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
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 06:14:28 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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.
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...
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).
On 06-30-2013 09:12, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:12:53 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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
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
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
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?
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.
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?
Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.
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.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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....."
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
"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?
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
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
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.