Our Dive Club has been threatened with a Lawsuit under RICO

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I am very surprised (but pleased) that the officers didn't give the divers a ticket judging from what I have seen from other dive sites in this general area. It seems everytime I go to Cape Ann (or area) some diver is getting a ticket, being towed, and a local home owner is complaining at a dive site. Generally the LPD firmly backs the home owners. I even saw someone get a parking ticket for LEGALLY parking his car on a street down the road from Folly Cove where I usually park and have never been ticketed.

Nonetheless, If I were this guy I probably wouldn't want a bunch of people hanging out by my home.
 
Charlie99:
NOW, we know why you can so easily see it from Mr. Magnolia's viewpoint. :)

Not really the reason, as I personally don't live in that house. The neighbors do this at the request of the town after some court battle that took place long before I owned the property. I just happen to be the only owner that has a deeded right of way to both roads so they do it in front of my property. I don't really agree with the guy, I can just understand his point of view. I am way more laid back than that guy, hell I would fire up the grill pull out the lawn cairs and make the divers grab the lobsters and beer.
 
Lots of points to respond to:

(1) I believe that I've spoken with Mr. Magnolia on two occasions -- he spoke in a soft tone and did not beat his chest, so to speak. Any speculation that he's going to go postal is a bit over the line.

(2) When I spoke with him, he said that I was on private property; he asked me to leave. I was pretty confused at the time, since I was standing in front of the street, not his house. I remember telling him that it didn't even occur to me that the land was privately owned, and that I had no intention of trespassing on his land. I told him I would continue to stay below the street. We didn't debate his property lines, etc. I just politely ended the conversation and continued my trek to the rocks.

(3) On another day, I spoke to him again as I was coming off the beach. He has just told some other divers the same thing as in (1). I approached him and asked why he was even upset with the divers. In my limited experience, the divers show up, put gear on, and dive. I didn't see any picnics, etc. I was trying to figure out what this guy's beef was. He said that he didn't have too much of a problem with the small groups of divers, but that he didn't like the shops (and presumably, the clubs) bringing large groups of people to the site. I don't remember him mentioning anything about trash or noise. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any trash there.

(4) This issue will never be settled until someone figures out whether the access path is on his land -- he may very well have a point! Maybe it's possible to make another path at the bottom of the street? Next, we need to figure out how far his land extends to the water. It's possible that he owns to the low water mark (the general rule), but it's also possible that the original grant of the land didn't include it (the exception). Once we figure that out, the use of the land between the high and low water marks is the next hurdle. From what I've read, any sort of fishing (e.g. lobstering) would likely be protected in this area. I'm not sure if the act of fishing would include e.g. setting up gear, surface intervals, etc. Maybe people could simply gear up on the rocks beneath the street to avoid any problems? These aren't difficult questions to resolve -- the hardest part is the title search.

(5) Even assuming the worst case scenario (he owns it all), my guess is that his main beef has nothing to do with a few divers crossing the path or sitting on the rocks for an hour on a Saturday morning. I think he's just pissed about the cars parked and the divers changing. Keep in mind -- you're basically parking in his backyard! I do have some sympathy for this. I would hope that divers aren't pissing in his lawn. I would hope that divers aren't changing right in the middle of the street. But I'll bet it happens. You can minimize this a bit -- maybe try to get others to keep a lower profile? But if people are going to dive there, you're going to see them putting on a wetsuit and getting gear ready in the street. Assuming this is the main beef, I'm at a loss as to a solution or a compromise.

(6) I'm with those that want to resolve this by talking to Mr. Magnolia and/or his lawyer. While I don't agree with his approach (i.e. RICO actions!) and I don't understand why he wants to spend a Saturday confronting divers, I do think that he has a legitimate point as to the nuisance (changing divers in his yard) and potentially a legal right as to the access path. I don't think anyone should antagonize him for any reason. If that's where you want to dive on a given day, knock yourself out. Maybe just try to stay below the street? Also, I have no idea whether the multi-club event was planned there just to spite him (I assume it wasn't), but the perception will be that it was.

(7) Finally, i suspect that at least some people on here have a tendency to assume he's wrong or a jerk just because of where he lives. I agree that he doesn't own the ocean and should expect some nuisance (e.g. people walking along the rocks at night) that goes along "with the territory." But let's not spite him just because he lives where we'd all die to live. If my backyard abutted two streets and I had to see a bunch of chubby guys (myself included) squeezing into stinky wetsuits while I read the paper on a Saturday, I wouldn't like it either. Let's try to be fair about all of this.

OK, it's time to get off my soapbox...
 
Charlie99:
All the more reason for property owners to occasionally assert their rights.

Once a year, Stanford University, which is adjacent to Palo Alto, California goes around and blocks off the various accesses to the university. To the casual observer the relatively large campus has a number of public roads running through it. In reality the campus is all private land. So to maintain ownership they assert their rights by closing down each of the roads for an hour or two each year. Typically done one at a time, 2AM Sunday morning, but it does meet the legal requirements of what is needed to maintain full ownership.

I'm not an expert on this, but I suspect they are trying to defeat the continuous use of those roads, which would be required to assert adverse possession.

Scubanorth:
In MA the use would have to be with permission or implied permission at a minimum, I would say calling the cops would negate that argument.

To assert a claim of adverse possession (aka squaters rights), your use of the land must be adverse. If you have permission, you can't be adverse. So to be clear, if someone lets you use their land, you can't assert a claim to it. I think the use needs to be for 20 years, as well. Not a chance here!
 
OK, so on one side, Mr. Magnolia (I wonder how he would feel about his new name) is a raving lunatic who hates everyone, and is just trying to cause trouble. On the other side, he is civil, reasonable, and simply wants to protect his property and lifestyle.

I think it's time for the OP to chime in here, and let us know how his group handled it when Mr. Magnolia told them they were on private property. Did they engage him in a conversation, or did they tell him to go perform an unnatural act on himself? Does the group purposely antagonize the man? If so, an approach that includes a mea culpa might be in order. Take the high road guys.
 
ClassAction:
To assert a claim of adverse possession (aka squaters rights), your use of the land must be adverse. If you have permission, you can't be adverse. So to be clear, if someone lets you use their land, you can't assert a claim to it. I think the use needs to be for 20 years, as well. Not a chance here!

My Attorney blew me off for lunch today so I figured he owed me a free question. 20 years open and continuous use of the property. ie You build a shed on it, or park your car there. In his example just walking through for years to access another property would not constitute continuous use. My Law & Order practicing of law had me translating open use to permission. As we all know it is a moot point as this is a silly tact to take. I think Rodney King said it best "Can't we all just get along?"
 
ClassAction:
(4) This issue will never be settled until someone figures out whether the access path is on his land -- he may very well have a point! Maybe it's possible to make another path at the bottom of the street? Next, we need to figure out how far his land extends to the water. It's possible that he owns to the low water mark (the general rule), but it's also possible that the original grant of the land didn't include it (the exception). Once we figure that out, the use of the land between the high and low water marks is the next hurdle. From what I've read, any sort of fishing (e.g. lobstering) would likely be protected in this area. I'm not sure if the act of fishing would include e.g. setting up gear, surface intervals, etc. Maybe people could simply gear up on the rocks beneath the street to avoid any problems? These aren't difficult questions to resolve -- the hardest part is the title search.

If you PM me the address, I can't figure out if it is on Lexington or Shore. I can have a title pulled in a few days and maybe even a plot plan. Like someone posted previously he wouldn't be the first homeowner that was told his property extended beyond the point it actually does. I would really love to know the answer to this as I plan to dive there at least once this year.
 
ScubaNorth:
If you PM me the address, I can't figure out if it is on Lexington or Shore. I can have a title pulled in a few days and maybe even a plot plan. Like someone posted previously he wouldn't be the first homeowner that was told his property extended beyond the point it actually does. I would really love to know the answer to this as I plan to dive there at least once this year.

"I love it when a plan comes together." -- Hannibal Smith.

Sounds like a plan, but I have no idea what the address is. That's the intersection. Maybe scuba dave could check the letter/email?
 
ClassAction:
"I love it when a plan comes together." -- Hannibal Smith.

Sounds like a plan, but I have no idea what the address is. That's the intersection. Maybe scuba dave could check the letter/email?


MLS # 30490641 - Sold
Single Family - Detached


13-19 SHORE ROAD List Price: $1,500,000
Gloucester, MA 01930 Sale Price: $1,200,000
Essex County
Style: Victorian Color: WHITE
Total Rooms: 16 Bedrooms: 6
Full/Half/Master Baths: 4/1/Yes Fireplaces: 6
Grade School: WEST PARISH Middle School: OMALLY
High School: GLOUCESTER
Directions: MAGNOLIA SQUARE TO SHORE ROAD

WOW problem could have been solved but dang we just missed it. 16 bedrooms, and this isn't even the big house with the red roofs it is the "little guy" next to it. But I still have no idea what Mr. Magnolia's address is. I tried the reg online but that is limited and since i have no name or address almost impossible to guess at. I tried MLS, google, essex registry, 10 different map softwares and still can't seem to nail it down.
 
Wait we're in luck.........


MLS # 70168515 - Active
Single Family - Detached


18 Shore Road List Price: $6,900,000
Gloucester, MA : Magnolia 01930
Essex County
Style: Other (See Remarks) Color: Beige
Total Rooms: 25 Bedrooms: 11
Full/Half/Master Baths: 12/3/Yes Fireplaces: 9


It has been reduced from 10 million so it is a relative bargain. Ok I have let's see $6.00 in my jacket pocket, anyone else want to pitch in?
 

Back
Top Bottom