land clearing

[hexeliebe]

You think he's had one too many Snake River Canyon jumps?

 

[HomeGuru]

No, 2 too many.

 

[kharvel]

**A: read the writer's post. The writer already admitted to letting the men into the property.

Writer admitted it anonymously on this FORUM. Do you even know who the writer is? If the writer did not admit anything like this outside of the forum, then would there still be a case?

 

[hexeliebe]

GEEEZ. Is there an outbreak of the Idiot flu again?

 

[lwpat]

No, you are not responsible. The men crossed the fence without permission which is a criminal offense. Your neighbor needs to file a police report.

Under SC law it is the responsibility of the timbercutter to verify property ownership prior to beginning work according to our local Sheriff. I had the exact same situation several years ago but it was an honest mistake and the logger paid me for the pulpwood without any problems.

SECTION 16-11-610. Entry on another's lands for various purposes without permission. [SC ST SEC 16-11-610]

Any person entering upon the lands of another for the purpose of hunting, fishing, trapping, netting; for gathering fruit, wild flowers, cultivated flowers, shrubbery, straw, turf, vegetables or herbs; or for cutting timber on such land, without the consent of the owner or manager, is guilty of a misdemeanor

The law states that the damages are three times the value of the timber.

If you know their phone number just enter it into the Google search and it will give the address unless it is an unlisted number.

 

[hexeliebe]

Actually Lwpat, the correct statute in this case would be :

Section 16-11-580 Cutting, removing, or transporting timber logs or lumber without permission.

It is illegal to remove or destroy trees from another’s land without the consent of the owner. It is also unlawful to transport timber (including lumber made from that timber) knowing it has been removed without the landowner’s consent.


However, in view of the following:

SECTION 15-78-10. Short title.
This chapter may be cited as the "South Carolina Tort Claims Act".

SECTION 15-78-20. Legislative findings; declaration of public policy; extent of, and construction of, waiver of immunity.

It seems there will be a problem. Especially with "agency".

 

[CALGON_ANYONE?]

Actually Lwpat, the correct statute in this case would be :

Section 16-11-580 Cutting, removing, or transporting timber logs or lumber without permission.

It is illegal to remove or destroy trees from another’s land without the consent of the owner. It is also unlawful to transport timber (including lumber made from that timber) knowing it has been removed without the landowner’s consent.


However, in view of the following:

SECTION 15-78-10. Short title.
This chapter may be cited as the "South Carolina Tort Claims Act".

SECTION 15-78-20. Legislative findings; declaration of public policy; extent of, and construction of, waiver of immunity.

It seems there will be a problem. Especially with "agency".

Why correct Lwpat at this point? You offered no legal advice, instead you are in a "CHAT" room with the boy's.

Is this a chat room? Because if it is you people need to change the name of the site.

 

[CALGON_ANYONE?]

**A: read the writer's post. The writer already admitted to letting the men into the property.

HELLOOOOOOOOOOO!

The writer allowed someone onto his property, not someone elses.

He did not contract them to touch any ones land but they're own.

Writer, where is your receipt?

 

[hexeliebe]

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

And under color of what legal theory do you make such a claim?

Or is it simply to show your ignorance?

 

[kharvel]

Guys, you are missing my point.

Here is what happened (based on what the writer said):

1) writer hired some shady characters to cut trees on writer's land.

2) There was no contract. No documents. It was an all-cash transaction. It is same thing as hiring a homeless guy to mow your yard.

3) There were no eyewitnesses, no contracts, no documents showing that the writer was responsible for letting in the shady characters into his/her property for the purpose of cutting trees.

4) There are absolutely no paper trials linking the writer to the shady tree-cutters.

5) Ergo, the writer can claim himself/herself as a victim of "unauthorized" tree cutting.

6) Since the writer can claim to be a victim and there is no documentation or eyewitnesses proving otherwise, the writer cannot be held responsible for the cutting down of trees on the neighbor's land.

7) Since the writer cannot be held responsible for the "unauthorized" tree-cutting, there is no case against the writer.

Again, let me repeat:

No eyewitnesses, no paper trial, no documentation = no case against the writer.

 

[hexeliebe]

Oh Brother

 

[Ol'Man]

He your long lost brother ? ? ?

 

[HomeGuru]

No "he" is just lost period.

 

[CALGON_ANYONE?]

Yes you are.

No he is not, and if you can clarify why he is, I will listen very carefully.

 

[tishfox]

So regardless of who did what some of you think that I am liable. If I would have hired a contractor to work on my property and in that contractor damages the neighbor’s property then I, not the contractor, is responsible for the damage? By this logic I would then be responsible for a contractor who damages any property near my home since I hired him or they had at one time done work for me? These people had finished our pasture and took it upon themselves to clear land that was not ours, without our knowledge, I just don't see how we are responsible.