Precedence

There is a precedence for not recognizing a legitimate deed or Agreement

 

One precedence is the 1935 Agreement

I don't understand why the 1935 agreement that runs with the land that I owned as an individual in Highland County, Virginia, was not recognized.

The 1935 agreement, the hand written part, says, according to Director Stuart Waymack's letter of November 17, 1997:

"Consideration: $750.00 for land, fencing, tearing down or moving three buildings, apple and sugar trees, and all damages to residue.
It is agreed the State is to lay a 1" water line from the north side of road at Station 1077+90 to a point back of her house and construct a concrete watering trough 2' x 4' x 2'.
A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1044+50 ¹. 'The timber is reserved by the owner and is to be cut under the standard timber clause.
'The owner agrees to clear the right of way before payment is made and in the event they should fail to do so, the State has the right to remove same and deduct the cost from the above consideration.
(Where handwriting was not clear, the words have been underlined and italicized.)"

¹ I don't understand why this was transcribed as Station 1044+50 instead of Station 1094+50. Station Station 1044+50 is not on the subject property; Station 1094+50 is on the subject property.

Shouldn't this clause be transcribed as "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at appx sta 1044+50."

 

I don't understand why the clause in the 1935 Agreement that says "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50."is not recognized. It means what it says.

In my business law classes in 1967 (University of Maryland extension, Saigon, Vietnam), the "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." clause in this 1935 Agreement would mean "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50."

In my business law classes in 1980 something (James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia) the "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." clause in this 1935 Agreement would mean "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50.".

If you expose the "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." clause in this 1935 Agreement to sunshine, it would mean "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50."

If the 1992 deed for Accotink were exposed to sunshine, it would show that it is a valid deed for Accotink.

I don't understand why the "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." clause in this 1935 Agreement doesn't mean "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." I don't understand why John Buell never mentions this clause.

I don't understand why the "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50." clause in this 1935 Agreement doesn't mean "A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1094+50."

I don't understand why Edward White's contact in the Attorney General's office, Senior Assistant John Buell, never mentions this clause.

When Senators and Representatives of Virginia who understand contract law see this 1935 Agreement and Mr. Buell's letters and the like, what can they do? If they can't do anything should the public know?

 

1997.11.17  (Stuart Waymack to Anthony O’Connell)
"November 17, 1997
Mr. Anthony M. O'Connell
21 6 Governor's Lane, Apartment 12
Harrisonburg. Virginia 22801
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
As I promised when we met on Friday, November 14, 1997, enclosed is a copy of the September 15, 1935, agreement between VDOT and the "Hiners". Also enclosed is a copy of the actual deed conveying the property to VDOT, which is dated October 21, 1935, and recorded in the Highland County Courthouse in Deed Book 29, Pages 503 through 505.
For your benefit, the Virginia Department of Transportation reads the handwritten section of the agreement with the Hiners to be as follows:

"Consideration: $750.00 for land, fencing, tearing down or moving three buildings, apple and sugar trees, and all damages to residue.
It is agreed the State is to lay a 1" water line from the north side of road at Station 1077+90 to a point back of her house and construct a concrete watering trough 2' x 4' x 2'.
A road way is to be provided for foard crossing at approximate Station 1044+50. 'The timber is reserved by the owner and is to be cut under the standard timber clause.
'The owner agrees to clear the right of way before payment is made and in the event they should fail to do so, the State has the right to remove same and deduct the cost from the above consideration.
(Where handwriting was not clear, the words have been underlined and italicized.)"
(From Stuart Waymack, Director, Right of Way and Utilities Division, November 17, 1997)

As I indicated to you, I have no reason to believe the consideration described was not provided to the Hiners some 62 years ago. Also, the Attorney General's Office has provided comments on the legal aspects of this situation.
Should you need to meet with me again in the future, an appointment arranged through my secretary will assure that I will be here.
Sincerely,
S. A. Waymack, Director
Right of Way and Utilities Division
RRB:efs"
Enclosures

I tried to get vehicular access to my property east of the Jackson River for about 16 years; from 1989 to 2005. From reading the Code of Virginia I learned that the Commonwealth replaces entrances they destroy.

I was not aware of the 1935 Agreement until after VDOT's letter of January 5, 1995. VDOT sent me a copy of the 1935 Agreement on August 19, 1996. VDOT sent me their interpretation/transcription of the handwritten portion of the 1935 Agreement on November 11, 1997. I do not understand why VDOT interpretted highway station 1094+50 as 1044+50. Highway station 1044+50 is not within the Landowner's property.

I do not understand why: