Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,648

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I hate that I'm even opening my keyboard on this but it doesn't matter if it is navigatable now if it once was. From jk's earlier link.

    ...a waterway, once navigable, remains navigable even if navigability subsequently diminishes or ceases. People v. System Properties, Inc. 120 N.Y.S. 2d 269, 278 (3d Dep't 1953).
    But was it ever? The lake being there does not mean the river was deemed navigable.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    The only non-floatable part is near the source at Lake Keboe in late summer and of course some rapids which get pretty wild. Where it empties into the Delaware is the end of the TMR, it called Ten Mile River Access and is a launch site for Delaware river trips.

    The 2nd half of the video does show the area I'm referring to. I took some pics today but they look exactly the same so I won't upload. I would estimate the TMR stretch passing through the old Luxton Lake varies between 50-75ft.

    The river bed went to auction a few times which is ironic as the taxes in 2019 are only about $1000. I wasn't around then but there was a homeowners organization and you'd think even one of them could cough up that amount. The DEC offered to rebuild the dam if they made it a public lake but they wanted it private and refused. They got their wish.

    FYI all the input here is helpful positive or negative.

    I'm also wondering if the entire river needs to be used for canoeing or kayaking to affect navigability status (recreational that is).

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,388

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    IF there is a history of recreation on the river, even seasonal, then it can be considered navigable by fact. Your quick scan from a satellite image is not relevant. To that point I've found info post by clubs and individuals that have floated this river and I would presume the section in question since the whole river is pretty short.

    Access is definitely an issue (referring to the OP's property) and the OP will have to consult with an attorney to make any real headway on this.
    "Where do those stairs go?"
    "They go up!"

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,648

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Streams or lakes are navigable in fact when they are used or susceptible of being used in their natural and ordinary condition as highways for commerce over which trade and travel are or may be.
     Navigable in its natural or unimproved condition affording a channel for useful commerce of a substantial and permanent characters conducted in the customary mode of trade and travel on water. A theoretical potential navigability or one that is temporary, precarious and unprofitable, is not sufficient but to be navigable in fact a lake or stream must have practical usefulness to the public as a highway for transportation.
    is this what you were referring to in my link?

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    IF there is a history of recreation on the river, even seasonal, then it can be considered navigable by fact. Your quick scan from a satellite image is not relevant. To that point I've found info post by clubs and individuals that have floated this river and I would presume the section in question since the whole river is pretty short.

    Access is definitely an issue (referring to the OP's property) and the OP will have to consult with an attorney to make any real headway on this.
    ill have to look it up but what I’ve read says that if a river is not navigable but for some seasonal changes it isn’t navigable. It appeared to be pretty much an all or nothing issue.

    Ive done more than quickly scan satellite photos. I’ve searched extensively looking for images. I would actually enjoy seeing what others have found.

    The river is much longer than the Luxton lake area. By crow fly miles I can track it for over 11 miles. The area of Luxton lake, starting at the dam and going northward (using a very liberal measurement) it is about 1 3/4 miles

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,055

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    But was it ever? The lake being there does not mean the river was deemed navigable.
    Don't have a clue. There was a post upstream that was talking about it not being navigatable any longer.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    You guys can debate the navigability of TMR all you want but it doesn't have any impact on the littoral rights that the property owners on the water's edge of the lake had and those with easement to the water's edge on the lake had.

    Knock yourselves out.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,648

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Ok, I simply have no idea what “law” budwad provided. He posted a couple of excerpts form some untitled court opinion. Since one needs the rest of the opinion to understand what is actually being discussed, he basically posted nothing. He highlighted a few terms that in themselves are meaningless. I can find hundreds of citations that contain a keyword and highlight it. It is meaningless.





    then,,we have no idea what the servient tenants rights were. Whether it was ownership to a waterline or simply a line defined by dimension is unknown . Given this is not a natural lake and have no idea when any given land was divided from any other land, we can’t even guess as to the intent of the divisions in place today. . If we don’t know what rights they have, we can’t claim the dominant tenants rights are somehow extended to match rights we don’t have definition for. Beyond that, we do have the definition of the easement
    TOGETHER with a perpetual easement in and to Luxton Lake for all purposes of fishing, boating and bathing over and upon the "Beach and Recreation Area" as shown upon a map entitled "Lakeridge Estates" filed in the Sullivan County Clerks office on November 5th 1981 as Map no 887.

    TOGETHER with the right to keep and maintain a boat on Luxton Lake.
    first, and most obvious: Luxton lake no longer exists. The right of access was to Luxton Lake and over an express and defined plot of land. Access to the lake is defined as: the “Beach and Recreation Area” as shown on a map. When an easement is described physically, the dominant tenant has no right to ignore that and choose some other path or land to use or occupy. This removes a right to access the lake outside of the defined area on the map.

    By the way: the right to right to keep and maintain a boat on the lake is a red herring. The servient tenant had no right to allow or prohibit anybody from floating a boat on the lake. They could grant access to the lake but their right to control anything ended once you hit the waterline.


    So, that removes a right by express easement to access the remaining waters of the Ten Mile River. A holder of an easement is not a riparian proprietor so their rights are not defined as the rights of a riparian proprietors would be. They have the rights granted and no more.



    now, budwad wants one to believe a person can chase a waterway wherever it may move to and claim rights to access and use it. If the movement was due to reliction I would tend to agree but this change was due to avulsion. The law looks to changes due to avulsion differently.

    Then he posted this (again without citation so one could read the case it is excerpted from and actuslly understand more than what the snippet suggests),


    A riparian proprietor is one who owns land on the bank of a river. (See Mettler v. Ames Realty Co., 61 Mont. 152.) Corresponding to riparian proprietors on a stream or a small pond are littoral proprietors on a sea or lake. But riparian is also used coextensively with littoral. (Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. [61 Mass.] 53; 940*940 City of Boston v. Lecraw, 17 How. [58 U. S.] 426.) In general terms riparian rights connote the right and profit to the owner of the upland arising from its connection with the water such as the easement of passage and use, subject however to governmental regulation for the improvement of navigation. (Matter of City of New York [West 205th St.], 240 N.Y. 68.) Generally speaking such rights are: (1) use of water for general purposes as bathing and domestic use; (2) wharf out to navigability; (3) access to navigable waters. (See Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich. 198; City of New York v. Wilson & Co., 278 N.Y. 86.)
    Littoral rights address the right of access to a body of water where one does not own the bed of the body of water and the level of the water is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. This tidal action is not present and again, even if it was a concern, a holder of an easement does not enjoy the same rights as the owner of land that may have such rights unless they are expressly granted to them. Budwads citation containing the term “easement” was speaking to the rights of the landowner, not some dominant tenant of an easement said person has granted. Of course, the existing dominant tenant could simply alter the easement to allow the rights to mirror those of the servient tenemt and solve that issue.

    so, to find an answer to the question at hand, the rights of the owner of Lucky Estates has to be determined.

    And, depending on what those rights may be and how issues involving avulsion are determined (apparently it is not settled law), the owner of Lucky Estates my be terribly depressed as they may realize their riparian rights, if in play, may not allow them to access the waterway.


    but then, they may keel over from elation since ones rights based upon title to a shoreline actually allow one to claim title to land once underwater but now dry. That little note of “to the shore” or anything similar that would mean their boundary is not necessarily stationary means land gained as the shoreline moves becomes theirs. It has been held that the owner of land beneath a waterway will lose title as it becomes exposed and within the description of the abutting land. Again, in issues involving reliction, the answer would be easier. I cannot answer how it would be determined given avulsion is involved.


    So, while bud wants to argue a simple extension of one’s rights and ability to access a waterway, he has ignored how the movement of a boundary line truly affects the situation and limited his discussion to a completely unrelated issue where the waterline is relatively consistent and the only concern is a right to access a waterway. In doing so he has argued a right of easement rather than the rights of ownership.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Once again your self-important bloviating on the law provides no proofs in case law or statute that backs up your position.

    And the case citations are contained in the quotes and if you took the time to look up the cases and read them you may have been educated.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,648

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Once again your self-important bloviating on the law provides no proofs in case law or statute that backs up your position.

    And the case citations are contained in the quotes and if you took the time to look up the cases and read them you may have been educated.
    and of course budwad is back to trolling.

    most of the case citations aren’t even from New York so they don’t have any weight. I guess if you want to post irrelevent citations, well, I shouldn’t expect anything more.



    A couple others I looked at and they didn’t address the issue st hand.

    The case citation I was speaking of is the case those groups of citations came from. Those citations you posted are reference for that case. Unless the case those citations were reference for dealt with the issue at hand, your not likely going to find the referenced citations useful.

    If you have something actually on point, then post it. Throwing up meaningless cases is useless.


    I have no no need to post citations. It won’t make any difference. I pointed the op a way to look towards. It’s up to him from that point. The attorney the op hires is surely more familiar with New York case law than I am.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Whenever you are challenged on the law you resort to Budwad is trolling. Just pathetic. You are loosing your credibility even though you don't see it.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mystic River
    By dlnewhouse in forum Banter
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2018, 07:54 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: VC 22350 at Green River Rd, Corona
    By Fandry96 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 02:34 PM
  3. Deer Hunting on Dry River Bed
    By Jackn1984 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 05:30 PM
  4. Minor in Possession: MIC On The River
    By sports8400 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2008, 09:13 PM
  5. Rent and Utilities: Landlord Didn't Tell Us Our Hot Water Feeds The "Community" Clothes Washer
    By bad.mongo in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 10:35 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources