neighbor's fence partially on my property

[Ashton Crusher]

You're right, I did misread that. Happy to admit that mistake.

[Ed Pawlowski]

So the solution then, is to have someone drive through the fence forcing it to be rebuilt and properly located.

[DerbyDad03]

Take a deep breath before reading the next sentence because it's a long one...

So, IYHO, if Homeowner A says to Homeowner B's contractor, within earshot of a co-worker of said contractor, "Please make sure that you do not install that fence on my side of the line", but does not obtain a signed document from the contractor attesting to what was said, and the contractor and said co-worker in fact do install the fence on Homeowner A's property, the judge may take the word of the contractor and his crew over the word of Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.

If that was actually the case, then I guess any contractor could do whatever they wanted and then lie to the judge about having a conversation. What's the difference between the contractor and crew lying about what was said in an conversation that actually happened vs. simply making up a conversation that never occurred? As long as the homeowner can't prove that he never had the conversation, he would lose right?

IMHO, if there was a case of Homeowner A said-Homeowner B's contractor said, and Homeowner A was the one whose property was encroached upon by Homeowner B's contractor, the judge will side with Homeowner A. To side with the contractor puts us into the realm of allowing the taking of someone else's property with nothing more than the contractor saying "Your Honor, he said I could. Ask my partner, he'll back me up."

If you choose to believe that the judge will side with the contractor and his crew over the person whose property was encroached upon.

It may *remind* you of the situation with your Citation, but this case is so different that's not even worth comparing the two.

[leza wang]

had 40 years of boundary surveys under my belt and have been retained as an expert witness over land issues. Consider the following:

vey the last property in the block and find that it is only 24 feet wide. We verify that the block is 300 feet in total and find that the first prope rty is sitting on 26 feet width and everyone in between has exactly 25 feet . Subdivision is about 90 years old. All houses are about the same age. A judge would find it very inequitable to have every one of the owners move r their improvements by one (1) foot. All 10 of the interior lots are encr oaching on their neighbor by one foot. Fairness and equity are a big part of the law.

t ahead and built the fence on Don's property anyway. Any monkey with a

I agree, if it is 1 in or 3 feet, to me they are the same. why you build on other people property? and he has told them not to and showed them why. I have exactly same situation, the previous neighbor built it on my property. My current neighbor and I inherited this problem that is why we are ok wit h it even it is not fair; but his case is totally different, they could hav e avoided building that

[trader4]

I agree with your po A: He did not authorize it

B: He saw they were going to build the fence on his property and told them not to.

C: There was a clear boundary line, no dispute as to where it was

D: The fence got built on the property anyway.

All the rest is at best he said, she said. Very easy for a judge to just cut through all that crap, if it's even raised and tell them to move the 20 ft fence. Ashton is going on like having to move that stupid little fence is some great burden on those that put it there. It's a little

20ft fence built on the wrong property.

Ahmen to that brother. In Ashton's world, a neigbor can put up a fence on your property, despite being told not to and then somehow it's up to you to prove that you really, really needed that property, to get it back. To prove that it's a hardship on you to lose a bit of your property. I think you and I agree courts don't like to reward bad behavior. If they OK this, then why wouldn't the next shyster neighbor or contractor pull the same thing, only worse?

[Ashton Crusher]

Now that's outside the box!!

[Ashton Crusher]

All I'm saying is that the judge can ONLY go by what is testified to/produced as evidence in court. Combine that with a 1.5" error. As has been said before, if this was a 1.5 FOOT error it would be something clearly amiss. As one of the other posters mentioned, there is some legal saying about disputes that are so trivial as to not be court-worthy. IMHO this is in that general area. Not sure if it was you or someone else but the question has been asked before, at what point is an error so meaningless and trivial that you wouldn't argue about it... 1/32", 1/16", 1/8", half inch, inch, 1.5" or ????

It's going to depend on the facts of the case. Yes, they could lie about having teh conversation but that wasn't what was discussed in this case - I don't think anyone said anyone else was going to be lying about whether an actual conversation took place. You have introduced a new issue, the issue of "WAS" there a conversation. So if the contractor says there was, and the owner says there wasn't you have a different circumstance then when both agree there WAS a conversation but disagree on what they believed was agreed to.

So under your theory a confirming witness is to be an assumed liar. And I suppose if there is a third confirming witness that will just be MORE evidence that they are all lying. Interesting theory.

I don't think the judge is going to "side" with anyone. He's going to rule based on what is introduced in court. If everyone said "we never talked to anyone" then it's easy for the judge to simply look at the magnitude of the error, whether it actually damages the homeowner, and rule on it. If people all say "we talked about it" but one side says "... and agreed we could have the posts split the line." but the other side says "....and agreed it would all be off MY property.", now the judge might take the possibility of misunderstanding into account ,or maybe he wouldn't. For some reason you seem to think I'm saying the contractor will ALSWAYS win so he should ALWAYS cheat. I've never said that he'll always win, only that I think his odds are good that he will win this particular one based on the facts in evidence.

[Ashton Crusher]

Yes, it's so obvious that a 1.5" error is no different then a 1.5 foot error, or a 15 foot error. And a 0.15" error is similarly just as much a violation of the property line and also would be ruled by a judge as sufficient to warrant moving the fence. I know I'm convinced.

[God]

Enough already, here's my ruling:

Since both parties benefit from the fence, the fence shall be moved so that the center of the fence posts shall be exactly on the lot line.

The net result will be that an equal amount of fence thickness will reside on both sides of the lot line.

[trader4]

There you go again. From all that's been stated, it's *not* likely an error.

As

All indications are that it's *not* an error. 1.5" of land use loss on a tiny NYC backyard is *not* insignificant. A judge is also going to apply any de minimus concepts differently when the neighbor's workers were specifically told not to put the fence on the man's property. And good grief, any halfway competent worker can place a string line and easily tell that they are encroaching 1.5" on a 20 ft long backyard fence.

Now, you then think it's up to the rightful property owner to then prove that he's somehow harmed in a significant way for the judge to do the most simple, direct thing, which is to order the little 20 ft fence moved. You seem to want to apply some strange, reverse criminal level of proof standard. It's not enough that the fence is obviously on the wrong property. The rightful property owner, according to you, must mount every hurdle, every presumption in favor of the illegal fence, every excuse, beyond a reasonable doubt, to get that fence removed.

Seems everyone else here thinks it shouldn't and doesn't usually work that way.

A confirming witness? It's not an independent witness. It's the jerk or jerk's who built the fence on the wrong property. The folks who are going to have to move it if they lose. How much credibility do they have and why would a judge believe them over the property owner? A lawyer would have a field day with this guy. Questions like how long have you been building fences? Did you even tell the owner you were working for that you were going to put the fence on my client's property? Your an experiences professional, if my client authorized you to put the fence on his property, why on earth would you do so without getting it in writing.....? And hence, I agree with Derby, a judge isn't likely to take his word over that of the homeowner. It's simple. Which is more likely? That the property owner who is concerned about 1.5" gave permission, but now changed his mind, or that the workers who built it where it did not belong are lying?

What's interesting is how you want to apply every hurdle imaginable, every flimsy excuse, in favor of the skunks who built a fence on another guy's property. You think it's up to the rightful owner to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps beyond EVERY doubt, that the fence should go. All he has to do is tip the balance of the scales beyond 50-50 to win the case. From everything I see here, he has way more than that on his side.

All the "facts" in evidence suggest exactly the opposite. So much so that YOU are inventing "facts" to try to change the case.

[trader4]

Do you live in the real world? You have a backyard where a 20' long fence is going to be erected. We have two pins that mark the endpoints that are agreed on. Now, could a fence contractor put up a fence as close as possible to that line and make certain that they didn't go over the line by .15"? Using commonly available tools, yes, if they really wanted to, they could do that. One obvious and simple way is just build the fence over by 1" or so on your own property, to make sure there is some margin for error. Nothing hard about that, unless you're a skunk who wants to walk all over other people, take advantage of them.

But if somehow they went over by .15", it's something that workers taking reasonable care, might do and then I would agree a court would probably say it's de minimus. But 1.5" you could avoid with a $1 string line. And in my book, the standard for accuracy and due diligence goes up greatly when the property owner previously told them not to do it. Plus, as stated there is an OBVIOUS reason they went over the 1.5", which is to avoid a zig-zag around a utility pole. All the evidence suggests it was deliberate,

*not* a mistake.

[Kurt Ullman]

In any such case I am familiar with, if there is any kind of he said controversy, the rule is that they default to what is on paper. I really don't think a non-documented bit of discussion would hold much weight. The judge should look at the documentation and rule based on the deed.

[dennisgauge]

What the hell do you mean by "slice off?"

Are you talking about splitting the posts vertically or something? What about the part underground?

Frankly, you've only made a half-hearted attempt to contact the owner about the issue. You probably emailed or called a whopping one time and left a voicemail...

If this is such a big deal to you put some real effort into making contact, and don't let up until you physically talk to someone.

[dennisgauge]

Jeezus Kee-rist, email is NOT the way to handle this. Everybody is so damned timid and shy, afraid of human contact.

Email is still not a primary business correspondence on things of importance. You need to pay the contractor a physical visit, or call him on the phone and talk with him personally.

[trader4]

I would disagree. Today email is a primary means of business communications. And unlike a visit or a phone call, you have proof of what you sent, what their reply was. If you wind up in court, that is good evidence. With a call or conversation, there is no proof of who said what.

If they ignore emails, for something where I want to put them on notice, I'd send a registered letter.

[Don Wiss]

Yes. If I left the top alone he wouldn't even know. He can't see my side. I would leave what is underground. Right now I waiting for the city to cite him for it being overheight. And to see what the city says about it being an inadequate retaining wall. Right now the wall is already bulging out onto my property.

It appears that on the side walls there is cement board between the soil and the 3/4" cedar. There is not along the back wall.

I want to put a fence across my backside. It will be mahogany. It will last

50 years. I don't want to have to put it 2" inside the property line.

The fence is at an angle. One post is 1-7/8" inside. The next post is

1-1/2" inside. And the last two posts can't be easily measured, but let's say 1-1/4" inside.

I do not have an e-mail address for the owner. Nor is there a phone number. Walking around the block is the only way I have to contact him. When I did meet with him I gave him my card and he said he would e-mail me. He did not. I gather his tactic is to simply ignore me and hope I give up.

The city can take 40 days to come inspect. Someone else complained about the fence height. It took them 45 days to visit. I don't know where they measured from (not my property), and the inspector claimed it was okay.

Don.

(e-mail link at home page bottom).

[clare]

From his side it likely IS legal - above the fill.

[Don Wiss]

The regulations state it is measured from the natural terrain. There is

86-1/2" of wood siting on top of the soil when viewed from my side. Maximum is 72".

Don.

(e-mail link at home page bottom).

[clare]

Like I said - from owners side it appears legal

[hrhofmann]

They have a survey. I also have a survey from the same surveyor. I showed t hem where the line was. But they went ahead and did this in order to have t he entire top fit behind a phone pole that is on their property. Had they n ot faced the good side towards themselves, it would not have been an issue. All that is on my property are the 4x4 posts and the top. Do I have the ri ght to slice the posts and top right at the line? The fence back is attache d to the fence sides, which would give it stability. The reason for doing t his is the properties are staggered. I'm adding a fence to the back where t his fence isn't, and it won't line up. I know I have the right to cut off t ree limbs that hang over. But do I also have the right to cut back a fence that is hanging over? Don.

(e-mail link at home page bottom ).

When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail ret urn receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a l ot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most o f it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violatio n of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the of fending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing wha tever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things h ave been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggest ed.