who's side are you on?

• said_aouita

  

  Neighbor ends 94-year-old man's 30-year tradition
  
  SANTA ROSA, Calif. —
  A World War II veteran built a cross on a Santa Rosa hillside three decades ago and has maintained it ever since, but now he's being kept from his livelihood.
  
  Arvo Kannisto, a 94 year-old man, told KTVU he is now no longer permitted on the property where the cross sits and he's heartbroken.
  
  http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/neighbor-ends-94-year-old-mans-30-year-tradition/nPJTt/
  
  
  Who's side are you on?
  
  
• ernest_t_bass

  

  94 year old man.
• 4cards

  

  ...geez how much longer is the old boy going to live? Let him take care of the rocks if it makes him happy!
• SnotBubbles

  

  I didn't read the story. Once you make it to 90 you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want.
• password

  

  Legally the gentleman has no leg to stand on, but morally, the land owner should just let him continue his routine. I am not a big fan of crosses but he is not hurting anyone unless he sets it on fire every night while wearing a white hooded robe.
• FatHobbit

  

  password;1222226 wrote:Legally the gentleman has no leg to stand on, but morally, the land owner should just let him continue his routine.

  I agree with this. But the landowner is afraid of liability if something happens to the old guy while he's working on the cross. I think they should be able to work things out. I wonder why he built this on someone else's property to begin with?
• THE4RINGZ

  

  Let the old guy do his thing.
• brutus161

  

  FatHobbit;1222236 wrote:I agree with this. But the landowner is afraid of liability if something happens to the old guy while he's working on the cross. I think they should be able to work things out. I wonder why he built this on someone else's property to begin with?

  
  If he's worried about liability, then make the old guy sign a release.
• queencitybuckeye

  password;1222226 wrote:Legally the gentleman has no leg to stand on,

  I'm not 100% sure that's the case.
• 4cards

  

  FatHobbit;1222236 wrote:I agree with this. But the landowner is afraid of liability if something happens to the old guy while he's working on the cross. I think they should be able to work things out. I wonder why he built this on someone else's property to begin with?

  ...If the something happens and the old guy dies on his property, the land owner can just put him under the rocks and nobody would ever know.
• justincredible

  

  I think the landowner has the right to keep him off his property but I think it's a shitty thing to do. Have the old guy sign a release like brutus said and be done with it. I wouldn't be surprised if taking care of that cross is the one thing keeping that guy alive (see: JoePa).
• Devils Advocate

  

  queencitybuckeye;1222270 wrote:I'm not 100% sure that's the case.

  I'm with you. After 30 years, sounds like a classic case of adverse possesion.
• said_aouita

  

  FatHobbit;1222236 wrote:I agree with this. But the landowner is afraid of liability if something happens to the old guy while he's working on the cross.

  Hopefully they can come to some sort of legal liability agreement that the land owner is not responsible if/when the vet falls down the hill.
• password

  

  Devils Advocate;1222280 wrote:I'm with you. After 30 years, sounds like a classic case of adverse possesion.

  I don't think that applies in this case. The previous land owner and the current landowner had given permission for him to be on their property, but the old man may be able to claim adverse possesion of the rocks he was taking care of.
• queencitybuckeye

  password;1222352 wrote:I don't think that applies in this case. The previous land owner and the current landowner had given permission for him to be on their property, but the old man may be able to claim adverse possesion of the rocks he was taking care of.

  If not adverse possession, some sort of easement perhaps?
• password

  

  queencitybuckeye;1222360 wrote:If not adverse possession, some sort of easement perhaps?

  I am not sure you can take possession of something that you are given permission to use. When ownership of the property changed hands and the old man asked and was given permission to use the property, the clock on possession started over. The granting of an easement would have to be granted by the current owner and it doesn't sound like that will happen, but it would be a good thing if the owner granted a temporary easement to the old man, so he can continue to do his thing while not harming anyone.
• FatHobbit

  

  queencitybuckeye;1222360 wrote:If not adverse possession, some sort of easement perhaps?

  Maybe this is why the new landowner doesn't want him there anymore.