# Another trespass ???



## Hi Ho Silver_Joe (Aug 4, 2003)

Another trespass question. 

An old rail road bed was sold to a private owner. It divides a state game area in half. The private owners will not let anyone cross their properly. In essence, cutting off all easy access to the west end of the game area which they then use as their private game area. What's the law? Can they do this? The parking lot is on the east side of their property.


----------



## tommytubular (Jan 25, 2002)

Im no expert...

but I believe they have to allow an easement to the property.

We had runs ins very similar in the UP. They would buy some property that cotained the road to access 1000's of acres of CFA land. They didnt have to allow you to drive it but were required to allow foot traffic


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

If it is their property they do not have to let anyone cross it unless there is something in the sales agreement or some arrangement made with the state. Best to contact the local District Office where the property is to find out for sure.


----------



## Hi Ho Silver_Joe (Aug 4, 2003)

boehr said:


> If it is their property they do not have to let anyone cross it unless there is something in the sales agreement or some arrangement made with the state. Best to contact the local District Office where the property is to find out for sure.


Thanks!


----------



## Topshelf (May 24, 2005)

boehr said:


> If it is their property they do not have to let anyone cross it *unless there is something in the sales agreement or some arrangement made with the state.* Best to contact the local District Office where the property is to find out for sure.


 
Boehr may be right but to be sure here's what you can do. 
Go to the Register of Deeds office for that County. Some even have on line access so you might want to do a search. Look up his deed from the State by his last name, Township and Section. If your nice to the people working there usually they will do all the research work for you. Then for a buck a page (depending on the County) you can usually get a copy of all public record documents. If you have any questions just send me a PM. I'm a former employee of your local County, so I know quite a bit about that process


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

i think you been in essence hornschwagled for lack of a better term the railroad never owned the property in question they had a right of way just like a road or drain...once the railroad is gone the right of way is gone...you cannot purchase a right of way with out owning land on both sides after the road drain or rail road is gone....if some how they did the above mentioned easment law does certainly apply......but im sure they didnt buy a railroad right of way...........most likely you have a case of locals tearing down signs and then having to take it to the next level...ive been kicked off more then one chunk of state land and got the last laugh


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

I don't know walleyeman, you can be charged for trespassing by walking up railroad tracks. I don't know how you can be charged if they don't own it and only have the right of way.


----------



## Topshelf (May 24, 2005)

Walleyeman I'm just going to respond here to your PM.

First, if I had to guess, I would say the Railroad owned this strip out right. The term Right of Way is just a term that was attached to Railroad type properties long ago. 99.99 % of the time they do own those strips. 

Here's a History lesson. Most Railroad companies were deeded those 99 to 102 foot wide wide strips to them by the Federal Government. Also most of the time, those strips were deeded to the RR's _before_ States were even States. Which means that the Railroads owned these strips long before the State took ownership of these "State Land Parcels". Which means the RR rights supercede any of the States. 

The reason it cuts through the parcel is because they usually were layed out in a straight line or easiest route from Point A to point B. So this RR strip could divide this State parcel. Also it doesnt matter if the RR company removed the tracks 20 years ago, they still owned the parcel. Now a days, RR companies are removing old tracks for a couple of reasons, #1 The price of steel is huge right now and those things are VERY heavy and #2 they are not using that spur any longer so why not remove the tracks and make a small profit before you sell the parcel.

Just for grins go to the County Reg of Deeds and do some research. In my business I can never take someones word for something like this. You need to see it on paper.


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

Topshelf said:


> First, if I had to guess, I would say the Railroad owned this strip out right. The term Right of Way is just a term that was attached to Railroad type properties long ago. 99.99 % of the time they do own those strips.
> 
> .


Exactly. Someone is confusing a railroad right of way with a utility company easement. And even a utility company easement isn't necessarily available for our free use.


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

Yes, the railroad owns much of the property that tracks are on or have been on. That is why the rails to trails program was started because the railroad sold the land for snowmobile trails etc. If it was just a right-of-way then the trails would have never been able to be placed there in many instances.


----------



## brybrain (Jan 6, 2007)

I remember a dispute between landowners and the State when the White Pine trail was being set up in northern Kent County. It was a while ago so the details are a little foggy, but the landowners were fighting to have the land revert back to them on the grounds that it WAS a right of way that was granted for a specific purpose (the railroad) and because the tracks were being removed the right of way was forfieted. Obviously, the State prevailed, maybe because the railroad DID own the land, but it seems like if it were that simple it would not have been as big of a deal.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

brybrain said:


> ...the landowners were fighting to have the land revert back to them on the grounds that it WAS a right of way that was granted for a specific purpose (the railroad) and because the tracks were being removed the right of way was forfieted....


Some RR right of ways are fee ownership (land grants) and some were purchased easements where the RR had exclusive use of the strip "for as long as it was needed for transportation purposes". The wording in most of those easements had the strip reverting back to the original landowners (heirs, successors and assigns) when there was no longer a 'transportation need'.

The arguments over the Rails to Trails right of ways had to do with the 'transportation need' wording in the original easements. The adjacent landowners held that since the railroad was no longer using it, the parcels rightfully reverted back to them. The state, however, claimed that a snowmobile trail met their definition of a transportation need, therefore the reversion clauses in the orginial easements could not be invoked.

-na


----------



## deerslayer#1 (Nov 8, 2004)

Hi Ho Silver_Joe said:


> Another trespass question.
> 
> An old rail road bed was sold to a private owner. It divides a state game area in half. The private owners will not let anyone cross their properly. In essence, cutting off all easy access to the west end of the game area which they then use as their private game area. What's the law? Can they do this? The parking lot is on the east side of their property.


Would the previous owner allow you to cross the tracks ?


----------



## brybrain (Jan 6, 2007)

Wow Nick, I'm impressed that someone knew that right off the bat! Also, in Hi Ho's original posting he wrote about the new owners "In essence, cutting off easy access....". I spoke to a Manistee National Forest Ranger about access to some of the National Forest parcels. It might be different for state land, but he said that all parcels of National Forest have to have access from public land--it cannot be landlocked by private land. He also said that it doesn't have to be easy access though. I have one spot on National Forest land that I hike for 4 miles and wade across a small (but deep and swift!) river to get to the tributary I fish. It would be nice to have easier access, but on the other hand, I have the whole crick to myself--I have never seen another person out there. That might not be so great if you have to drag a big buck back to the truck but for small game it might be a blessing to have your spot become a little more remote. I just think of all the extra cardio vascular activity I'm getting when I hike, as well as the calories I'm burning--keeps me buff for my lady! OK, so maybe I have a way to go before I'm really buff, but I'll keep fishing hard untill untill I get there!


----------

