to why it was posted. No houses, fences, nada, nothing...just trees and hills. I respected the signs.

If your private property is unrecognizable from public property...don't be crying when someone steps foot in it. Not everyone has GPS and survey books to know where your boarders are. It's your fault for not defining your boarders. That's why No trespassing signs should be posted. Without them, I don't think you have a legal leg to stand on if someone accidentally crosses your land unless it is somehow bluntly obvious it's private, such as a manicured lawn or up kept outbuildings.

If you are a slumlord or absentee landlord...don't cry when the public finally gets disgusted and razes the property and sells the lot to someone to use as a parking lot.

It wasn't so much a question for myself as an opportunity for people to reevaluate choices on where they might want to detect.

Ethics is a personal decision. I personally find nothing unethical about detecting an abandoned slumhouse that crackheads use to deal drugs and the city is readying to raze or a lot out in the middle of nowhere, unposted and neglected and the owner lives 2000 miles away.
It's those people that abandon their property to become eyesores and firetraps that are unethical.
Al

 

[jeff of pa]

Excellent post Al

In the past I have seen many Complain that Army Corps Property etc.
Can be Detected with Permission but you must stay away from
Archeological Significant Spots. Yet those spots are not Listed Publically
or Posted. You are supposed to be Psychic & Know where to avoid.
and if you accidently dig at one of those "Secret" sites you can be Arrested.

But yet we're supposed to be Psychic for where pubilc & Private boundries Lie.

I personally Try to talk to Neighbors on where their lines are
and if I can't get permission for theirs I stay a few feet away from where they
say their line is to avoid all Confrontation. But have just used Judgement at times
also, and Don't believe I was wrong to do so. especially when the abandond hom sits
surrounded by public land and it is no longer possable to distinguish if there was land with the house.

Here in pa many homes were & Still are leased.
and the property right up to
these homes were & are Public.
Of course Leasers in some cases. because they take care of the land surrounding
their homes have certain Rights.

JEFF

 

[Woody14]

Its funny deepskyal when you mention about posted signs in the middle of nowhere. Some hunters I know use that trick around here to keep people away from there good spots. For it to be legit I believe, they need to put there name and address on the sign. Myself though, I have no problem with finding out who owns what, and where I can detect. What steams me are the state lands that keep us off like where grave robbers. Just thought I would put that in there

 

[jeff of pa]

Its funny deepskyal when you mention about posted signs in the middle of nowhere. Some hunters I know use that trick around here to keep people away from there good spots. For it to be legit I believe, they need to put there name and address on the sign. Myself though, I have no problem with finding out who owns what, and where I can detect. What steams me are the state lands that keep us off like where grave robbers. Just thought I would put that in there

Yes it was in the Papers a Few years ago Somone was Caught Posting Property
Just to Protect it from Hunters.

signs must be signed and some say they must also be notorized
but not sure on that as some post thousands when talking
thousands of acres. which no notery
on earth will notorize thousands and I doubt landowners
will sign Thousands.

And each sign must be Visible from the last one you put up.
No Holes in between to say "I didn't see one"