neighbor's fence partially on my property

Page 8 of 12  
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:24:08 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

So you suborn perjury?

I saw nothing that indicated teh back yard was "tiny" or that the lost of the 1.5" was going to create the slightest problem.
RE Taxes are not based on how many square inches of lot you have.

It's just the facts.

Just the facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/1/2013 2:38 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

<snip>

Did you not see that his back yard is (was) 29' 5-3/4" deep while NYC zoning requires a 30' rear yard. It is patently illegal and subject to DOB violation to make your property less complying in terms of zoning

--
Peace,
bobJ

>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC-4, Marilyn & Bob wrote:

Good point that shows 1.5" less just makes things worse for him.

As they are in most cities and towns. My tax bill has an assessment for the land and one for the improvements. The tax on the land is based on it's size.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DerbyDad03 wrote:

Also I am wondering what is surveyor's allowed margin of error? Making enemy of neighbor with 1.5" overlook or mistake or whatever. Is it worth it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 06:14:28 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

I'm not missing anything. It doesn't matter what the law says. What matters is what the judge says. And the law doesn't say you "can't build something on another man's property." At best it might say "you may not....". Obviously you CAN build something on another man's property, just as happened her. Once that happens the parties to the dispute must seek a remedy. If they cannot agree on a remedy between themselves then they must go to court. At that point you have no assurance of what could happen.
And to return to what's been said before, given that you CAN build on another property, and that people DO build on others property, the LAW even has provisions for those bad bad bad people who did that dastardly act to actually wind up OWNING the other person's property thru the LEGAL means of ADVERSE POSSESSION. So VERY clearly the LAW recognizes that people CAN and DO build on others property and has even made LEGAL provisions to ACCEPT the encroachment.
One thing I do agree with you on is that "the remedy is simple" in this case. If you can't show any actual damage other then your pride you will very likely have to live with it because quite frankly, moving a fence over 1.5" is just silly and stupid when it affects nothing of meaning. So the remedy is to get over it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If it was me, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably not sue though. I may even settle out of court for a good bottle of bourbon. If it was six inches, a foot, yes, it would not be so simple.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

But judges do tend to follow the law. Otherwise we would have chaos. And that gets back to my original point. Judges don't sit there and listen to all sides, then decide what they think is fair. That is a common misconception. They follow the law. Hence, I gave you the example of a contract, where later one party thinks that the "fair" price of the contract should have been $1000, yet the contract says $2000. A judge isn't going to say, "well, you're right, that truck should have only cost you $1000. Or it isn't "fair" that 2 weeks later it needed a new transmission. The judge is going to look at the law. You entered into a contract for $2000, the truck was sold as-is. Pay the $2000. That was my point, but then you tried to say this isn't a contracts case. Doesn't matter, the points regarding the law vs fairness are valid.

Sure, and it doesn't say you can't trespass, steal, or murder either, just that you "may not", right?
Obviously you CAN build something on another man's

Sure, there is never a 100% assurance as to what will happen. But in your world, you think that it's somehow OK for a neighbor's contractors, architect, etc to DELIBERATELY build a fence on someone else's property even after being told *not* to do it. There was no disagreement, no legitimate dispute, no uncertainty where the line was. You think courts reward that kind of behavior, by then telling the poor sap to just eat it. I think there is an overwhelming likelihood that the court will tell them to move the fence. Courts don't tend to reward bad behavior for obvious reasons. The next shyster will pull the same thing.

Adverse possession is not specific to building on a property. And again, that whole process takes 20 years and requires that the party PAY THE TAXES on the property. It's a million light years from what is going on here.

You must like letting people walk all over you. I for one, don't. It's not just the 1.5", it's the principle of not letting some skunk take advantage of you. Who is that neighbor to decide what part of my property is or is not important? And what's the big deal with him and/or his contractor eating it and paying to move 40 ft of fence? Good grief...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To put things in perspective. The back side neighbor's property is 21' wide. It is a rare one that is more than the standard 20'. On my block most don't even have 20'. There are a bunch of 18' and inches, some 18', four that are 16.25' and one that is 12.5' wide.
My back yard is 20' x 29' 5-3/4".
Land here is worth about $800/sq ft. Maybe more. There are no empty plots. It makes it hard to apportion between land and house value.
Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2013 10:18 AM, Don Wiss wrote:

required to have a 30' rear yard. While your 29' 5-3/4" is probably grandfathered in, it is an illegal code violation to make it any less than that.
--
Peace,
bobJ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06-30-2013 09:12, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I'm sure many of them do. I hope the majority. But I've been in court more than once and I've seen the other more than once.
On one occasion, the judge said (with the court recorder still transcribing!) that the covenants were violated but that he the paperwork required for ruling that way was inconvenient.
--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:12:53 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Well it does matter. There is a significant difference between "contract law" and "a dispute". But even with a contract there is no assurance the judge is going to stick blindly to the exact requirements.. he may very well look at intent. What was the intent of the contract... and that can cut both ways. But as I said, this is not a contract law case.
Also, which I think some people fail to understand, this is NOT a criminal case where the law is often fairly specific about "remedies" but it is a civil case. As such the judge WILL listen to both sides and almost assuredly will be looking for a FAIR resolution. And in some cases a FAIR resolution might even mean that a fence 0.5" "too far" might have to be moved, if, for example, it prevented cars from coming thru the entrance to a parking garage and therefore ruined the garage's business. It might also mean that a fence 16 feet "too far" and 3 miles long might get to stay because it's out in the middle of nowhere dividing one guys 10,000 acres from the other guys 10,000 acres.

I don't think you'll find the laws written in terms of "You can't/may not murder people/or other criminal acts". I think you'll find them writing more along the lines of this from AZ statues...
13-1105. First degree murder; classification A. A person commits first degree murder if: 1. Intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child.

I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate? We know he started in the wrong place. Was told it was wrong. Then he started over. Apparently it was still in the wrong place but we have no insight at this time as to whether that was deliberate or a mistake.
If the contractor testified in court "Yeah Your Honor, I knew it was being built in the wrong place but I really didn't care." the outcome might be different then if he said "I thought I had moved it back to the right line, I'm as shocked as anyone that it was STILL encroaching, I don't know how this happened but it was an honest mistake and the 1.5" error isn't hurting the guys property."

In AZ it doesn't require any payment of taxes and doesn't take 20 years but in other states it could well be different. In any case, the point is the same even if you wish to ignore it.

Are you a new Yorker? You sound like one. Lets fight over the trivial, ...... So if it's the "principle" will you fight over this if the error is a quarter inch?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, July 1, 2013 3:00:41 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

It's not a dispute. It's one party building a fence on another man's property, without permission, despite being told *not* to do so. That's like saying trespassing is a "dispute". Or building a driveway over another guys land is a dispute. It's a violation of law. There was no dispute over where the property line was. Both parties had the same survey showing the exact same thing.

Say it some more if it makes you feel good. I've told you 3 times now, that I never said it was a contracts case. I only gave you that contract case example to show that courts don't go to "fairness" unless it's necessary. They first are there to enforce and follow the law. So, just like you can't violate a contract and expect it to be settled by a judge on "fairness" instead of law, neither can you expect to flagerantly build a fence on another mans property and expect a judge to settle it based on some perception of fairness, as opposed to law.

I don't see anyone here saying anything to remotely suggest that.
As such the judge WILL listen to both sides

Again with the fairness. Good grief. No. The judge will first apply the LAW.
And in

Did any of those get put into place despite the legal property owner having told them not to put the fence on their property? With the property boundary clearly marked, knows to both parties? Do you like to let people walk all over you, flip you the finger?

Yawn....

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.
We know

Good grief. This isn't a freaking $1mil concrete house that was built on property the neighbor doesn't own. It's a freaking 20 ft fence. What the hell exactly is so hard about the neighbor doing the right thing and moving that fence? The total cost would be less than going to a lawyer for an opinion.

Point? What point? This is not about adverse possession.

No, I'm not a New Yorker. I'm just an American who stands up for my rights and won't let some neigbor skunk walk all over me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

If there's no dispute then what's the problem??

Next time some wants to know how to scramble eggs I guess you'll tell them all about how to fry chicken eh?

The "law" consists of various precedents. IOW, it's not just a book that says "do this" bing badda boom, case closed. Perhaps in a eviction action it might be simple like that but this isn't an eviction action.

Yes, of course they did. That's why its called ADVERSE possession. If you are aware of it, object to it, but do nothing but bitch you may eventually lose the land thru adverse possession. If you are aware of it, don't demand correction, but state you'll allow it with conditions (which don't have to include money), you won't lose it thru adverse possession because you will have granted an easement instead.
The OP in this case, if he chooses to not attempt to get it moved, might be well advised to get something in writing stating what happened and granting an easement until such time as something comes up that actually requires the fence be moved to allow him to continue to enjoy his property.

Nope. But I'm not an asshole either. You keep assuming all manner of things we don't know.

Not unexpectedly, when you are shown to be blowing smoke out your ass you suddenly lose interest.

Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.

Not my call. Assuming the posts are in concrete there will be some work involved in moving it and when it's moved over that 1.5" what will the net result be in any practical sense? Nothing. But I guess that kind of thing would make you feel like a BIG MAN. Yeah mofo, nobuddy gonna push me around.

You didn't answer the question. If this was quarter inch over the line would you demand it be moved? How about 3/8 inch? Half inch? Please, lets hear what your limit is since clearly you thing 1.5" is too much. Lets get your lower limit and then think about how a judge will react.

Yeah, the NEIGHBOR surely must have instructed his contractor to "Go screw that guy, build it 1.5" on his side and let him take me to court. Obviously both owners and contractors just love to needlessly, and for ZERO benefit, put themselves in a position to be sued and/or to have to do work over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...Major Snippage Occurred...

Ashton,
Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said, since you keep claiming he didn't say them.
Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:
"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it up?"
To which he replied:
”I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the pole.”
2 3/4” would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5” placed only part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole. That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's side of the pole.
Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it." Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's property.
Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:54:07 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes back to what I said before about the difference between what people "said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later that "I thought you meant....."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.
Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement was a mistake?
When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said things like:
"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"
It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to where to place the fence.
I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:57:16 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03

I guess you didn't understand what I posted. Yes, Don feels he made himself clear i.e. Don't put it on my property. But is that what was "heard"? Does he have it in writing? Did he tell the OWNER, not just the owners agent. I'm not saying my position is necessarily "fair" from Don's point of view, just what might well happen in court when there is nothing but -he said, she said- testimony. The judge wasn't there, he can only make his decision based on what the plaintiff and defendant tell him combined with any actual facts (surveys, photographs, contract documents, actual impact) that can be introduced.
I agree with you that my characterization of Don's original statement was wrong, However, unless the contractor testifies in court that he put it there knowing it was against the explicit demands of Don not to it won't change the likelihood of what will happen in court . So I don't agree that we know the mistake was deliberate, it could have been a misunderstanding. It's also a safe bet that if it goes to court, and Don has nothing signed on paper, or a tape recording of teh conversation, the contractor will probably have a bad memory of exactly what was said. Heck, teh contractor could turn the fact that there was a conversation against Don. Had their been no conversation there could have been no agreement with Don as to where the fence might go. Absent such conversation the logical starting point would be that it shouldn't go on Don's property. However, once Don and teh contractor agree that there was a conversation it opens the door to there having been a agreement for it being placed somewhere other then all on the other owners property. The admission of the conversation without any documentation of what was agreed to could weaken Don's case, not strengthen it. Now if there were not only ONE contractors person in teh conversation but a second one, and still only Don for his side, you would wind up in court with two people from the contractors saying "Don said it was OK to put the posts half on his side." This is why going to court is a last resort and a crap shoot.
With what we know, it remains, IMHO, a losing court battle.
It reminds me of when I had an 80 Chevy Citation. The brakes sometimes didn't work and it could be dangerous when pulling out of a parking lot if you had to stop immediately after having given it the gas. No matter how hard you pushed on the brake pedal it only had about 20% stopping power. Lots of other people had the same complaint but it was not easily reproducible and the gvt wouldn't order a recall. I called an attorney about it. After explaining teh danger and my concerns he said "Are you going to park the car and not drive it anymore until teh case is settled? If not, you are going to be in the position that you think the car is too unsafe to drive yet you would be continuing to drive it." A classic no win situation. As luck would have it, someone T-boned and totaled the car not long after.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So the solution then, is to have someone drive through the fence forcing it to be rebuilt and properly located.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now that's outside the box!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.