Another big parcel for sale

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

If is the listing realtor is giving their potential buyer information so that the listing realtor gets both side of the sale then it works against a non listing realtor. So both sides do not benefit.

I sold a property and was ready to accept an over asking price offer from a couple brought by a realtor. The same day the listing realtor brought a new buyer and "coincidentally" they matched the first offer with a no contingency all cash offer.

The realtor whether the listing agent or buying agent are paid by the current property owner.
Higher offers are always in all their best interests.

One realtor beating out another is not a problem... as the buyer is whom they have the fiduciary responsibility to.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The realtor whether the listing agent or buying agent are paid by the current property owner.

This is not always true. Buyers agents can be paid in part or in while by the buyer as well, it all depends on the structure of the deal. Been there, seen that, took the course on it.

Pertaining to fiduciary duties, each agent has a responsibility to their principal (client). The listing agent has a fiduciary responsibility to the seller, and the buyers agent has a fiduciary responsibility to the buyer. Disclosed dual agency throws a curveball to this, and is not a favorable position for an agent to be in. Many won't do it.

Also, keep in mind the word Realtor is a designation of membership to NAR (National Association of Realtors). One can be an "agent" but not a "realtor".

These links gives a great breakdown of fiduciary responsibilities and how they work in real life.

https://www.nar.realtor/sites/defaul...uty-032213.pdf

https://www.carealtytraining.com/blo...l-estate-agent

[John Mercier]

If the agent is being paid by the buyer and released information in opposition to their client... that would again fall under theft by fraud.

We generally do not see this happen.

[fatlazyless]

"New Chapter Unfolds: Former Girl Scout Camp Transforms into Luxury Waterfront Homes" ...... http://www.bnnbreaking.com/world/us/...terfront-homes

Selling price was eighteen million dollars for 95-acres according to this report.

Something like 25% or so of the Camp Menotomy land is probably considered to be wet lands that gets flooded with the rise and fall of nearby Lake Winnipesaukee or a heavy rain. There's a large swampy area close to the Meredith Neck Rd that is usually flooded except during dry weather spells. It is home to birds, deer, fox and black bear.

Local people like to use the Meredith Neck Rd for daily walking exercise so it would be especially nice if a new Camp Menotomy walking trail is available to them for walking around this 95-acre tract of tall pines, wet lands, Lake Winnipesaukee and seven new luxury homes. It's been gated and posted 'no trespassing' for about twelve years, now.

[lagoon]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"New Chapter Unfolds: Former Girl Scout Camp Transforms into Luxury Waterfront Homes" ...... http://www.bnnbreaking.com/world/us/...terfront-homes

Selling price was eighteen million dollars for 95-acres according to this report.

Something like 25% or so of the Camp Menotomy land is probably considered to be wet lands that gets flooded with the rise and fall of nearby Lake Winnipesaukee or a heavy rain. There's a large swampy area close to the Meredith Neck Rd that is usually flooded except during dry weather spells. It is home to birds, deer, fox and black bear.

Local people like to use the Meredith Neck Rd for daily walking exercise so it would be especially nice if a new Camp Menotomy walking trail is available to them for walking around this 95-acre tract of tall pines, wet lands, Lake Winnipesaukee and seven new luxury homes. It's been gated and posted 'no trespassing' for about twelve years, now.

If locals used this area for walks it could be a right of way that can't be extinguished no matter what. It would be interesting to see if folks step up to indicate that and then the pursuing next steps.

[Grant]

Originally Posted by lagoon

If locals used this area for walks it could be a right of way that can't be extinguished no matter what. It would be interesting to see if folks step up to indicate that and then the pursuing next steps.

Good luck with that. On our old road along the Wawbeek shore, there was a path that ran from 20 Mile Bay all the way down to Wawbeek. It meandered along the shore through all the properties and folks would walk along it now and then. It was a cool way to see neighbors, and as kids we used it to get down to Wawbeek Colony Club to hang with friends who returned each summer. We could negotiate the path from our house to Wawbeek in the dark no light without stumbling on a root or rock.

When Wawbeek was sold, a group of doctors and lawyers bought the property, razed a bunch of the buildings, put up McMansions with lawns, and immediately made it known that that section of the trail was closed. Nice neighbors.

I'm sure there are hundreds of similar stories, and most probably involve big-money McMansions.

[John Mercier]

Because NH wants to keep land unposted, it has to be exclusive.
Which would only give the one person the ''right'' to continue to do so.

The access to the land and amount to be entered into conversation will depend on the planning boards and owner's agreement.

But the continuing prominence of people to keep suggesting that possession is a good reason to post property rather than wait to see if the courts would go the other way.

It would also mean the title was not clear... so the title companies in NH would need to take a lot more caution.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by lagoon

If locals used this area for walks it could be a right of way that can't be extinguished no matter what. It would be interesting to see if folks step up to indicate that and then the pursuing next steps.

Respectfully, no one has a “right of way”’on another person’s property unless it is noted in a deed. If I paid millions for my McMansion, then It’s MY McMansion to do with as I please, barring any illegalities. Sure, anything can be litigated in this day and age…

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Respectfully, no one has a “right of way”’on another person’s property unless it is noted in a deed. If I paid millions for my McMansion, then It’s MY McMansion to do with as I please, barring any illegalities. Sure, anything can be
litigated in this day and age…

Not a right of way but in NH anyone can cross any land public or private unless land is posted no trespassing.

[John Mercier]

I think that part of the discussion was using Adverse Possession to gain a ''right''.

The judicial requirements of such in NH are pretty simple...
But it does create havoc as the courts are not static on any issue if present with a new argument during trial.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by bilproject

Not a right of way but in NH anyone can cross any land public or private unless land is posted no trespassing.

Absolutely! My own acreage is in “current use” to save on taxes. Random crossings and well used trails are different things entirely.

[TiltonBB]

Michael Haley, director of charitable trusts for the NH Department of Justice, said in an email that the state is looking into the specific restrictions in the deed. Haley declined to offer a timeline for the review process, and said such review was routine for this kind of sale.

“Whenever the Charitable Trusts Unit is made aware of a real estate transaction that involves land subject to charitable restrictions, we review the transaction as a matter of course to ensure that the restrictions are adhered to,” Haley said.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...5c5d0af54.html

[Winilyme]

Received this feed via the Laconia Sun today.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...be8c2df6c.html

[tis]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Respectfully, no one has a “right of way”’on another person’s property unless it is noted in a deed. If I paid millions for my McMansion, then It’s MY McMansion to do with as I please, barring any illegalities. Sure, anything can be litigated in this day and age…

What is it with people that think they should have a right to other people's things, money, property etc.???????? I don't even like to borrow things from others, let alone think what is their's should be mine. I hate this mentality.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by tis

What is it with people that think they should have a right to other people's things, money, property etc.???????? I don't even like to borrow things from others, let alone think what is their's should be mine. I hate this mentality.

I ran into this last year during the infamous peeing kayaker saga. It drives me nuts that people just think they have free reign unless a property is posted.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

What is it with people that think they should have a right to other people's things, money, property etc.???????? I don't even like to borrow things from others, let alone think what is their's should be mine. I hate this mentality.

Good point, however,
we should all be grateful to the landowners who let us use their land for hiking. fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, etc. If you live in a small town with lots of private land in current use, the developed part of town may have difficulty raising money for necessary town purposes. Thanks to them, too.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by Descant

Good point, however,
we should all be grateful to the landowners who let us use their land for hiking. fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, etc. If you live in a small town with lots of private land in current use, the developed part of town may have difficulty raising money for necessary town purposes. Thanks to them, too.

And it takes the bad behavior of one to cause an owner to deny access to all.

Unfortunately, there seem to be too many "ones" among our populace.

[dickiej]

It all stems from the teachings (indoctrination) of the past several years that there are only two types of people: oppressors and oppressed. If you have mo ey and property, you must have oppressed someone to get it. Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren both said if you are successful, you didn’t achieve it on your own. The implication of course being that you exploited others to achieve that success, therefore your property is ill gotten and not really yours. Chilling actually.

[John Mercier]

Adverse possession is not contemporary.

After the OHRVs purchased Jericho, the snowmobiles demanded access... and that was long before anyone had heard of an Obama or Warren.

[John Mercier]

The sale has hit the news...
So now you know the price and buyer.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The sale has hit the news...
So now you know the price and buyer.

Do you have a link?

[Susie Cougar]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The sale has hit the news...
So now you know the price and buyer.

You are being a little bit vague, John.

[upthesaukee]

The article is in the Union Leader Saturday edition, February 17, on page A3.

Dave