Recently my dad decided to sell some hardwood trees on the 160 acres he owns in Presque Isle county.There happened to be a logger working in the area so he stopped and talked to him and he said he would be more than happy to have a look.To make a long story short he offered him $5000 for the trees and when dad ask how many trees he would cut he said he would know when to quit and if he would cut more he would pay extra.Since dad had just went thru treatments for cancer and needed some money for bills he said ok.A contract was signed.The logger moved his equipment in the next day and began cutting.Dad returned two day later and found the area they looked at clear cut there was also damage to many other trees they didn't cut including some planted pine I helped plant some 30 yrs. ago.Dad being very unhappy with this ask him to leave which he did the next day.Now my dad is being sued for $100,000 for breach of contract or the logger said he would take $25,000 worth of tree's.Dad and I counted the stumps they cut and found 174 16" or bigger and plus all the other damage should be well over the $5000 he said he was going to cut.The contract is very unprofessional looking and did have the statement,The seller agrees to sell all the usable timber(trees) 16" or larger on the property.Contracts of this kind should be outlawed,or better explained to the seller.Hope this letter will put the word out to your members and veiwers to very carefully read before signing any timber contract. I do have the name of the company if any one is interested and any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.Thanks Raymond
Wow, that's gotta hurt!
Sounds like a real scam game.
Oh, and Welcome!
I hate to sound heartless, but if it says that in writing....why was it signed?
To me, 160 acres of hardwood that size and cut like that.....That should net the owner a very sizeable sum. Many times the $5000 agreed price. I would love to find such a lot here. I'd cut at a flat rate, and you'd recieve the balance.
Hope the situation is resolved with you being compensated at a fair rate.
Raymond, please instant message me the name of the logger. Also here is the number for The Michigan Association of Timbermen. Call there and see what can be done.
tel: (800) 682-4979
Call the logging complaint 800 # that Jeff provided to report such logging practices.
Also contact an attorney familiar with timber law and a professional consulting forester to access your damages.
$5,000 for 160 acres if fully stocked is only $31.25/acre. A worst case would be around $300.00/acre.
Also 160 acres at a "minimum" harvest of 1500 bd ft/acre = 240MBF. Depending upon species, 240MBF @ an average price of $150.00/MBF = $36,000.
How many trees were cut in total?? You shouldn't agree to cutting more trees to compensate the threat of any breach of contract. How did $5,000 for your trees go to a claim of $25,000 in more trees to satisfy a $100,000 suit for contract breach? Were there any performance standards in the contract? At the least, best management practices should be expected by any landowner whether included or not.
Have your "all resources damage assessment" value the damages to timber, soil, air, water, recreation, wildlife, roads, trails, aesthetics, etc. on your property.
Also instant message me the name of the logger involved. I can provide you with the name of a consultant in that area that you might want to have look at your situation if you wish.
Ensure your attorney looks REAL hard at the Deceptive Trade Practice Act.
Hey Kirk, that's a new one for me, where can I find it?
Furby,
I am on the road right now but will get some more info as soon as I get back in the office.
In fact, I might have some info this weekend after meeting with a gentleman in the Dallas area that may be using this Act in a lawsuit.
Raymond, with 174 trees cut I would be measureing every stump to find one(1 is enough) that is less than 16" in diameter. If you find 1 then the logger is in breech of contract thus opening him up for a suit as well.
Kirk
This link will take you to a site with state info for applicable states. Even though a state may not be outlined it does not mean that a legal argument from another state cannot be used to support a case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol7.html#dectr
This popped up for Delaware.
§ 2532. Deceptive trade practices.
(a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of a business, vocation, or occupation, that person:
(1) Passes off goods or services as those of another;
(2) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
(3) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;
(4) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
(5) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have, or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have;
(6) Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;
(7) Represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
(8) Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;
(9) Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;
(10) Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;
(11) Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions; or
(12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.
(b) In order to prevail in an action under this chapter, a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.
(c) This section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this State. (6 Del. C. 1953, § 2532; 55 Del. Laws, c. 36; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 2533. Remedies.
(a) A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable. Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive, is not required. Relief granted for the copying of an article shall be limited to the prevention of confusion or misunderstanding as to source.
(b) The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. Costs or attorneys' fees may be assessed against a defendant only if the court finds that defendant has wilfully engaged in a deceptive trade practice.
(c) The relief provided in this section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this State. If damages are awarded to the aggrieved party under the common law or other statutes of this State, such damages awarded shall be treble the amount of the actual damages proved.
(d) The Attorney General shall have standing to seek, on behalf of the State, any remedy enumerated in this section for any violation of § 2532 of this title that is likely to harm any person, including but not limited to individual retail purchasers and consumers of goods, services or merchandise.
(e) If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that any person has willfully violated this subchapter, upon petition to the court by the Attorney General in the original complaint or at any time following the court's finding of a willful violation, the person shall forfeit and pay to the State a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation. For purposes of this subchapter, a willful violation occurs when the person committing the violation knew or should have known that the conduct was of the nature prohibited by this subchapter. (6 Del. C. 1953, § 2533; 55 Del. Laws, c. 36; 57 Del. Laws, c. 499; 69 Del. Laws, c. 203, § 22; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 470, § 16.)
This is another site that has some info that may be of value for general information.
http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P12_9131.asp
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts.html
I think this link somes it up best.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/overview.html#2-301
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-302.html
Kirk
OK, can you tell Im stuck in a hotel room with nothing better to do?
The more I research this the madder I get.
Raymond, fight this will all your might because your in the right..........based on what you have shared.
Kirk, for ALL the members here I'm thanking you for providing this information. The snake deserves everything the legal system can throw at him!
Thanks ck.
I went into the lobby of the hotel tonight and had a soda and some popcorn and got a chance to visit with an attorney if you can believe that.
I will try to express this guys concerns the best I can.
A contract for $5000 that is breeched in no way can be twisted to $100,000. He said it sounded like the guy has done this before. Its a ploy to scare the other party into thinking a $25,000 settlement is a good thing and better than taking the chance of losing $100,000.
He said that it borders on Extorsion and with the right attorney, you may be able to present it as such. Judges dont tolerate people taking advantage of others ignorance and then using scare tactics to capitalize from those actions.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Thanks Kirk!!!
Ya know I REALLY hate all that fine print in contracts. :-/
Wow, I buy timber and guys like this are real bad news. I have seen some of their contracts and the contracts are almost always very small and some dont even have a contact # or address on them!But that said , loggers are mostly good guys. I always tell land owners to be careful, take your time. those trees didnt grow in one day.Think it over and if you need a foresters advice that is what they are there for,,I hate to see people prey on sick and older people,hope your Dad gets well.- Bryan
If the best that guy could offer was $5k for all that, he needs to be set in his place, and HARD.
Guys like that give the rest a bad name- and frankly, WE'RE ALL SICK OF IT.
Git'r'done!
I wish Raymond would come back and update us. I sent him an email from the forum telling him this thread was updated.
I was through Rogers City yesterday and thought about this thread and what had happened. I think the logger in this instance should just be strung up >:(
All we can do is simply keep hammering the truth about good loggers and expose the bad ones.
Unfortunately it doesn't stop with the loggers. I just met with a person who is being sued over some wood he purchased. He was told it was Select and better and after looking at this stack of crap (can I say that?) I too would have refused paying for it. This stuff was so full of knots it looked like #2 stuff I put in a pallet pile.
Since it was an out of state order the buyer took the guys word on the quality and the fact that he showed him several pics of good wood. Well now its going to the courts. I know he doesn't have anything to worry about after looking at the wood because it is far from Select or better but just the hassle and expense of fighting in the courts can be overwhelming. We can only hope that the judge sets this seller in his place because this is not the first time this person has tried to sell something for what it wasn't!
Since I cant expose this persons name I will simply suggest that if your buying any wood out of Iowa I would suggest getting a Forestry Forum recommendation prior to agreeing too buy anything.
Kirk Allen ---
I had a "quality" problem with a guy in Iowa also.
No update from Raymond yet? I hope things are going ok for him and his dad to resolve their issue.
Gotta, just absolutely gotta kick in one little thing here.
When I do want to buy some walnut, It will be from a guy in Iowa. AND I would just his judgement completely. Of course it would also be from a forum member. and his wife! :) :) :)
https://forestryforum.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=chainsaws;action=viewprofile;username=Norm_F%2E
Thanks for the vote of confidence CK. :) I understand you folks not wanting to name names but it also gives the impression to watch out for anyone selling wood from Iowa.
The nerve of some people eh? Sounds like the tactics of some outfits I know here, I'll keep names out of it. >:( If I were presenting an owner with a contract, I wouldn't expect to move in on his lot untill at least two weeks. This allows me to have time for locating harvest trails and buffering watercourses, flagging existing lines (or surveying), preparing an operating plan and sending neighboring owners a letter of intent to harvest next to their lots. Then I would have to choose the right guy for the harvesting. Even guys I do cruises for don't move in on the lot for at least two weeks. Sounds like a real swindler with a bum deal for the owner. Hope everything works out for the owner(s). These folks are always targets, especially if they are in dire straights for $$ because of health care.
cheers
[edit] I forgot to add that this two weeks allows the owner to review the contract and when the operating plan is complete it could take a week or more to review and revise it also. Its the owner's land and he's the boss. ;)
This is a real tragedy, and makes the blood boil! At the pig roast, I had a really long conversation with Ron Scott about the benefits of hiring a forester--I wish I could've transcribed what he talked about and share it with other people, because I was completely sold on the benefits of hiring a forester to draw up a comprehensive woodland management plan. It's unfortunately too late for Raymond and his father, :( but hopefully more people will be available to avoid this kind of tragedy with the info here on the forum.
My dad's gun-shy about having his land harvested, because the two times in the past that timber was cut by a couple of unscrupulous loggers, his mother was completely taken advantage of. Thanks to the forum, and Ron in particular, the next time any timber is cut on our land it will be done the right way! In the face of a tragedy like Raymond's, I just think it's encouraging to share that the message is getting out. In fact, my dad and I just spoke about this today, and we're planning on calling the forester Ron recommended to begin drawing up a plan soon.
Raymond, fight the fight! Know you're not alone, since this unfortunately seems to be an al too common thread here on the forum. The good news is that you have the good folks here on the forum to give you some direction and some ammunition to fight this thing with. I'm convinced there's a special place in you-know-where for people like these hucksters! >:( >:( >:(
The only thing I would add to the above is to get to really know your forester. Not all foresters are like Ron or other foresters that frequent this forum.
Of the consulting foresters that are in my area, there are only a few that I would allow on a woodlot. The rest are just timber pushers and only care about the bottom line - thiers, not yours.
There are also some good procurement (company) foresters. Again, references should be used.
A lot of problems can be taken care of if you just take the time to get a second opinion. In Raymond's case, any competent logger would have told him that it was worth more. Any lawyer would have blown holes in the contract.
Thanks for all your support and ideas I have given them to my dad to give to his lawyer.As for a update on Aug.31 the logger,his lawyer,my dad and his lawyer are going to meet at the property and the logger is going to mark what trees he wants to complete the contract.It's either this or go to arbitration which my dad's lawyer didn't recomend because the contract was signed and he would lose.My dad is a very trusting person and when the logger and him looked at the area to be cut came to a verble agreement so when the contract was brought out it was sighed.One of the lines in the contract said all usable timber 16" or larger on the stump at the cutting height,this ended up being ground level and the 16" was measured from the outside of the root on each side of the stump so it might of been 12" one way but using the root made 16" the other this was never explained.Is this a normal way of measuring stump diameter? We did find one stump that was under 16" and took a picture of it.But in the contract it does say the woodcutter's have the right to cut multiple stemmed,scarred or otherwise deformed trees in order to obtain only the usable timber,and my dad's lawyer said they could use this as a reason for cutting it. Thank's again for all your replies and I will keep you updated on what happens.Raymond
I've never heard the term "At the stump". <edited by admin>
My contracts specify "Diameter at breast height" (roughly 5 feet above the ground for most people). When I grind stumps, they're mesured by their "diameter at root flare".
I hope everything works out in the end, Raymond. FWIW, you can at least file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. If anyone ever checks on him, it'll be on file.
Keep us posted!
Raymond
Thanks for the update. Especially after reading it, I strongly urge you to hire a consulting forester as your lawyer does not have the knowledge of logging practices to protect your interests in this case. At least talking to a good consulting forester or perhaps your state DNR forester may stop this job right where it is.
Gary
Insult to injury!!
I dissagree with your lawyer....they arent all good and dont all know how to win.........
I would not concede at this point and give him your woods!!!
Anywhere I practiced and was tought about forest mensuration, stump height is 0.3 m, measured from where the ground meets the base of the stem, on the high side of the stump. I've done residue and waste surveys on the west coast of BC and stumps higher than 0.3 m is a 'ding' against the logger (if defined in the cutting contract).
Here is an excerpt from the residue and waste manual (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hva/manuals/rwprocedures/Ch5-02.htm#P287_19799%20 )
Was stump height defined in the contract? Because if it wasn't, its assumed to be 0.3 m (12 inches) with regards to forest mensuration. BUT, you can't hold the guy to an general assumption. There are lots of things we can assume, but if it isn't written, too bad. The only exception to 0.3 m I could think of is, if the guy used a feller buncher or similar felling head which cuts into the butt flare of the tree. Which can be a pain in the keister when debarking pulpwood. Some mills reject that butt flare wood or make you buck the flare off.
cheers
Norm I am SO SORRY! You are correct regarding my post and I shold have thought it through better prior to posting.
I in know way was implying you but I know you know that. I apoligize to all those from the great state of Iowa if my post created any problems..........with one exception and thats to the intended person!
Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.
Kirk
<edited to protect the forum. To much info to I.D. there Kirk>
I sure wish you would send me the name of this guy. I want some attention brought to his way of doing business. I gaurantee I know who to talk to about him and who to sic on him. I bet I am friends with at least one of the places he tries to sell his ill gotten gains and maybe we could put a stop to that.
Get a forester involvoed. Odds are you Dads Lawyer aint going to know what he should about this.
By all means DON'T let that guy back on the property!!!
If the contract does allow him to cut trees to get to the merchantable trees, it still would not give him the right to remove the cull tree. Therefore if he has removed any logs from trees below 16" he is in violation of his own contract. I don't believe any court would allow him to cut trees below his own limits and remove those trees also. That would allow him to cut any tree, say it was in his way, and remove the logs without compensation to you.
Therefore, if you have proof that he has cut one tree below the limit and removed the logs, he has violated the contract!!!!!!!
You absolutely need a consulting forester and/or the state DNR involved. Many states have adopted a "Best Management Practices Act" and are cracking down on loggers like this that have been giving all loggers a bad reputation. A good forester could survey the site and determine if he has followed both the contract and best managemt practices and give your lawyer reason to stop this job now. Do not let him continue the destruction of your woods.
Gary
Well put... pretty much a license to clearcut. Who's to say what's in the way and what isn't? The guy who'll be benefitting the most, that's who.
I sincerely hope (and I'm sure the others here do as well) you don't let this go! If this idiot continues, the repercussions could take years to fully evidence themselves.
Start with soil erosion and work from there.
I'm not a lawyer but I stayed in a Holiday Inn once... ;D
Legal opinions are like doctors opinions, get more than one and make sure you get it from someone who specializes in that particular area.
I say it's time for a hanging >:( Get the law involved too. This guy needs to do some time for what he's done, has surely done before and will undoubtably do again in the future if he isn't put in place now.
Is it just possible there may be a 'side' to this 'story' that we don't know? I certainly don't support a logger doing what this one has been accused of doing. And do I agree with getting a knowledgable lawyer (assumming because of the comments that this one isn't) and/or a forester involved, and not letting this logger back on the property, and even 'hanging' this logger out to dry.
I'd like to see justice dealt out to anyone doing wrong. I'd go for more information in the meantime before suggesting anything too radical, and if a lawyer will take it to court, decide it there.
Getting a media story out may help too.
Hopefully Raymond's father will get some additional help and there will be a happy ending to this.
I like the media angle. 8)
It's something that most of us forget about, but it can be a very powerful tool. Even more powerful than the court system.
Besides the press, there are also local talk shows. You'll have to be careful not to use names, due to slander or station liabilities.
A couple of our local news stations do investigations into things like this. If they find something they can back up, they get a good story and you usually get help of some kind.
At the very least I WOULD shop around for a lawyer, heck our phonebook has it's own color coded area for lawyers, and it's a LOT more then a few pages thick!
The problem with getting the media involved is that you may stir up the anti-logging crowd and get as much attention for yourself as you get for the logger.
I don't think it is a good idea, especially with the frustration the anti-logging people are feeling with the new federal laws that are blocking their protests in the courts.
Gary
Gary_C
So, we should shy away from these anti's and be afraid of them (that is how they are so powerful now, IMO), as well as let the no-good logger get away with misleading the timber owner? Somehow, neither sits well with me.
If anything, the anti's might have interest on the side of the timber owner, in this case (for sure not the logger :) ).
In my state this would be considered criminal (FRAUD) most likely, due to several details,
particularly the extortion-like pressure they are putting on you through LEGAL means.
It sounds like he conned your dad in the serious state of health and older age...to sell all his timber ....or at least he says 25000 worth that he wants in compensation for what he paid 5000 for??????
Come on, that is the definition of fraud!!!!
As for your lawyer, sounds weak to me. Sometimes ya gotta fight for whats right.....I pray God gives ya strength through all this to stand and WIN
I ran this past another logger/mill owner. He's been around the business most of his life.
My first reaction and his is that you don't want arbitration. I've been involved with arbitration one time. It ends up that a panel of lawyers decide how things are going to be done.
What you really want is a jury trial. How do you think this guy's going to come off before 12 other people? I might even think about suing this guy for timber theft. Theft by deception.
In my state, timber is considered real estate until severed. Then it becomes personal property. Don't you have a period of time that you can back out of a contract? Real estate law may come into play.
first i want to say what this tree cutter did was aweful and he makes real loggers look bad. but this would have never happend if the property owner would have taking the time to read the contract. instead he wanted/needed the $5000 and then is upset that he didn't get the job done the way he wanted. remember he went to the cutter he didn't come to him. either way it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
While we all do dumb things and I'm sure we would all, in fairness, like to spread the blame, the fact remains that the integrity of a professional and his business depends on the way he treats customers
We all go to someone else who is knowledgeable about a profession that we know nothing or little about. That's why we have Plumbers, auto mechanics, welders, etc. We can't all know it all. This leaves the population in the lurch of believing someone is honest, dishonest or somewhere in-between from the get-go.
We all would like to believe in another's honesty,but, where do you go to find out? Sometimes we're just too ignorant to know where to check. In this case, do you check to see if he is a good logger or do you call the sheriff to see if he is a crook. Who would know that a call to a forester might solve all of the problems. Now...... is the forester in cahoots with some body?
Because of people who do business like this, every generation creates a more distrustful populace. Where business could once be done on a handshake, the younger set comes to the meeting protected by three lawyers. (All three seeing if they can trim his tail feathers when he isn't looking.
It's professionals like these that change the whole face of the world. There will always be dishonest folks. It's a shame that they seem to be found so frequently.
If there is one thing to be learned it is 'to be honest to the point that it hurts". "Nice" everybody to death. Make a customer think he got the best part of the deal, not that you did him a favor. Your actions not only paint you a public color but tint the entire profession to which you belong.
While some people think they can abuse a customer one time and never worry about it because the world is full of customers, they are wrong. It eventually comes back to haunt them.
If this tale is true and the logger did to this man what it sounds like he did, then he deserves to be hit with every penalty in the book of law, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail
Just as a side thought..... I wonder if this logger would appreciate his doctor prolonging the treatment of a broken leg or chainsaw wound because the doctor had a car payment to make?
Quote"Just as a side thought..... I wonder if this logger would appreciate his doctor prolonging the treatment of a broken leg or chainsaw wound because the doctor had a car payment to make?"
Tom, are you suggesting that someone should break the bad logger's legs and/or mess 'im up with a chainsaw? :D :D
If so, I suggest that a public tarring might be more approprate, or perhaps a "run o' the gauntlet" at the next county fair or logging expo. ;D
Seriously, I believe that the State Forester should be involved in this dispute.
Some towns in NH have a form that must be filled out and signed along with the intent to cut form. It warns of crooked loggers and SFIs and BMPs and wetland permits and all that. I think this should be a common thing in all towns in the US.
Any update on this Raymond? Did you have your meeting?
Sorry for the delay on giving you a update.It's been a busy fall with work and helping dad on his farm.The meeting did happen as scheduled.But before the meeting my parents did switch to a different lawyer and had a forester come in to evaluate the trees already cut as some of you had suggested.He estimated about $16,000 for the trees and another $4000 in damage to planted pine.This information was given to the loggers lawyer at the meeting.But his lawyer still said the contract was breached and the logger marked another 128 trees he wants to cut to settle the contract.My parents lawyer said that he wouldn't let him cut any more trees and it's been a waiting game since the meeting as we haven't heard back from the loggers lawyer.Does anyone know of a agency or person that investigates claims like these?The better business bureau said they can't do anything if it is in litigation.Thanks for all your ideas.Raymond,Also a update on dads prostrate cancer he was given a clean bill of health at his last checkup.Thanks again!!!
Well first of all and most important, great news on your Dad! I think Ron Scott can best answer this. I'm still thinking that a top notch forester experienced in this sort of thing, and his legal knowledge and contacts is going to be the answer.
Hurray for your Dads Lawyer on at least that decision of no more trees!
8) 8) 8)
Atleast it hasn't gotten any worse by losing more trees!
Hopefully a "certified forester" is working for you and the lawyer is "tearing" the contract apart as being a false taking of your trees and property beyond what is prudent and practical forest land stewardship as you "intended".
So far it appears good that your attorney says "no more trees". Let it go to a court's decision with all the facts laid out.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN 8) 8) Thank God you Dad has a clean bill of heath. That is the best news of all! AMEN!
Congradulations on the legal front. Sounds like things are taking a swing to your side!
Keep up the fight!
Kirk
I am glad Dad is doing well- that has to be a load off all in the family.
Also glad that no more trees go to the Badlogger.
Most likely the time will come when he wants to settle out of court, hope you don't give him one single "toothpick" he hasn't paid for, and that you collect for the other 11 grand in trees + damages + get back the original 5 and court costs, at the least.
I really have distain for people who try to take advantage of others
Good Luck