over this issue too

Paris, TN

#42 Aug 19, 2012
Ha ha wrote:
<quoted text> Prior to the arrest he stated that he had been there and all was ok. Yet another vet says different and did emergency surgery on several dogs. The video was awful. If he was saying it was ok then why did the dogs look so bad? The conditions so bad? Oh and I understand this wasn't their first arrest for puppy mills. Dyer and Obion Co.
Someone pulled some strings somewhere.
Where the people actully arrested and taken to jail? I don't think they were. I think the whole issue was to shut them down and seize the animals/property. I think they went to court to fight for their property and business. As far as I know, all the animals were sold and the family is no longer in business. The vet testified to various dates in question. Not to the conditions of when the police appeared on the property. Did you see the pictures of the animals once sthey were seized and taken to the fairgrounds? Those animals were sitting in all kinds of crap and food bowls empty and tipped over water. The vet removed them from that filth too and housed and fed them in air-conditioned conditions until a judgement could be made. Is that such a bad favor to do for someone? The judge made the final decision and the vet.
over this issue too

Paris, TN

#43 Aug 19, 2012
To correct my typo above: The judge and the courts made the final decision. NOT the vet.
No one special

Cookeville, TN

#44 Aug 19, 2012
over this issue wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right in a sense, but it IS a city road and the owner of the property has every right to access that property where he wishes since it is farmed and he owns it. The family of that home does NOT own the road. It is NOT their driveway. Notice where their mailbox sits. The road services her house AND an entrance into the property with a home behind that house. The lady of the house didn't take the time to talk it through, she just blocked the entrance claiming it was hers. She acted so childish about the whole deal and blew it out of proportion. In fact, before the lawsuit, she didn't even own the house and property she was fighting about. The owner had no choice but to protect his property too. Had she not acted like she did, the issue probably would have been laid to rest and respect given to her by not accessing that entrance and using the other. Sometimes you get what you ask for.
I still will argue that it is NOT a city street. I don't know the whole history of the property in question but I believe the road was built for a subdivision that was never built. As far as I can see there are two houses on the road, one looks abandoned and the other is the one under discussion. However, since the neighborhood was never developed, the road has never been used as a public street and most importantly, the road was never adopted by the city of Dresden as a city street. The city does NOT maintain this road. That leaves this as a civil issue between the landowners and since they can't come to a civil agreement it would need to be decided by the court. Someone said above it has been discussed in court twice but I don't have knowledge of those outcomes.
over this issue

Paris, TN

#45 Aug 19, 2012
No one special wrote:
<quoted text>I still will argue that it is NOT a city street. I don't know the whole history of the property in question but I believe the road was built for a subdivision that was never built. As far as I can see there are two houses on the road, one looks abandoned and the other is the one under discussion. However, since the neighborhood was never developed, the road has never been used as a public street and most importantly, the road was never adopted by the city of Dresden as a city street. The city does NOT maintain this road. That leaves this as a civil issue between the landowners and since they can't come to a civil agreement it would need to be decided by the court. Someone said above it has been discussed in court twice but I don't have knowledge of those outcomes.
The city tried to "give" this property to the lady and the city was found to be in error of their decision and the matter had to be corrected. It was decided by the courts TWICE to be a public access road. It is NOT owned by the owners of the house on the street or the owner of the farming property. It is owned by a man from way way back that deemed the road himself to be public access. Look at the public court documents. It is no secret. The most recent court decision of that road was just a few months ago. The previous court decision was several years ago when a Ms. Travis owned the house. That road has been there well over 30 years because I used to play in that driveway connected to the so-called road when visiting from down the street. There used to be many other homes along that street and back behind there. Just because you don't have knowledge of it doesn't mean it isnt fact. But you can very well educated yourself on the matter by looking at public documents. I was directly involved in the lawsuit and this is indeed a factual matter with court documents and a court decision.

The house in the back is not abandoned. It is owned by the man who now owns the property and is being fixed up to sell or rent. There is another public access road down the road on Hwy 22 just across the street from Fairview Farm shop. Same deal. And it dead ends to a dirt path. But it is still a public access road.
over this issue

Paris, TN

#46 Aug 19, 2012
I don't think anyone meant to hurt others over this issue, but when one acts like an ass, sometimes you ask to be treated like one. You don't block the entrance into anyone's property period!! That would be like someone baracading your own driveway and not letting you get to your own home. Yes, you could probably access your drive another way by going around, but it is the principal of people's actions sometimes. So you get the law involved and get a restraining order until a decision can be made in court. And one was made. Now others may have to pay for the consequences of their actions.
No one special

Cookeville, TN

#47 Aug 19, 2012
over this issue wrote:
<quoted text>
The city tried to "give" this property to the lady and the city was found to be in error of their decision and the matter had to be corrected. It was decided by the courts TWICE to be a public access road. It is NOT owned by the owners of the house on the street or the owner of the farming property. It is owned by a man from way way back that deemed the road himself to be public access. Look at the public court documents. It is no secret. The most recent court decision of that road was just a few months ago. The previous court decision was several years ago when a Ms. Travis owned the house. That road has been there well over 30 years because I used to play in that driveway connected to the so-called road when visiting from down the street. There used to be many other homes along that street and back behind there. Just because you don't have knowledge of it doesn't mean it isnt fact. But you can very well educated yourself on the matter by looking at public documents. I was directly involved in the lawsuit and this is indeed a factual matter with court documents and a court decision.
The house in the back is not abandoned. It is owned by the man who now owns the property and is being fixed up to sell or rent. There is another public access road down the road on Hwy 22 just across the street from Fairview Farm shop. Same deal. And it dead ends to a dirt path. But it is still a public access road.
This issue is really none of my business but I am quite curious about it. I moved to this area only a few years ago so was not aware there used to be an actual neighborhood with homes on that road. I just assumed the road was built and pretty much nothing else. Since I don't know any of the names of the people involved, other than the one for this topic, what do I ask for to see the public documents and where do I go to see them? Since the city of Dresden didn't know about the ownership of the road and does not claim it as a city owned and maintained street, I doubt the city board minutes would be the place to look...so where do I go? Thank you for the education.
Just saying

Andrews, TX

#48 Aug 19, 2012
over this issue wrote:
<quoted text>
The city tried to "give" this property to the lady and the city was found to be in error of their decision and the matter had to be corrected. It was decided by the courts TWICE to be a public access road. It is NOT owned by the owners of the house on the street or the owner of the farming property. It is owned by a man from way way back that deemed the road himself to be public access. Look at the public court documents. It is no secret. The most recent court decision of that road was just a few months ago. The previous court decision was several years ago when a Ms. Travis owned the house. That road has been there well over 30 years because I used to play in that driveway connected to the so-called road when visiting from down the street. There used to be many other homes along that street and back behind there. Just because you don't have knowledge of it doesn't mean it isnt fact. But you can very well educated yourself on the matter by looking at public documents. I was directly involved in the lawsuit and this is indeed a factual matter with court documents and a court decision.
The house in the back is not abandoned. It is owned by the man who now owns the property and is being fixed up to sell or rent. There is another public access road down the road on Hwy 22 just across the street from Fairview Farm shop. Same deal. And it dead ends to a dirt path. But it is still a public access road.
I heard that the path that lead down to the old house the farmers tore down was the nannys quarters to the old travis house for when chandler beard owned it and that's why they left that open , I've lived here all my life and I know just like others that drive has always been used privately by the Travis's , lake road has always been the entrance to the house in the back that's where they get thier mail ,not only that if that was a street why wouldn't they just put thier mailbox and trash bins up by thier house instead of at the end of the drive if that was the case just saying ,,, so thier are a lot of facts but that family don't know what thier up against but I do and I will pray for them
Wrong

Andrews, TX

#49 Aug 19, 2012
over this issue wrote:
<quoted text>
The city tried to "give" this property to the lady and the city was found to be in error of their decision and the matter had to be corrected. It was decided by the courts TWICE to be a public access road. It is NOT owned by the owners of the house on the street or the owner of the farming property. It is owned by a man from way way back that deemed the road himself to be public access. Look at the public court documents. It is no secret. The most recent court decision of that road was just a few months ago. The previous court decision was several years ago when a Ms. Travis owned the house. That road has been there well over 30 years because I used to play in that driveway connected to the so-called road when visiting from down the street. There used to be many other homes along that street and back behind there. Just because you don't have knowledge of it doesn't mean it isnt fact. But you can very well educated yourself on the matter by looking at public documents. I was directly involved in the lawsuit and this is indeed a factual matter with court documents and a court decision.
The house in the back is not abandoned. It is owned by the man who now owns the property and is being fixed up to sell or rent. There is another public access road down the road on Hwy 22 just across the street from Fairview Farm shop. Same deal. And it dead ends to a dirt path. But it is still a public access road.
if it was a dead end street thier would be a sign ,second the lady tried to get the road legally deeded over in September Alexander a friend of the man who now owns the land in the back stopped that because he knew page had wanted that land before it was up for sale witch he had no rite to interfere but we all know swindle windle so we all know how this turns out they all stick together
HUMMM

Andrews, TX

#50 Aug 19, 2012
over this issue too wrote:
To correct my typo above: The judge and the courts made the final decision. NOT the vet.
i wonder who paid those judges (CERTINALY) not the VET!!!?
Over this issue

Cookeville, TN

#51 Aug 19, 2012
Wrong wrote:
<quoted text> if it was a dead end street thier would be a sign ,second the lady tried to get the road legally deeded over in September Alexander a friend of the man who now owns the land in the back stopped that because he knew page had wanted that land before it was up for sale witch he had no rite to interfere but we all know swindle windle so we all know how this turns out they all stick together
I stand corrected. It isn't a legal dead end road (across from Fairview Farm) any longer, because the same owner owns all the properties it surrounds and owns the road too!. The road ends along side a trailer and turns into a dirt road that in fact used to be an actual road years ago.

As for the lady and the road, by saying she tried to get it deeded over to her in fact shows that she didn't and doesn't own it, so what gave her the right to block someone's access onto their property. There is a court decision. People just need to deal with it. There was a court decision made when Ms. Travis tried to do the very same thing and didn't succeed. She used the road privately but she still didn't own it to do as she pleased with it. And whoever the Chandler dude was didn't own it either.
Over this issue too

Cookeville, TN

#52 Aug 19, 2012
HUMMM wrote:
<quoted text>i wonder who paid those judges (CERTINALY) not the VET!!!?
Why does everyone think someone has to be paid off to get anything anymore?
tyrone

Cookeville, TN

#53 Aug 19, 2012
I still want the chick's husband!!!
More from forum above

United States

#54 Aug 20, 2012
Wrong wrote:
<quoted text> if it was a dead end street thier would be a sign ,second the lady tried to get the road legally deeded over in September Alexander a friend of the man who now owns the land in the back stopped that because he knew page had wanted that land before it was up for sale witch he had no rite to interfere but we all know swindle windle so we all know how this turns out they all stick together
Not to mention page didn't own that land untill November
Forgot

United States

#55 Aug 20, 2012
Over this issue too wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does everyone think someone has to be paid off to get anything anymore?
you don't always get paid u just have to be a GOOD friend !
Reality

Cookeville, TN

#56 Aug 20, 2012
This is a public road. Previous owners of the property, black topped the road, before the new owners the Travis's bought it. In their own dead the road is deemed public access road. Mrs.Travis had no reason what so ever to block its access. She protested its use because of her kids or for whatever she deemed appropriate at the time. This is wrong to block its use. She called the cops and to the vet to court. The vet now has expenses of hiring a lawyer to defend what he knew was the truth. The court verdict was in fact what the court had ruled before, which simply states that it is a public road. Now, who do you think should pay for what happened. There are consequences to one owns actions. You can not harm someone and expect to get away with it, just because you though you were right and continued to do wrong. This family was given many of chances to let bygones be bygones and the woman was clear in her motives to try to get her way. She stomped her feet and screamed every chance she got, when all things pointed to her being wrong! You know what they say about a woman's scorn. Someone stood up to her and now he is the bad guy. "Danny" says he will be judged by God and he is destroying her family, well I think "Danny" needs to look in the mirror and understand that it is the woman that is screwing her family and not someone else. Its simply a case of who was right and they lost. Loser pays, you can't expect someone else to pay for your mistake, do whats right and save your dignity, admit that you where wrong and wrong the right. This all over a stupid public road, which is owned by no one and hardly no one ever drives on. Talk about stupidity! A lesson hard learned!
Reality

Cookeville, TN

#57 Aug 20, 2012
over this issue wrote:
I don't think anyone meant to hurt others over this issue, but when one acts like an ass, sometimes you ask to be treated like one. You don't block the entrance into anyone's property period!! That would be like someone baracading your own driveway and not letting you get to your own home. Yes, you could probably access your drive another way by going around, but it is the principal of people's actions sometimes. So you get the law involved and get a restraining order until a decision can be made in court. And one was made. Now others may have to pay for the consequences of their actions.
That's right! Consequences to ones own actions. Its time people take responsibility for themselves. Enough said!
confused

Paris, TN

#58 Aug 20, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right! Consequences to ones own actions. Its time people take responsibility for themselves. Enough said!
Reality, Who's side are you on? I don't get what is going on.
over this issue

Paris, TN

#59 Aug 20, 2012
Reality wrote:
This is a public road. Previous owners of the property, black topped the road, before the new owners the Travis's bought it. In their own dead the road is deemed public access road. Mrs.Travis had no reason what so ever to block its access. She protested its use because of her kids or for whatever she deemed appropriate at the time. This is wrong to block its use. She called the cops and to the vet to court. The vet now has expenses of hiring a lawyer to defend what he knew was the truth. The court verdict was in fact what the court had ruled before, which simply states that it is a public road. Now, who do you think should pay for what happened. There are consequences to one owns actions. You can not harm someone and expect to get away with it, just because you though you were right and continued to do wrong. This family was given many of chances to let bygones be bygones and the woman was clear in her motives to try to get her way. She stomped her feet and screamed every chance she got, when all things pointed to her being wrong! You know what they say about a woman's scorn. Someone stood up to her and now he is the bad guy. "Danny" says he will be judged by God and he is destroying her family, well I think "Danny" needs to look in the mirror and understand that it is the woman that is screwing her family and not someone else. Its simply a case of who was right and they lost. Loser pays, you can't expect someone else to pay for your mistake, do whats right and save your dignity, admit that you where wrong and wrong the right. This all over a stupid public road, which is owned by no one and hardly no one ever drives on. Talk about stupidity! A lesson hard learned!
Ms. Travis owned it years ago. Ms. Travis was another who fought for ownership of the public road and lost too. Now the house is owned by a Davidson family, I think. The wife of this family is causing the problem and she doesn't even own the house.
Not the truth

United States

#60 Aug 20, 2012
Reality wrote:
This is a public road. Previous owners of the property, black topped the road, before the new owners the Travis's bought it. In their own dead the road is deemed public access road. Mrs.Travis had no reason what so ever to block its access. She protested its use because of her kids or for whatever she deemed appropriate at the time. This is wrong to block its use. She called the cops and to the vet to court. The vet now has expenses of hiring a lawyer to defend what he knew was the truth. The court verdict was in fact what the court had ruled before, which simply states that it is a public road. Now, who do you think should pay for what happened. There are consequences to one owns actions. You can not harm someone and expect to get away with it, just because you though you were right and continued to do wrong. This family was given many of chances to let bygones be bygones and the woman was clear in her motives to try to get her way. She stomped her feet and screamed every chance she got, when all things pointed to her being wrong! You know what they say about a woman's scorn. Someone stood up to her and now he is the bad guy. "Danny" says he will be judged by God and he is destroying her family, well I think "Danny" needs to look in the mirror and understand that it is the woman that is screwing her family and not someone else. Its simply a case of who was right and they lost. Loser pays, you can't expect someone else to pay for your mistake, do whats right and save your dignity, admit that you where wrong and wrong the right. This all over a stupid public road, which is owned by no one and hardly no one ever drives on. Talk about stupidity! A lesson hard learned!
U must not know because page was the one that took that family to court from the beginning and when the first trile was over page took them back to court even though they took the gate off so he was the one that left it to rest no its lies but when this is over it will ALL come out Quit trying to lie for your dad everyone knows him they talk nice to his face but we all know the truth about him
Not the truth

United States

#61 Aug 20, 2012
No one special wrote:
<quoted text>I still will argue that it is NOT a city street. I don't know the whole history of the property in question but I believe the road was built for a subdivision that was never built. As far as I can see there are two houses on the road, one looks abandoned and the other is the one under discussion. However, since the neighborhood was never developed, the road has never been used as a public street and most importantly, the road was never adopted by the city of Dresden as a city street. The city does NOT maintain this road. That leaves this as a civil issue between the landowners and since they can't come to a civil agreement it would need to be decided by the court. Someone said above it has been discussed in court twice but I don't have knowledge of those outcomes.
the law states that when a road or street becomes abandon by the city and the county it goes back to the owners of the land on both sides and the city had that rite to deem it so

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dresden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dana Prescreen April 21 6 hr that girl 15
What will these tarriffs cost us? 6 hr OMG 12
Glen Campbell 19 hr Come on and get y... 22
Iím seriously surprised Thu Ann Landers 33
Robbie Harrison (May '16) Apr 17 Hater 18
Ageless Apr 17 Sorry not sorry 15
levi evans (May '12) Apr 16 User 328

Dresden Jobs

Personal Finance

Dresden Mortgages