UPDATE: dead trees and lush soybeans!

Been getting the run-around for 3 weeks from the realtor...2 weeks ago the realtor came out to land with potential buyers of an adjoing lot and my dad got on the realtor real hard. The potential buyers of the other lot were upset that the realtor didnt do anything to remedy situation...next day, I had a check to cover 3 times my cost.

Seems there was a miscommunication, seller didnt tell farmer land was sold, farmer didnt ask.

After talking to other lot owners, seems that farmer did same thing in the past years...just planted corn or wheat on other lots without asking owners. This farmer is just a lazy SOB..I've been past his farm and he isnt the most professional person/organization. I have a farming background - so I would know. I think he is trying to get what he can off this land without paying for it....he has not paid rent on my land, nor paid it on others land this year either....I figure he thinks that he can just plant it since the current lot owners are not farming it.

Here is where it gets bad....

Last week I called the realtor to tell him I got the check for the dead trees and I asked him if he or the seller had formally notified the farmer to "stay off" my land. He said "No, he hadnt". After farmer was told about trees being killed, the Realtor was asked by farmer "if there are any beans left in the fall, can I combine them". Realtor spoke and said, "YES, I dont see any reason not".

I went off...I dont want anybody on there for any reason..I fear another shot of roundup on the roundup ready beans this summer, or combine cutting off my trees (which I replanted)

So I think it is time for a certified letter to the farmer, seller, and realtor with a map of my 10 acres...telling him to not enter it or cross over to the other side, etc. No trespassing allowed for anyone for any reason. No combining, no spray or spray drift, etc.

How would you handle this? ...and I plan to combine the beans myself...not let them to the farmer who sprayed my trees!

No real estate involved but I got a new neighbor a few years back. The first thing he started doing was call the cops on people and neighbor's complaining about noise, barking dogs, hunters, dust, spray drift and many more. Made us all mad and now he is the scorge of the area. Better to have good neighbors. You never know when you might need help

Seems like the realtor thought his big check would get him out of trouble.

Also, we always get our land rent check at the end of the growing season. So who knows, maybe the farmer is planning on sending you this years amount.

Among other things:

----- -
Outgoing Tenant’s Rights in
Growing Crops
An outgoing tenant has a right to growing crops
(emblements) if three conditions are present:
A. The tenancy was of an uncertain duration.
B. The tenant was terminated due to no fault of
his or her own.
C. A crop was planted by the tenant.

So if in Indiana, the 'sob farmer' would actually be in the rights, as far as we can tell - we know he farmed the land previously tho we do not (and neither does Markuss?)know the exact term of the ag lease, we know the realitor did not notify him the lease was terminated, and we know the farmer planted the crop.... Not really right to start calling him names is it when he is in his legal rights?????

There is a link in my link to a 12 page pdf that has more info on this. There were other promising hits on Google as well.

--->Paul

• land lease rules

Before you fire off a letter, calm down. Far better to settle it amicably as opposed to have a bitter neighbor war.

You did find out what the previous rental agreement was, didn't you? You have notified the farmer that this agreement has been terminated effective the next renewal date (probably January 1st of next year)?

You are well advised to talk to a lawyer on this. If you touch his crop or try to keep him off your property, you may find out you're on the wrong side of the law. There are a lot of variables here, including what the prior agreement is, whether or not rent has been paid and local laws.

While it may seem very difficult to do at this stage, talk to the guy. Explain that you bought the land in good faith, and you are of course disappointed about the dead trees, but have been compensated by the realtor. Make it clear that your real concern is not so much with the beans, but with the potential of further spraying damaging your residential lot. He should understand that.

Let him have his beans this year, then the two of you should build a fence.

Look at the property line from your side: whatever is to your right is yours. Whatever is to his right is his fence. You have a mutual obligation to fence it if either wants it.

Good fences make good neigbours, and a bit of goodwill at this point may prevent a lot of overspray later.

I fully understand your anger at this, and agree you are being wronged, and no the beans should not be combined by the farmer....

At the same time, the farmer is being wronged as well.

You have one heck of a snot-bag of a realitor, & that is wholy where the blame for all this lies. totally.

2,4,D gets rid of soybeans, makes a pretty good prep for planting grasses..... Realize that you could owe the farmer for his planting & expenses to date on this if you do this. The legal chain of events is that you need to pay the farmer for losses, and then hound the realitor to be re-embursed from them....

Metal Tee posts on 2 sides of each of your new trees would be a good idea - I would make them visible not hide them.

I would not plan to harvest the beans. You have no claim to them whatsoever at this point. The realitor needs to settle up with the farmer on this issue first, or you will be the one making payments to the farmer, & then you will need to hound the realitor to get re-embursed again.....

Rather than get into it with the farmer, I would direct any of his concerns to the realitor. I would be sympithetic with the farmer, say you understand his point of view, but the realitor is the bad person in all of this, and is the one that has to make it right with him. I would be polite & sympithetic.

If very hard push came to very hard shove, you could be found to be the one in the wrong on this and could owe the farmer for his 10 acres of lost income. I would keep that fact in mind..... (Personally I blame the realitor & not you, but i'm not the court of law....)

Good luck with this, and the letters might not be a bad idea at all, but be careful you do not trap yourself legally on an issue you haven't quite grasped yet - that ag leases can be a legal obligation that passes through even on land transfers. At this moment, you likely have a legally enforecable contract with the farmer, & he can enforce it if you treat him harshly.

Consider that in whatever you do.....

I wish you well, keep us informed, and at the end of the day I'm on your side on this - you should own the land, you should control it, it should not be farmed, your trees should be yours. Your realitor is a really bad one..... Sheez. Wonder how else he reamed you?

--->Paul

The thing that jumps out at me is the fact that you said the farmer did not pay you or any one else for leasing this land. I read that as he is just planting on land that was just sitting there and no one was using it. Them dumb land owners live in the city and will not mind if I get a crop of beans off there land for free.
If he truly had a lease for this year on this land I do not think some one would have paid for your loss in trees.

If the farmer does have a lease and you do not know about it then he has every right to plant your land but if there is no lease like you claim run his but.

As I understand it from other threads on this topic, the farmer is well within his rights to continue the lease until he has been legally notified.

This is a difficult concept for non-ag people to understand, but it is the law of much of this land. If you buy a rental house, you can't just take possesion of the house on a Saturday & throw the current renters out on the sidewalk on Sunday. You would need to fullfill their current lease contract before you can do what you will with that house.....

Basically the realitor is sticking the new land owners with a lease that they do not know about.... He should be called on it, class action lawsuit or something. Sounds like he has done it to others for several years.

Gives realitors a bad name.....

--->Paul

With that said I did not see other post on this subject and do not know what was said. All I can go by is what the original post of this thread said this time.

He said the farmer did not pay him or anyone else for a lease. I read that as the farmer did NOT have a lease but rather was using idle land that the owner was not using and may not have even been aware of its use.

If the farmer did have a lease with the former owners the new owner would have to honor this lease or repay the farmer for losses.

BUT!!!!! !!!!! If the farmer was using land that the owner did not authorize that is not right.

If you had some land in the next county that you did not visit and did not give anyone the right to use; and then one day out the blue you pass by and see a field of beans there. Are these beans yours or the farmer that planted them????? ?????

I meant to say: In a previous post the guy indicated this farmer used to be the land renter & farmed it for some time, this past winter it was subdivided & sold in lots. That is not exactly what he is saying this time around...

It is certainly possible the farmer had a year-to-year lease, possibly verbal, that is payable in the second half of the year, in which case he could be in the rights under some laws in some areas to continue to expect to farm this land legally if he was not notified the lease has been terminated by a certain cutoff date in writing. The farmer would, in some cases, have the legal right to farm that land, or collect damages from someone, typically the current land owner, if he is prevented from doing so. (Current land owner would then need to go through legal channels after the title agent, realitor, and/or developer to re-collect the damages he lost....)

If this guy with 10 acres makes a real fuss, he could cause himself a lot of legal bills if he does not understand the locally applicable laws on this issue. It would be wise for him to either get legal advise now, or walk softly on this issue until the full situation is understood.

I do understand his frustration with this situation, and I would feel equally as upset as he is about it - he has the moral high ground on this, and has been wronged for sure. His frustrations should be pointed squarely at the realitor/ developer tho, and not the farmer - as I understand this anyhow, or until the rental agreement issue is better explained/ understood. It is of course possible the farmer is a nut case & totally wrong; but that has not been proved by the original poster yet in any shape or form.

There, that is a better message from me I hope. :)

--->Paul

Rod

That's right. Fool with this guy long enough, make him mad and he can sue into next week.

Keep it up and more than the trees will be lost. Like maybe a crop of beans plus harrasment?

That farmer is in his rights. Take note, yuppies.

Allan

You're still not getting the picture. The farmer is in the right.

Yes, you have to give him notice as far as next year goes, but you cannot touch him this year because it is too late.

Read the darned law and quit calling him a SOB.

He is within his rights. Can't you get that thru your head?

Allan

The key point is the farmer drilled beans AFTER the purchase went through. The farmer is wrong! Now, whether he is a SOB is still up in the air...

Dug, The Yuppie ; )

BTW Coloken, the rental house example doesn't fly. Apples and oranges!

That isn't the way it works. The sale of the land doesn't matter one little fig.

The farmer makes his living off the land. So, before he can be “forced” to leave the land, he has to be given legal written notification by the owner prior to September 1st/ or March 1st (in most cases).

Until he is given written notification that he no longer is the tenant operator, he can keep on farming the land indefinitely.

The owner has to notify him. Doesn't matter if it is the old owner or the new owner. Ya can't just "move in on him" and mess with his livelihood.

Believe me Pard, I’ve been there and done that and he farmer will win this argument every time in a court of law. Furthermore, if ya mess with his crop, he can have you hauled into the big iron hotel and possibly into doing some clink time.

What it amounts to is that if Markuss bows his neck and wants to get huffy about it, fine. But, until he gives this guy legal notification, the farmer can just keep right on a going and doin’ what he is doing.

Allan

I'll betcha a nice steak dinner! (you have to come to KC to collect if you're right, and you have to come to KC to pay if I'm right).

Dug, the aspiring attorney (can't be worse than a banker)

According to Kansas State U documents (link provided), there are many other possibilities (your winter wheat crops can actually string such issues out over 16 months....), but basic Kansas law in part states:

Notice to
Terminate a Lease
For all oral and written leases, except written
leases signed by the parties which provide otherwise,
notice to terminate a farm tenancy must be
given as follows:
1) in writing
2) at least 30 days prior to March 1, and
3) must fix the termination date of the tenancy
to take place on March 1.
Any notice to terminate which does not comply
with the above requirements is inadequate and
the tenancy will continue.

• Kansas ag lease law

If Markuss is in Iowa I will take that action. MMMMM M I love barbque especially when someone else is buying!!!!

Ag lease's work to their own tune. Basis being that the land is only part of the investment in that years crop. By July the farmer has spent most of the money that goes into the crop in seed, herbicide, fertilizer etc. will only be able to recoup those expenses at harvest.

In Iowa the standard ag lease needs to be terminated on or before September 1 and then the tenant needs to be off by March 1. Terminating the lease before September 1 ONLY means that the farmer has lost the land for the NEXT crop year not the current year. This means that the crop that he has put in the ground and socked a lot of $$$ into is his and he has the right to remove it as long as he gets that done before March 1 of the following year.

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of one and most likely two plantings of trees but it goes to show that you should check with a attorney before buying real estate. Using the realtor's attorney or the sellers doesn't count they are both working for the seller not the buyer.

I would suggest that Markuss go talk to the farmer Kindly and informally inform him of termination and see if something could be worked out about the current year and also saving the trees.

JM2CW

jt

Don't know about Kansas, that's fer sure.

Allan

He just didn't push the issue.

Allan

Was this on land that had been annexed or inside of local municipality? I could understand it happening in that kind of a situation.

If however, it is on agricultural land that is being taxed for that purpose, it is more than obvious that the lawyer sure wasn't getting paid by the farmer, that's for sure. Poor old farmer was totally buffaloed by this white shirt and he got taken to the cleaners.

The law is pretty darned clear about this issue.

Like on this place I'm buying. We close on the 22nd of June, but if that prior owner has not given the proper notification to the farmer and even tho the terms of the sale are set forth in the purchase agreement, the farmer, if he wants to push it, can have the ground the 2006 year if I don't do the "notification" thing by September 1st.

You just can't "kick him off" and "leave him out of the loop" during a buy/sell agreement. That’s why the law is written that way. The burden of notification is on the owner.

Allan

Each state has it's own laws, and there are many deep paragraphs - some kinda new, and neither of us are lawyers....

But in the past things have been decided just as you are saying Allen, when push comes to shove.

I would tread carefully on this issue, but I would be _very_ upset with my realitor/ developer who quite probably misrepresented this land as free & clear.....

After a long battle, likely the developer would be the one paying to everyone, but lawyers cost money to get there from here.

--->Paul

I put myself in situations like that too, get all worked up & don't think things through. Get mad at people & stuff that I really am not giving a fair shake to.

Sometimes ya gotta step back a bit & look at things from a distance, see where things really are.

--->Paul