From where I come from, no permit is needed for a 120 square foot "accessory building" (sans utilities), no matter how 'permanent' the foundation (under 12 feet in height).
The 'setback', unfortunately, is 100 feet from the road and 6 feet from the property line.
Easements would be the responsibility of the title company. So, the OP bought the house with a mortgage, there's almost certainly a title company involved.
If there is any expense due to unknown easements, then the title company should be responsible for those costs. Of course, the cost of moving such a tiny shed should be minimal - but - I must ask the OP.
OP: What did the title company say about this situation?
The problem as I pointed out is none of us know what the contract actually says. The OP only said something to the effect that the back of the contract says he's liable for permits which is his interpetation of what it says. I've had contractors give me quotes that say I'm responsible for the cost of permits. Unless we have the exact verbage, you're just speculating.
As to my name, it's been there in every post if you looked.
A permit is required here in rural NJ, hardly a big city. It's also unclear exactly what he means by easement. He says they placed it only 4 ft from a fence and that an "easement" requires 10 ft. Sounds to me more like the municipality requires it be setback min 10ft from the property line, which is not unusual. I agree that if it is truly an easement issue unique to that property then the contractor would not know about it.
Respectfully disagree. I've always seen just what was in the first line above. The "Chet" was added just recently. Believe me, I would have noticed because among my many pet peeves is Usenetters who select an alias that has no human name attached. Maybe others will chime in on this, but only recently have I ever seen your first/real name on a posting. Who here knew Trader4's first name before quite recently?
formatting link
There are many hits showing your full name (Chet Hayes) in 2004 and just recently, but in the intervening times, it's just been Trader. Look for yourself. Find something in the year 2010, for example, that shows "Chet" - I can't.
1 result for chet group:alt.home.repair 2010 game codes 007 game cheat codes 007 nightfire cheat codes game cube 10 codes redeemed play deposit games 100 game cube cheats and codes 100 percent working game ...... codes 2008 jelsoft enterprises ltd games codes 2009 jelsoft enterprises ltd games codes 2010 jelsoft enterprises ltd games codes and cheat games codes cracks ... Jan 8 2010 by Nathan Grimm - 1 message - 1 author
7 results for chet group:alt.home.repair 2008 game codes 007 game cheat codes 007 nightfire cheat codes game cube
10 codes redeemed play deposit games 100 game cube cheats and codes 100 percent working game ... codes bee movie game hints cheats codes beep codes during game play beijing 2008 game cheat codes bejeweled 2 game registration codes bejeweled game access codes ... Jan 8 2010 by Nathan Grimm - 1 message - 1 author
Leaf Blowers Red Green postmas...@127.0.0.1 alt home repair snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008
20:28:19 -0800 ... I've had enough of lawn care for this year but I've got to do it and want to get it overwith :) Chet\ I've had a Toro electric ($70 or so) for five years now . ... Nov 21 2008 by Red Green - 40 messages - 25 authors
HDTV Chet Hayes snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net alt home repair Bob Urz
2008+ before it happens. Notice how many cheaper TV's have the new tuners and circuitry. ... Nov 17 2004 by Chet Hayes - 20 messages - 14 authors
Leaf Blowers Phisherman snipped-for-privacy@noone.com alt home repair On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:57:49 -0500, "CGB" wrote: Will be purchasing one. ... I've had enough of lawn care for this year but I've got to do it and want to get it overwith :) Chet\ I have tried several types and now satisfied with a gas-powered back-pack ... Nov 19 2008 by Phisherman - 40 messages - 25 authors
Leaf Blowers snipped-for-privacy@dog.com alt home repair On Mon, 17 Nov 2008
20:28:19 -0800 (PST), Joe < snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: On Nov 17, 9:57 pm, "CGB" Uneducated, uninformed, mentally challenged, political conservative who
Of course anyone with a high school education knows that this is total BS. And there goes your credibility.
Usually the statement of "Look, I'm not sure what to do here. So, I'm going to ask the Contractor's Board what I should do, and make a report with them, and then go by what they tell me" is enough to have the contractor out there miraculously the next morning. If not, make a Contractor's Board complaint so that this guy's actions are answerable. I bet he gets on it right away. And you should have to pay nothing. That would have been the scenario in Nevada, where I was a contractor for nine years. Most contractors do not want written complaints, and will do what needs to be done to rectify the situation to the owner's satisfaction.
It sure must be SUCH an issue with you as evidenced by your need to so definitively document it above. As you discovered, Google used to include it and I just assumed they continued to do so, but they do not.
Had to LOL at your response. If you indeed took a 50 cent class in law, one of the first things you would've learned is; the contract _IS LIMITED_ to the 4 corners of the paper it is written on.
No, that's not what was said. The "boilerplate" contract stated any required permits were the responsibility of the property owner. That contract would be used for a fence, pool, addition, window replacement, roof replacement, etc. Doesn't meen a permit was required, or the contractor knew a permit was required.
Even when permits are NOT required, minimum setbacks, fence heights, etc are still mandated by bylaws which must be adhered to. These same bylaws determine if a permit is required by the size and construction of the shed, etc., being proposed.
It is the OWNERS responsibility to know about easements existant on the property and to avoid impinging on them.
Yep. But there are two contracts going on here. The first party says "I'll perform so-and-so and I'll give you a piece of paper to memorialize it." Subsequently when the 1st party proffers a piece of paper at variance with his original promise, the first contract is voided. Now we have a new contract which, as you said, is governed by the four corners. If the 2nd party is still under the impression that it's the first promise simply put down in writing - and he can prove it - there is no contract.
There are dozens of other ambiguities that can void a contract. For example, unless the initial contract says "Buyer is responsible for the stuff on pages two through 12" anything past the first page may be thrown out. If the contract is at variance with the law or social norms, such as "six one-hour sex activities in lieu of a down-payment," the contract is voidable. If the contract is written in a language that one party does not know, and that party relies on the word of the other party, the contract can be voided.
Common these days is litigation involving cell phones. Does the statement: "Sign up for a 3-year contract and get a phone absolutely free" include the $30 sales tax on the phone? (It does). "One year contract" in bold letters on the front - "automatically renewed for two more years" on the back in fine print gets thrown out.
Again, where the bargaining power of the two parties is grossly unequal, the courts are usually quite sympathetic to the underdog.
As I said previously the big unknown here is exactly what the contract says regarding permits and that is key. For example I have seen contractors give out quotes where it says it's the responsibility of the homeowner to PAY for permits. Meaning the way they work it the contractor gets the permits, but the homeowner pays for them. And certainly plenty of contracts have been written with poor wording that can be ambiguos. Without knowing what the contract in question says, no one here can know for sure what exactly it does or does not say.
And in line with what you say, if the contract has any ambiguity, the judicial resolution favors the party that did not write it and is not the professional in the field.
It sure must be SUCH an issue with you as evidenced by your need to so definitively document it above. As you discovered, Google used to include it and I just assumed they continued to do so, but they do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- It's an issue because I'm experiencing short term memory loss and it's important to me to know what memory loss is real and what's not. It would be scary to think that it was there for hundreds of posts and I either missed or forgot it. Also, as a former reporter, it's important to me to put a name to a statement just because that's how I was trained.
Your name suddenly appearing on your posts was notably different from previous posts and I wanted to know why. It could have been someone trying to spoof you. Now I know. Your explanation makes perfect sense. It's no big thing, but I do feel it's important to get things right. Credibility and all that.
I didn't think you'd believe me without any proof, which is why I spent all of 40 seconds to search Google and do a quick cut and paste. This interchange also reminded me that newsreaders are not the end-all, be-all way to interact with Usenet. Most newsreader/servers would be hard-pressed to find messages from 7 months ago, let alone 7 years. Google, as you suggested earlier, provides functionality lacking from most newsreaders. We're actually in agreement about the big ruckus over posting from Google to be a tempest in a teapot. As is this name business. (-:
Precisely. There's a difference between asking a contractor to do something clearly illegal, like bypassing an electric meter and something that might not even require a permit, like erecting a shed. The builder is not a title company and has specifically excluded his liability for pulling any required permits. While the builder might indeed move the shed for free or for a small fee in response to a complaint to the licensing board, I can't see the owner prevailing in court for the reasons you've mentioned. I don't even really see any licensing board compelling the contractor to move the shed because of the contract the homeowner signed. The contractor merely has to complete the job in a workmanlike fashion that conforms to common industry practice to cover his butt.
That's true. Had the contract been silent with no mention of permit responsibility the homeowner might have had a leg to stand on, but the fact that he's aware that permits were his responsibility is a big mountain to climb. A judge is likely to say "Why didn't you ask the contractor what that meant before signing it?" I think it's actually lucky that the OP ran into this issue on such a small matter. He'll be a LOT more careful in the future when he signs a contract and that's a good thing.
Dude, where did you learn such crazy things? A written contract causes any preceding oral agreement to die an instant death unless its terms are incorporated in writing. Courts could not function if litigants were allowed to claim all sorts of oral addenda or previous oral contracts. Carmen is correct in saying that the writing supercedes all that and only written modifications either made to that contract or clearly added to it and agreed by both sides are enforceable in court. The "four corners" rule. Oral representations are almost universally totally meaningless in real estate cases. Only writings are considered.
Gack!!!!!! The beat-down of years of American jurisprudence goes on. Why do you think contracts are page numbered "page 1 of 10?" To prevent fraudulent additions or modifications. That's why lawyers advise clients to initial or even sign every page, and especially if there are modifications that benefit them.
Typically the illegal sections are labeled unenforceable, but if properly worded, all other provisions stand. That's severability. If the entire contract is contrary to public policy, it can be voided.
A contract may be voided if performance becomes impossible as in roofing a building that just burned down. But if the job is more difficult that foreseen (our vent hole case) that's tough luck and does not void the contract.
Funny how all the Hispanic homebuyers aren't able to use HeyBub's law to escape their responsibilities.
There are definite legal situations where a contract can be voided. One is if you've entered into a contract with a minor. It it usually their option to either perform or void the contract.
Lack of mental capacity can void a contract if it can be shown the signer lacked the faculties to understand what he was signing.
If there are mistakes in the contract made by both parties, the contract can be voided, but usually not if only one side errs.
Fraud can void a contract. If you're LifeLock and tell customers their data is stored on a secure, encrypted server and that's not true, that's fraud and they can get their money back and sue for any consequential damages arising from the misrepresentation.
Nonsense. Partly because no phone contract that I know of allows signers to go to court in the first place. They are restricted to binding arbitration. Your "free phone" example doesn't exist, AFAIK, because phone companies put the buyer on notice that they are responsible for paying all applicable sales taxes. Those contracts also typically state that any change to the service for any reason resets the contract expiration date. It's a rotten, stinking way to do business, but it's far more legal than the voter disenfranchisements you so often claim are legal.
formatting link
I think you're confused about something: the difference between an unenforceable clause and an entirely voided contract. The only time in recent history I can recall a law saying "if any part of this law is challenged successfully, the entire law becomes void" is the NYS gay marriage law. It was including to prevent gay rights activists from chipping away at the law by challenging various portions they don't like. It also appears in wills - anyone challenging this will is automatically disinherited. Both provisions serve to protect the integrity of the law or will at stake.
Most contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if one clause is deemed invalid, the rest still stands.
The last time I got a permit, they didn't care about easements. They only cared about the permit fee (and pretended they cared about code inspections, but I have my doubts).
Thanks. It's no big thing. I just like to keep track of how fast my memory is degrading. )-: A new and disturbing symptom is appearing where the words in my mind are NOT what comes out of my fingers. I'll mean to type "precipitate" and write "participate" and far worse. The brain doc (can't remember the word!!!) ah, neurologist gives me all these fancy tests and then says "Don't worry about it" when the scores come out lower and lower. How can you not worry about it? Reminds me of that movie "Charly" and not in a good way. Thanks for confirming this wasn't on me but was the dastardly Google's fault.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.