The parties of the Aska Rapids Case won a reprieve this week, as Judge Brenda Weaver gave the parties involved another thirty days to negotiate and determine a disputed property line.

During a hearing Tuesday, August 28th, Judge Weaver presided over a years-long civil case regarding a property dispute on Aska Road near the Toccoa River in an area known as the Aska Rapids.

Shortly after the start of the Tuesday hearing, Attorney Lynn Doss, representing the defendants, requested a pre-trial conference. Mr. James Bass, representing the plaintiffs, agreed and the two sides spent the next fifteen minutes or so in conference. When the conference ended, Weaver recommended the two sides survey the land in question and return to court with the results in thirty days, at which time she would render a decision on the case. Present at the hearing, County Commission Chair Bill Simonds agreed to allow the defendants to utilize the county surveyor to complete the land survey. And, the plaintiffs would use their own surveyor for the same purpose. In thirty days, the two parties will return to court with a consensus on the property, defining the delineation between county and private property.

The civil action case was initially brought as a trespass case in 2008, Doss wrote in an overview sent to FYN this week. She also noted that the land in question was deeded to Fannin County in 1966 by Lonnie Frisbee, adding that Frisbee was the predecessor in title to the plaintiffs in this action.

In the overview, Doss emphasized that, although she is the defense in this case, she is not representing the county as county attorney and not as a paid attorney. When asked who she was representing then, she said simply, “Joe Public.” In a conversation with FYN this week she explained she decided to represent the defense in this case for the public good, suggesting that a plaintiff win could prevent the public from utilizing an area which it has used for generations.

The case started when plaintiffs were upset with rafters and tubers exiting the river and loitering near their residences, claiming they were trespassing. Rather than bringing the legal action against the alleged trespassers, though, they brought their case against several near-by river outfitters.

“The Court suggested that the outfitters were not a proper Defendant,”

Doss wrote in her overview,

“in that they themselves were not the parties that might have engaged in the trespass unless it could have been shown that the outfitters were specifically instructing their clients to leave the river at the point in question.”

The prohibition of the rafters and tubers to this access point could also drive away business for the outfitters involved in the case. Regardless, though, Doss argues the land in question is county land, based on the 1966 deed.

See 1966 Plat below