UPDATE: Legal Question. Hunting lease locked, Still in

[Mike1951]

The gunshop owner that is on it and myself agree that we still have the right to be on it. He had mentioned that he was apt to cut the lock too. From what I heard today at the gunshop I expect the lock to be cut in the near future. The only person I know that has equipment still on it won't answer my phone calls. I'm off on saturday so I'm going back out and do some looking.

Sounds like a major mistake and possible tresspassing charges if you do this. Even if someone else cuts the lock, you could still be guilty of tresspassing.

[grandpatim]

I was contacted tonight by another person that was on it and he has a feeder, a tripod stand and 2 hog traps still out there. The feeling is we haven't been officially notified of any changes. So if we all go out there with our contracts in hand then we are acting in good faith within the contract. Technically we believe that one owner gave us permission so we still have it. The question is which one of us wants to test the waters. I'm not planning on going and cutting the lock off. But there are others that have more at stake who may do it to get their stuff back. Slowly we are all getting in contact with the others that are on it. If we can get everyone together we may go in together and hire a lawyer and spread the costs out. We'll just have to let it play out and see what happens.

[Mike1951]

Best case would be to communicate with the majority owner and maybe convince him to honor the leases through their current term. From the sound of things, you're not going to deer hunt there next season. So there would be minimal hunting on the time remaining. Convince him that it will just be a summer retreat and he might relent, at least until October.

Next best is just to negotiate a schedule for the hunters to access the lease and remove their property. After all, if you are being denied your property, a very thin case of theft might exist.

Any hostile contact with the owner will end badly.

[KD5NRH]

He did say it would cost more to go after the person who leased it out to us than what we lost on our lease payments.

Unless you paid a fortune, that's probably true in terms of attorney's fees. OTOH, you could try taking the minority owner your contract is with to small claims court for the remainder of the prepaid amount. Before you file, though, make sure you can document several attempts to contact the guy, and all other contacts related to the situation (the other hunters, other owners, etc.) to show that you have attempted to find a resolution to the issue before filing, and give him at least a month to respond after receipt of a certified letter. I'm not sure what you do if you can't track down the problem owner, but if you can't find out from one of the lawyers here, the JP court clerk can probably tell you.

If nothing else, any judgment against the guy works in favor of the others who stand to lose more.

[NutterButters]

I may be jumping in a bit late here, but although the majority owner was not benefiting from the lease and the lease payments, his recourse should have been to take that up with the minority owner for the share of the payments that was due to him. Since the person who accepted the payments was an owner, albeit a minor one, he has a right to be on the property and he has the right to authorize others to be on that property.

Companies get on the hook all the time when a rogue manager authorizes a buy/sell contract that would never have been approved by senior management. Can they just fire the guy and cancel the contract because they don't like its terms? No, they have to honor the contract made or risk getting sued by the other party.

Based on the facts you have laid out, you have a claim against the minority owner who failed to deliver under the terms of the contract. You probably also have a claim against the majority owner who is interfering with your contractual rights. It may not be worth pursuing in court, but the fear of litigation go both ways - the majority owner does not want to have to shell out legal fees anymore than you guys do. Perhaps send him a well-worded letter outlining your rights under the terms of the contract - the contract that you are prepared to seek legal counsel to enforce. That may at least get his attention and get you all access to get your stuff.

[particle]

Any of the guys on the lease members of the NRA legal thing? I'm not an NRA member (yet), so I don't really know what services / counsel they provide. How is leasing hunting land any different than leasing/renting a house? Obviously, they're different - but when you sign a contract to rent/lease a house, doesn't the homeowner give up the right to change the locks and block you from entering the house you're paying for?

I agree with everyone else - do NOT cut the lock off and enter the property. The majority owner of the land may not be a gun supporter, but he's obviously angry about the situation, and we do have the right to protect our property with deadly force - don't test the 55% owner like that...

Contact the sheriff and show him copies of all of the paperwork you've found. He may be able to escort the hunters onto the property to recover their feeders, stands and stuff for free.

[grandpatim]

The person who was leasing it to us called me back today. It seems the person who put the gate up recently bought some of the property from several out of state owners. He then went and had a restraining order put on the other owners and had the gate put up and locked them out too. The judge issued a cease and desist order so the leasor was not able to contact and discuss it with us. He said the other owners did know he was leasing it out and I think he said to pay the taxes. He said they have gotten a lawyer and a new restraining order was put on the newer owner and the cease and desist order was lifted. He said the lawyer and the judge says that it doesn't matter if he is the majority owner or not. It's the majority of the owners who make the decision. He said this all came about in the last 2 weeks. He said that they are working towards a resolution to this and expects everything to get back to normal in a couple more weeks. He said that if things don't get worked out he will make sure everyone can come get their stuff. I'm taking this with a grain of salt. He seemed sincere about it but words are cheap.

[joe817]

Tim, it sounds as though things are working out for the lessee's, which is good. Only time will tell though.

I'm sorry this happened to you and the other guys. Please keep us informed how this thing progresses, and good luck.

[G.A. Heath]

Grandpatim: is this lease located near Brownfield? We had a fellow get real upset not too long ago regarding hunting on land near his (Welman). The man who authorized us to hunt the land happened to be with us and pointed out the other gentleman was trespassing. This man also said something about keeping hunters off his land about four miles SE of Brownfield.

[grandpatim]

Its east of Brownfield at Mound Lake.

[G.A. Heath]

Ok, then this wouldn't be the same area as mound lake is further out than what this fellow was describing. This fellow seems to think the pigs belong to him and he doesn't want them killed. It has been suggested that the farmers bill him for the damage "his" pigs cause them as he seems to enjoy harassing hunters anywhere near his land.

[grandpatim]

Anti hunter or just a jerk?

[WildBill]

Contact the sheriff and show him copies of all of the paperwork you've found. He may be able to escort the hunters onto the property to recover their feeders, stands and stuff for free.

I don't think a sheriff can do this without a court order.

IANAL, but I suggest contacting the county DA to see if they will prosecute the land owner for fraud. The DA will probably say it's a civil matter, but the landowner has committed theft. He entered into an illegal contract and has taken money from you without giving you what you paid for. He has also prevented you from retreiving your property. I don't know how much you paid for the lease but it may be enough for a felony charge of theft. At the minimum, it may also put some pressure on him to get your feeder off the property.

[particle]

Contact the sheriff and show him copies of all of the paperwork you've found. He may be able to escort the hunters onto the property to recover their feeders, stands and stuff for free.

I don't think a sheriff can do this without a court order.

IANAL, but I suggest contacting the county DA to see if they will prosecute the land owner for fraud. The DA will probably say it's a civil matter, but the landowner has committed theft. He entered into an illegal contract and has taken money from you without giving you what you paid for. He has also prevented you from retreiving your property. I don't know how much you paid for the lease but it may be enough for a felony charge of theft. At the minimum, it may also put some pressure on him to get your feeder off the property.

You're probably right. I'm pretty sure one of my family members in Oklahoma (I have a very large blended family...) has been escorted by the sheriff to recover property that belonged to him/her during a messy relationship, but I don't recall all of the details exactly, and under what circumstances the escort was allowed. I think what I should have said is - the owner won't allow the people on his property, but he may allow a single exception so long as the owner is present, and the hunters are escorted by the sheriff under the supervision of the owner. I would assume as long as he voluntarily allows them brief admittance, you wouldn't need a court order, and the sheriff would probably be happy to assist in a matter such as this to minimize any threat of escalation. However, IANAL either...

[sneedb82]

The person who was leasing it to us called me back today. It seems the person who put the gate up recently bought some of the property from several out of state owners. He then went and had a restraining order put on the other owners and had the gate put up and locked them out too. The judge issued a cease and desist order so the leasor was not able to contact and discuss it with us. He said the other owners did know he was leasing it out and I think he said to pay the taxes. He said they have gotten a lawyer and a new restraining order was put on the newer owner and the cease and desist order was lifted. He said the lawyer and the judge says that it doesn't matter if he is the majority owner or not. It's the majority of the owners who make the decision. He said this all came about in the last 2 weeks. He said that they are working towards a resolution to this and expects everything to get back to normal in a couple more weeks. He said that if things don't get worked out he will make sure everyone can come get their stuff. I'm taking this with a grain of salt. He seemed sincere about it but words are cheap.

Wow GrandpaTim.... I used to be a landman, so I've got a basic understanding (beyond basic, but what landman is an expert?!) of land ownership and leases (petroleum and surface rights)... but not an attorney.

Here's some things that I see that I have issue with:

1. The guy that owns another portion of the land (majority owner according to record) may put up a no-trespassing sign and gate, and lock, however, that is not to impede your access, per the terms of the hunting lease. If there is issue with the validity of the hunting lease, see number 2. Access to the gate through picking the lock or cutting the lock would not be considered trespassing in terms of replacing it... however, the surface owner would have to have the access to the lock (i.e. key preferably and sent to him in a certified letter would be sufficient). This keeps everything in a status quo, and therefore, no further issue is there. This is according to Real Estate Center at Texas A&M.

2. The guy leasing was subleasing for hunting purposes his percentage of land...thereby creating a proportion of the land to your use (however, gave you access to all the acreage, as he owns a portion of all the acreage). I'm sure if the entire group was on board, the lease would be a little higher (because it would be split between a lot of fellas). So if he only owned an undivided 10% (meaning no partition of the surface ownership, just a percentage of the whole), then he would only charge you 10% of a normal lease for that property. This would give you ingress, egress and regress for the entire surface area that he owns a part of.

3. For the guy that got miffed that he had a "minority" owner sub-leasing his portion of the lands, he's got sand in his panties. I've not once seen a warranty deed that tells surface owners they can't sub-lease out their percentage, and it's not statute... more than likely, this guy lives out of town, and has an out of town attorney...edit: out of STATE owner, and out of STATE attorney, that does not know Texas Land Law.

My understanding of the circumstances is that the guy was a little upset over a state law that he cannot control, and in his home state, and in his understanding he has every right to do something about it. The judge obviously found out the true issues, and finally removed the cease and desist order.

I'm fairly certain that any County Court (which in Terry County, don't get me started there) would hold to the landowner's rights, and would certainly side with the landowner who is the Tax Paying part of record... rather than the one that is simply the majority owner. This issue is such a debacle, that I hope you can find another lease. We had a lease not far from Mound Lake where the surface owner (100%) of two sections sold the property in the middle of the contract. The new owner said "30-days...." in the middle of the wettest part of West Texas Winter/Spring.... feeder and stands still sitting in the middle of a dry pond/tank that was flooded from the previous rain... needless to say, 30 days passed, and still water, so no feeder or stands.

Sorry to hear about your troubles Tim. Hopefully things will work out with this new majority land owner. If i wasn't so busy, I'd help you out a little more by finding out who indeed the surface owners were... because according to the Appraisal District, no transactions had been made and recorded. Best of luck to getting your stuff back (and your fellow lessee's).

Sorry for the long dribble,.... just thought I'd add my $0.02