IrishLad32

Dude, you' re the one up in here saying you have first rights to the land. Therefore having first rights, claim it and be done. However if you don' t have first rights then I' m not your problem. If you have a written agreement that you have rights to the land, and can prove it, that' s all you need. However if you don' t have that, you don' t have jack now do you? Don' t talk to me about not having common sense. I' m the one with common sense enough that if I have a written agreement to the first rights of anything that I want then it' s mine. However I also have the common sense that if I don' t have that written agreement then I can' t do anything about it. You' re the one not telling the whole story so don' t get an attitude with me, man. Furthermore, if this is such a complicated legal matter what in the world are you coming to a hunting message board for it anyways? Do you think we' re all a bunch of lawyers or something? If you want to take care of a legal problem go to the source. That' s something else my common sense tells me. So if it' s such a complicated matter you must not have the first rights like you so boasted at the first. Don' t blame your false advertisement on me, hombre. I happen to think I have plenty of common sense, but I' m startin to question your' s.

Brandan

jagertiger

[quote]I had a written agreement with this person and he requested that I would not record that part of the documentation. That was the stupid thing that I did.


Did you mean that when you wrote it up he didn' t want it put in the contract that you had first right to refuse if that' s the case then he probably had this property already lined up for the other person and didn' t want you to know. If you only had a verbal agreement they don' t stand very good in court. but if you ask me he was the stupid one knowing you wanted the property but sold it to someone else and not try to get the two of you into a bidding war he could have sold it for more $$.

Good luck i hope you can get it back If people would stick to they' re word more it would be a better world!!

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

btpatriot02

Pat if it is in the contract and signed by both parties it is a binding contract the court will probably say that he was wrong in not to offer you first chance,but still he is the org. owner and he can still sell it to anybody he wants to or you might be compensated to a certain degree. I don' t know if you have seen a realestate lawyer or not but they would be more than qualified to help you out. To be honest if you have been dealing with this for two years and nothing has been done about it,probably nothing will come out of this at all.

kevin1

So 236 acres of prime deer hunting land wasn' t enough ? You stated that part , I' ll presume 10% , is lowland heavy cover . Why not just plant some more cover and some enticing food plots , it will save you a big hassle . As to your legal problem , an unrecorded legally binding contract is still a contract in most states , fire your lawyer . The signature of the original owner is proof of the agreement , get a better lawyer . Since the property has changed hands you probably won' t get it from the current owner , but you may be entitled to damages . I fail to see where 30 acres of trees would upset your master plan , and the judge will be just as skeptical , especially if he' s a hunter . What' s on the other 3 sides ? Is what' s on them providing cover , food , water , travel routes ? Thirty acres out of 236 is a small percentage , and will probably have no effect on the game movement .

SW Iowa Hunter

Hello I am sure I am not going to say anything that you have not heard before but here goes.... I am a Associate Broker for a Real Estate firm in Sw Iowa and have had alot of experience with first right of refusal. You are right he should have been unable to sell the land without allowing you the opportunity to exercise the first right.
That being said it sounds like he did anyway. Therefore you only have the opportunity to collect damages that was caused by him not performing on the contract. I believe this is why you are trying to get someone to state that it is a necessary part to your land. This will help to establish the amount of damages you will recieve.
Your lawyer is right because the more someone says it is worth the more you will be able to collect. Some peice or parts of land will make the entire property worth alot more example: a pond, timber ground, feeding areas, or in this case a type of funnel into the land. You need to continue to work in the direction your lawyer is steering you.
I would contact a local real estate agent or company and have them do a market analysis on the property. You could even have a certified apprasial done on property to at least establish value. Have them also value your land with and without that piece if you think that it will add value beyond acutal value. By this I mean you may own property worth 2000 per acre as example but if you hook that to another property with qualities that increase the use of your ground that smaller property could increase the value of the whole property. Then you need to have someone like a wildlife biologist or something help you to determine how much value that land would add to yours for hunting.
Like I said you have prob heard all this before but it may be a different angle from where you are going.
From a real estate point of view you have a very good claim and should at least be entitled to damages in amount of property you refual on, but may be entitled to alot more if that made your property less valueable than it would have been with the other property.

Seems like I am talking in circles if you have any other questions about what I meant let me know and I will try to answer them.

SW Iowa Hunter

short-range

Thank you SW Iowa for putting that together so straight forward. If all that sort of information had been put out earlier This thread probably would have been more pleasant.

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]