• The courts have decided that this road is not a public road because of the other egress/regress off of 239fm. I there is no bridge then build one. That is your way in and out of your property. You have no rights to cross someone elses property. Simple as that. Use the river till you can build the bridge.

    December 13, 2011 at 7:32 a.m.
  • If they want to play by the "current" landowners rules then they use the road. If not the landowner tells them sorry. Sounds pretty simple to me.

    I say go get a barge or build a bridge and take care of yourself without relying on others to take care of you.

    December 12, 2011 at 7:51 a.m.
  • VERBAL/SMERBAL, "IT'S MINE NOT YOURS! Geez, let's be grownups about this! About ten years ago, my family ran into the same situation-we could not get to our property because the NEW property owner gave us 60 days written notice that he was going to fence off the existing "right of way" because it's HIS property. We used that path through the land since the 1800s! Well, I didn't, obviously---but, after some discussion,at times, heated, an agreement was reached. the LAND NAZI helped us with a new path. Everyone is happy and the "war" is over!
    Now, I wish all parties in this incident can come to an agreement,respectfully---it can be done!-------------------------------------------

    -----------------------------------oh, well-----------------------------------------------------

    December 12, 2011 at 7:37 a.m.
  • I have a CR road going through my ranch in Hallestville. The county gave my grandfather a $1 to have access through our land. The county owns the road. We own the land under it and all the minerals. Very nice to have to access several parts of my ranch. Yes there is lot's off traffic at times. If we see anything wrong, we call the sheriffs dept or game warden to handle the issue.

    December 11, 2011 at 8:03 p.m.
  • My dad use to own a ranch in Goliad County, we used a easement to get to it. From Fannin it crossed the San Antonio River across Roger Welders land, from Goliad it crossed O'Connor land, we never had any problems, in fact the easement from the Goliad direction is now State Hwy 239 which goes all the way to Tivoli.

    December 11, 2011 at 3:35 p.m.
  • Something just occured to me. If a oil company put the road in for their use, then how did the other family get to their land before the oil company put that road in? More than likely there was a verbal agreement of some sort, but that doesn't carry on to the next owners. A verbal agreement also negates a prescriptive easement.
    If both parties really wanted to deal with this in a Christain way, there could be a limited ROW for just the immediate family. Or, a ROW could be granted on the edge of the property so it wouldn't have to go through the middle of someone's property. There is a workable solution to this, but both parties need to get off of the "it's my way or no way" mentality.
    We have an easement across someone else's property, and let me tell you, it can get bad at times. We, however, are always mindful of what we do, and how it would effect the property owners.

    December 11, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
  • This is real simple. If you don't own it then you don't control it. Private property rights are the foundations of freedom and our constitutional rights. This is not a socialist country. We can still own property and control it. If someone doesn't own it then they don't control it. What part of that is incomprehensible? Having dealt with the same issues with family and neighbors it is extremely difficult to understand people who don't own something claiming control over it.

    December 11, 2011 at 1:24 p.m.
  • Omg!! Really!?!? The bridge those people are talking about never existed in our life time it was never accessed by us, only by another landowner and again their bridge at the time not ours. and that bridge was destroyed during hurricane 1964, the other bridge in question was built 1903 over what is now the San Antonio river which use to be called Dunn's buyao. In 1913 mr. J. A and A.M mcfaddin built a damn and levees over cushmans bayou and other places changing the course of the san Antonio river from the original way of the land(our property line is the old San Antonio riverbed ) because they did this out of hate and malice to flood the black settlement down there out(big surprise the reason they wouldn't sell) the mcfaddins and predecessor had to destroy the damn over cushmens buyou and if the levees. The levee that our gate sits on could not be rebuilt if destroyed by an act of god! That road that goes through the property was built and maintained by the oil companies since 1903, R H marrow vs Mcfaddin gave that road as the access to all that owned property down there. So again from the time my grandparents bought and built there house down there that is the only way the came and went. It's the same for all property owners that owned land down there. If your going to state facts better be ready to back them up like I have.

    December 11, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.
  • "Two other landowners further down stream have solved there access problems by building there own bridge."

    Quite possibly they just didn't want to pursue it further; personally I'd take it as far in the court systems that I could if I thought that I was right.

    I don't have a dog in this hunt but it sure seems to me that Virginia Dierlam inherited some property and didn't want anyone else on it so she cut off the ROW to the Wrights.

    I'll admit ignorance when I say that I thought that in Texas, if you owned property you had a "right" of access to it. Making someone take a boat up a river to get to their property instead of giving them access over a road that is available seems a bit petty to me. And please, liability? Just have the Wrights sign the same documents that the oil companies, gaugers, hunters etc., have to sign to be on your property.

    On the other hand if I owned the land I wouldn't want any uninvited traffic across it but, I wouldn't deny someone access to their property; I could protect myself and family from any liability...I'm sure Mr. Houston could come up with the properly written papers.

    One has to wonder why there wasn't deeded access to the Wright's property as there should have been? Quite possibly the owners of the land then didn't want to give up any property either.

    Sad situation all around. You have people who don't want traffic that isn't theirs on their property and you have people who own property who are being denied access to it.

    I'm sure that in the end those who have the money or the family connections will win in the court system as seems to happen more often than not.

    December 11, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.
  • I hope that this points out to everyone that verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on. Get everything in writing and get it filed.
    I also hope that when someone is granting a favor, don't abuse it and go out of your way to leave other's land better than before.
    And, for the owner of the land, how important is it to do this to just prove a point. Priviledges versus rights? Really? Do you go to church?

    December 11, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.
  • So there is an easement where a bridge can be built so as to have your own access to get to the property, and instead the other party decided to just use what was already there, and then further abuse this right because they thought it was owed them....well, then I am wrong to assume you are just being stubborn and not wanting the other party use the road to get to their homestead. The real thing is that the people who own their property off your property knew they had to eventually build a bridge or get locked out (so to speak)...then I too would feel like locking off the road to protect my own property for the safety of myself and my property itself. If these people are using this road because they do not want to maintain a bridge to get to their property, then I have to go along with locking the road, esp. if it is being used by people who really have no reason to be going through this road. This makes a huge difference in my earlier opinion. It is only right that if you want to own property, then it is your responsibility to either build a bridge off the easement or go by way of the river, or even sell the property. I should have realized that nobody would buy land with no access to their property in the future.....things change, and so does life.....use the money to build the bridge.....not a lawyer who is evidently just making money off of you. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEND THE MONEY!!!!

    December 11, 2011 at 12:24 p.m.
  • babs,
    Try not to panic. Just because you read something in a newspaper doesn't always mean it's a fact. Have you seen from this thread that there may be more than one truth to all of this.

    December 11, 2011 at 11:28 a.m.
  • I'm going to stop making my comments, because I am to emotionally involved. Facts are Facts. Bases of allowing this to be written and known was only because after going every avenue trying to get help with situation this was our last option in trying to get more help. I didn't think it was possible to land lock someone out of there property. Not only legally but thinking someone could stoop this low because of one person that didn't even own property down there only leasing could cause this much BS. They took away the only thing that brought our family together without having someone to die in doing so. I know they will never understand how hard my grandparents worked to get the property and how hard all of us worked to keeping the ranch going. They were handed theirs property, were we poured our hearts and soul into ours and make what we had work.

    December 11, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.
  • I don't know any particulars (nor need to know) but I would not want a road cutting through my property.
    I owned a property in the Hill Country for a number of years. The tract adjoining was land locked. I granted use of my property for their easy access- with a couple of verbal agreements while we sat on the tailgate of my pickup; included they do all maintenance on the road, the road was for the owner's sole use- no visitors, etc.
    When I sold it- those rights did not transfer- and rightfully so.

    December 11, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.
  • This frightens me because I live on a street that the landowner originally built for us to use when we bought property in our area. The road is rough and abused by us who live here, the developer says he will not repair it, the county says they will not maintain it because it is not owned by the now I wonder if we the owners of the property can have this happen to us since the original owner died and the son is now owner of the "road"....can he lock us out also. It is so sad that people today have no value for someone elses life and livelyhood. I am an outsider looking at this and cannot believe that this family (families) own property and a road that they all thought was a public road now becomes a private road by one landowner, yet the other landowners have had property they own and thought they would be able to visit anytime they felt the need or desire, find themselves now locked out....This is so senseless to me. Seems the owner to the road can be protected against any damages by posting they will not be responsible for any liabilities on this road and then let the other landowners sign it claiming they will not sue for anyone using this road. That would be the most trusted thing to do in my opinion. All parties need to think how it would feel to be locked out of their property because there was no road to it. This is absolutely a sad thing, esp. since the property was sold years ago, knowing there was a road to get to their homestead and all of a sudden due to new ownership they are not allowed to get their home. How would you feel if this was you in this situation?????? You would be fighting mad too!!

    December 11, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.
  • I did not say why a Court would not wish to maintain it as a county road before. When the road has very little public traffic and it seems the road is used mainly by one family, the commissioner will wish to declare it not a county road so as not to be keeping up what is almost a private road.

    December 11, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
    Womack v. Ross
    It took them same amount of time and they won. Theirs case was filed right after ours and only reason was because my grandmother and aunt lost theirs.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:52 a.m.
  • Many times an easement is verbally given, then ownership changes and it is not granted. Also what was a road many times is taken up in Commissioner's Court and they declare it not a road. And thus even if it is said to be a road on file, if the Court has declared it not to be one, it is NOT.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.
  • I had a feeling ever since those "karma blues" blogs started appearing that we, the public, would eventually be "treated" to a pissing match courtesy of the VicAd. And here we are.

    WHY do people feel a need to air their dirty laundry in public? Frankly, I don't care who's right or who's wrong here, they need to handle it BETWEEN THEMSELVES without dragging others into it. Seems both sides are looking to martyr themselves before the public, not realizing just how petty and whiney they both sound.

    And to think, this space could have been used for real news....

    December 11, 2011 at 10:18 a.m.
  • Jeez Erin where to start. First off this is not Virginia. This is the guy that caught you trespassing the other day. I did not say you have a bridge right now. I said there was a bridge at one time and Ill gladly tell you where the remains are if you wish to go look.

    Yes we did have that much traffic going through us. When you add in the schiliabs,canos,deerman,edge, and your aunts traffic,

    The fiction about my mother telling your grandmother to go crawl up a river bank is almost as remarkable as the dierlams stoped an ambulance story. Dont read past this line if you want to continue to use it to power your hate but....she never asked us to go. If she would have asked we would have let her go.. no question about it.

    I realize that you are a johny come lately and were not there through all this. But please get your facts from someone other then your aunt. When I see you all buddy buddy with your aunt I just shake my head. Do you not realize that she and Karl are more responsible then anyone for this happening?

    As far as trying to buy your land on the cheap. Ive had exactly one conversation and it was with your stepmother years ago. I dont recall the exact details but I said that while we could pay 1200-1400 per acre for the land we could never buy your house. We figured your aunt would just burn it down or something. In any case we never put any stock into buying you land because you could always just sell it to the other family that borders you,is worth several hundred million dollars and can pay triple what ever we could offer.
    As for some secret plan to get the oil out from under you. First,do you even own the mineral right? If you do dont sell them. Ill say right now that if I ever somehow come into owning this property Ill give any mineral proceeds to charity.

    Oh and you own 37 acres...feel free to go to the refugio county tax aprasil website and see for yourself.

    Believe it or not Erin all we want it to just be left alone. We let yall go through for years and never asked anything in return from yall. Here is an idea....why dont you call up the occonors and ask to go through them for a few decades.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:17 a.m.
  • It sounds like legal access to this road was never validated, and if an easement does exist (perhaps with no road on it at this time), then the landlocked owners could arrange for their own thoroughfare. At considerable expense, I'm certain.

    Apparently the courts agree, and I'm puzzled why the apathy displayed by those denied access is evident by their inaction for an extended period of time in allowing the statute of limitations to apply.

    The court rulings and the tone of the complaintants in the article, along with their subsequent posts, reveal much of their mindset.

    December 11, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
  • Also propertyis more than just 35 acres, my fathers property is 47 acers and my aunts is 250 I think

    December 11, 2011 at 9:46 a.m.
  • Also if we had access to a bridge, why would we be fighting this hard to get to our property? You need to come up with a new excuse Virginia, that one is dead in the water

    December 11, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
  • Isn't it amazing that one thing has happened and there are two completely different stories on how it occurred. LOL!

    December 11, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
  • Ok we never had access to a bridge, that was roger Williams bridge. That was his private and personal bridge. The traffic you say was going through there isn't true either. One vehicle everyday does not constitute as 25-30 vehicles. She had every right to use that road to get to her job at the polo fields to work for the McCans even during deer season. You never brought proof to any of you allegations. But we showed proof of yall cutting our fence lines and allowing your cattle to roam our property since you took over in '93. My house has been left to vandal,vermin, and unwanted guest. You say we have this miracle bridge off of 239. I want you to show me and my family this bridge you claim exists.

    December 11, 2011 at 9:26 a.m.
  • I need to make something very clear, Mr. Houston and the Dierliams never worked with us on the issue. They have made threats about paying attorney fees,and offers to buy Our land. The only time I have ever called them was to ask miss virginia put our differences aside so I can take my grandmother to see her home before she died, virginia said she can use the river like everyone else. My late grandmother was 95! Also Virginia and Mark knew from the very beginning that the property they were going to inherit had a road going through it. They knew it was the only access to the others properties. The reason my father was dropped from lawsuit he was told they didn't have a problem with us. My father was deployed to Afghanistan to the war at the time he was dropped. During depositions Mr. Houston showed us a one sided letter not signed by either parties or entered on the record that he wrote saying my father agreed to permissive. Ok if during that time the letter "was" written my dad was deployed. No contact for 4 months. How could he agree to something if he couldn't communicate with his family, let alone a lawyer? Yes this is a very emotional issue but its also a very wrong and poorly handle issue that should of never happened. If I have to go to even more great lengths to gain our access back I will. If I have to lobby and have new law placed in the books to prevent another family from going what we are going through I will. From the ashes of there destruction the Phoenix will rise again. A promise made,A promise kept,A promise can never be broken.

    December 11, 2011 at 9:11 a.m.
  • Hello,Im the person most responsible for taking back the permision that theese people had to use our road. It would be impossible to capture in an article all the frustrations we have had in the 25 years we have been dealing with the wrights. If I had to describe it it to you I would say its like dealing with a bunch of dishonest eight yearold children.

    Mary Wright Mcalister would have you belive that we inherited the land in 2002 and locked them out. The truth is we have controlled this specific part of the ranch since 1988 and the enitre ranch has been in my family for well over one hundred years.

    Imagine owning a piece of land with a road running through the heart of it and having no say what so ever on who comes on to your property. Im not talking 4 or 5 vehicles talking 25-30 vehicle trips on any given saturday during deer season.. We tried working with the people that passed through us to enact some common sense practices. We were always met with the same respone which was "I have a right to use that road. Why should I negotiate with you on something I already have?"

    As the years went by in the 90s the problems and traffic got worse and worse. Towards the late 90s that river bottom had turned into the wild wild west and was a place you did not feel safe being in. Two of the straws that broke the camels back were that some of the landowners started running day hunting operations and the floods of the late 90s. Theese two floods did in fact wash out the roads refered to in the article. One of those roads is still impassable today with a 30 by 40 foot sinkhole being in the middle of where it used to go.
    Something the article failed to mention is that theese people do have an easement. It comes off highway 239. At one time they had a private bridge that crossed the river. Two other landowners further down stream have had solved there access problems by building there own bridge. The sad thing is if all the legal fees spent on the losing court verdicts had instead been put towards bridge contruction then it would have been paid for already.

    Were all the people who used to pass through us equaly guilty of mistreating the priviledge? No. However most of the parties that passed through are either related and/or old friends. They are enemies to each other one day and friends the next. In the end when ever we trusted this group of people we just got burned.

    The bottom line is Mary Wright and the others treated this road access as a right and not a pivilige. They abused that privillege and have no one but themselves to blame for losing it.

    December 11, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
  • This story was a big eye opener to me. I always believed that you had a legal right to access your property no matter where it was. An owner cah put up a locked gate but you got a key. Silly me!

    December 11, 2011 at 8:07 a.m.
  • I thought a person could not be lock out of their property by another land owner,,if it,s the only ascess to get in,,was in a situation like that several years ago ,was given excess of a 30ft road,had to stay within that boundy,an maintain the road,,but you have to remember who you talking an dealing with in this sitution,,money talks an bull crap walk..,good luck to the folks with their sitution..

    December 11, 2011 at 8:07 a.m.