T.Boone pulls an OJ!

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 8, 2007
3,773
3
668
OKC
#83
This guy should be glad, because I'll bet the rest of the driveway is near failure, so at least part of it was replaced. People pay tons of money to have old driveways replaced :D
 
Aug 11, 2004
1,592
23
1,668
39
Enid, OK
www.faulklawfirm.com
#84
In MANY situations the municipality is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep on public easements (often inclusive of sidewalks)... if that were the case... they could do whatever they please with the concrete... especially since it's VERY apparent McCart didn't install it... hence the signature from the 50s...

If you have ever had your yard dug up by the city, you know that the city only has to put it back in substantially the same condition. Old concrete replaced by new concrete is substantially the same condition. They don't even have to make it look pretty.

If the concrete was on the easement and they (or allowed a subcontractor) to cut on their easement, they only have to replace what was there. Maybe you make an argument that Boone has to come back and sign... ;)

NOW, with that said, I have no idea about the issue regarding whether a city can just come in and cut without a need or notification.

Regardless, if the guy had denied Boone to be able to do it before, then the guy is a jerk. I have a door in my house with my kids heights on it. If I ever asked for that door and offered to replace it and they said no, that would be crappy of them. But it is also not on a city easement either.
 
Nov 23, 2007
1,171
772
1,743
#85
So, I guess the argument is down to whether Boone stole private property recently or vandalized public property in 1946?

If he sends my $2,500, I'll forget all about it.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,997
17,631
1,743
#86
Chance Mr. Pickens arranged with the city to remove this portion for a donation??? That would seem to be in the public's interest. Cities sell property all the time. Not saying this isn't a unique situation, or that this is what happened, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Also, if I were guessing, maybe they said he could have it out of appreciation for past good deeds for his hometown (also hypothetical). Until you know the whole story... I wouldn't crucify anyone.
If the city has an easement the city only owns the improvements they made. Most mailbox's are between the street and the sidewalk, who owns it?
 
May 26, 2005
188
0
1,566
#87
I suspect that Boone had nothing to do with the taking of the slab, rather his wife was behind it. Per the article, she purchased his childhood home and had it moved to Texas (probably without his knowledge). He may have gotten involved later with replacing the slab in a damage control effort.
 
Oct 10, 2006
4,414
481
1,713
Tuttle, OK
#88
I suspect that Boone had nothing to do with the taking of the slab, rather his wife was behind it. Per the article, she purchased his childhood home and had it moved to Texas (probably without his knowledge). He may have gotten involved later with replacing the slab in a damage control effort.
That's an interesting perspective.
 

Rob B.

I'm......Batman.
A/V Subscriber
Aug 13, 2007
40,727
24,145
1,743
Rockin' the GL.
#89
If the city has an easement the city only owns the improvements they made. Most mailbox's are between the street and the sidewalk, who owns it?

The authority that I work for has easement rights to the shoreline on Grand and Hudson lakes, some people over the years had basically squatted on our easements with buildings and parking lots on GRDA property. Guess who was the legal owner of those improvements? We can charge them back rent and take over their improvements if need be. If a landowner has planted a tree in our easements we can cut it down if it is determined to be detrimental to our operations. It's a sticky subject but the homeowner rarely wins an easement battle, in my experiences.
 
Jul 5, 2004
4,160
1,244
1,743
54
Edmond, OK
www.YouTube.com
#97



Don’t forget bootlegging stolen and illegal concrete across the state line!


East bound and down, loaded up and truckin’,
We’re gonna do what they say can’t be done.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there,
I’m east bound, just watch ol’ “Bandit” run!

ORANGE-POWER!!!


Mr. OP
 
Apr 16, 2008
1,119
258
1,713
#99
It was his property, not the city's and the story says that plainly. You own the driveway, it's just on the city easement. When you build a house the city may cut the curb, but you have to pay for the entire driveway out to the street. You own that. Nowhere does it say Pickens tried to buy it. TBP is very wrong here, and if he ordered it done he should be arrested with the actual thieves. The story says the owner stopped by to do some mowing... maybe it was all grown up and the house looked abandoned. Even if that were true it doesn't make it right, it's still vandalism and theft.

Yep. And probably receipt of stolen property.
 
Apr 16, 2008
1,119
258
1,713
The authority that I work for has easement rights to the shoreline on Grand and Hudson lakes, some people over the years had basically squatted on our easements with buildings and parking lots on GRDA property. Guess who was the legal owner of those improvements? We can charge them back rent and take over their improvements if need be. If a landowner has planted a tree in our easements we can cut it down if it is determined to be detrimental to our operations. It's a sticky subject but the homeowner rarely wins an easement battle, in my experiences.
An easement has restrictions that attach to the title of the property. It is essentially a contract that will be very specific and does not provide the easement holder with rights beyond those specifically identified. The easements you describe along the lake will restrict improvements* probably for the reason of interferring with flood control or access.

In most cities, a property owner owns all the way to the back side of the curb, and in some cases all the way to the center of the street. The city will often have an easement for the street and a reasonable distance from the edge of the street so that it can maintain the street and utilities located on or under the property. The city does not own improvements* made by the property owner. The city only has the ability access or use the property for the specific purpose identified in the easement that is filed with the property's title. If the city needs to access a water line or replace a telephone pole, they can do that and take any necessary and incidental acts that might disturb the property, but they can't just decide to tear up someone's property without being a part of the purpose identified in the easement. Further, if they do destroy part of the property, it must be replaced in substantially the same condition it was before (i.e., if it has a $50,000 signature inscribed on it, a $50,000 signature has to be put back).

It is possible that the slab in question was city property, depending on the specific title and easement records. But, it almost certainly is not a question that a police officer would know or would be the appropriate person to determine.

*"Improvements" was mentioned by a poster earlier in a way that seemed synomous with maintenance. In the legal sense with respect to real property, improvements means constructed items such as buildings, parking lots, retaining walls, driveways, etc.