Take a deep breath before reading the next sentence because it's a long
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.
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 6:32:16 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I agree with your point here. The one irrefutable fact is that
there is a 20 ft fence built on land that the owner of the land
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?
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:40:00 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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
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.
I assume the posts are in concrete but that may be a bad assumption. I
have to wonder if the people who are so insistent that a 1.5" error on
the SURFACE must be corrected don't care that under the surface the
concrete encroach's on the neighbor.
Why, after all this time, and even after your earlier acceptance of the
facts, are you still using the word "error"? I really thought we had gotten
past that issue.
Have you now reached the point where you are arguing just to argue? When I
trim the limbs of my neighbor's tree that hang over my house, do you think
that I dig down along the property line and remove roots? Can you guess why
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:06:45 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
It's an error, that's why. Seems to me you fit the bill of someone
arguing just to argue. And why don't you answer the question about
the concrete? Concrete is not "limbs" or "roots" that can grow on
it's own, it's something man-made that was PLACED on the other persons
property. You seem to be ok with that.. why is that? What if instead
of the concrete being the usual roughly 9" diameter, making it
encroach several inches, it was a 3 foot diameter blob that encroached
1.5 feet? It's implicit in your dismissal of the concrete as a
problem that you understand that some things are so trivial as to be
meaningless yet you keep wanting to fight over the 1.5 in by 6 inch x
5 post encroachment (a total encroachment of 0.31 square feet). In
your world you'd just go tear down the whole fence over this 0.31 sf
of property loss.
Holy cow, you're right. When someone places a fence on another person's
property for the expressed reason of making sure it fits around a pole,
that's an error, a mistake, pure happenstance.
I wonder what something done on purpose looks like.
I really didn't think I had to explain that, but since you asked so nicely,
I will. I'll go slowly and explain the difference between the fence and the
concrete. Perhaps once I do, you'll understand my point about the roots.
The offending fence is above ground. The offending fence made Don's yard
smaller. The offending fence will cause the fence that Don wants to install
(in it's legal location) to either not line up with the offending fence or
be at an angle or be inwards of the property line making his yard even
The concrete is below ground. Grass and/or gardens can be planted right
over it. Mulch can be placed right over it. Unless Don is planning on
digging down right along the fence line (an illegal pool perhaps?) the
concrete will have no impact on him or his yard.
That is why I am "ok with that".
If that were the case, and the concrete negatively impacted Don's ability
to enjoy his yard, then the concrete would indeed be an issue. However,
since Don has not that brought that up, and only asked in his OP about
cutting the fence, I'll assume one of two things: The concrete is below
ground so as not to bother him or the concrete is above ground but it
doesn't bother him because it's not causing any issues. The fence itself is
causing issues with the fence that Don wants to install, so that has a much
Of course, all of this pales in the face of the simple fact that the
contractor intentionally installed a fence on Don's property without Don's
expressed permission to do so. That in and of itself just isn't right.
On Monday, July 8, 2013 2:28:45 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:32:16 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
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.
On Monday, July 8, 2013 2:24:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
There you go again. From all that's been stated, it's *not* likely
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
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
All the "facts" in evidence suggest exactly the opposite. So much
so that YOU are inventing "facts" to try to change the case.
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.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
On Monday, July 1, 2013 8:50:26 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
First, it would be helpful if you learned how to trim
A dispute implies there is some disagreement over where
the property line is, who owns the land, where the fence
is actually located. Again, per the facts stated, it's clear
that both surveys show the same thing.
No, but I will point out that scrambling eggs and frying
chicken both share in common the concept of using heat.
And you'll still be here trying to twist that, won't you?
Better look up the definition of adverse possession.
If you are aware of
I'm just following the facts as stated by Don. You seem to have
a lot of trouble doing that, as DerbyDad has also pointed out.
Smoke? The freaking law says you can't build a fence on a property
you don't own. First time I said that, you tried the diversion of
"Oh, that happens all the time, with easements." Everyone else here
knows what I meant. Now you want to take some BS tour into murder?
Assuming the posts are in concrete there will be some
Are you for real? What kind of little pussy are you, where you have
to be a "big man" to want a fence removed that is built on your
property, which reduces the size of a tiny, non-confroming lot?
If I were the judge, I would approach it as follows. From a practical
sense, there is always going to be some degree of inprecission, perfection
isn't expected. But the level expected also increases when a property
owner knows you're about to put a fence 3.5" onto his property, comes over,
and tells you so. Then the onus is on YOU to take extra care in what
you are doing. So, if you then go and put it 1.5" over onto someone else's
property, tough luck, it's your fault, your problem and you will move
the freaking 20 ft fence. Also add in as I've told you over and over,
courts don't like to reward bad behavior. If they let the fence stay where
it is, they would be doing exactly that.
Now who's assuming things not stated?
And finally, here's an example of what one state, Oregon has to say on the
matter, in an answer from a lawyer given to someone asking the question
of what to do about a fence a neigbor built on their property:
Under ORS 90.060:
(1) When any person has built or builds, by mistake and in good faith, a fe
nce on the land of another, such person or the successor in interest of the
person may, within one year from the time of discovering the mistake, go u
pon the land of the other person and remove the fence, doing no unnecessary
(2) The occupant or owner of land whereon a fence has been built by mistake
shall not throw down or in any manner disturb such fence during the period
which the person who built it is authorized by subsection (1) of this sect
ion to remove it.
So, assuming your neighbor made a "mistake" in "good faith" you would need
to notify the neighbor of the mistake, demand they remove the fence, and th
en wait a year before removing it yourself.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 03:55:33 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Note that in the issue that was being responded to the error was a
full foot, not 1.5". Also note that for the issue cited the fence was
built ENTIRELY on the wrong property. So the facts of that case are
NOT the facts of the OPs case. The OPs case has the fence a mere 1.5"
off and it is NOT entirely on the wrong property. Should the OP rely
on the material you cited and remove the fence he might well find
himself in court and later paying to have the fence put back up.
Also note in the material you cited that it takes ONLY one year for
the person who built the fence in the wrong spot to gain the legal
right to have it there. A perfect example of adverse possession and
much sooner then the 20 years you keep talking about.
Stick with me and you may actually learn something.
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:55:35 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
he matter, in an answer from a lawyer given to someone asking the question
fence on the land of another, such person or the successor in interest of
the person may, within one year from the time of discovering the mistake, g
o upon the land of the other person and remove the fence, doing no unnecess
ary damage thereby.
ake shall not throw down or in any manner disturb such fence during the per
iod which the person who built it is authorized by subsection (1) of this s
ection to remove it.
ed to notify the neighbor of the mistake, demand they remove the fence, and
then wait a year before removing it yourself.
Stick with you? You can't even read the law. The Oregon law
does not say what you claim. It does not say that if someone
builds a fence on your property you lose that property via
adverse possession in a year. It says that if someone builds a
fence on your property by mistake and in good faith, that person
then has a year to REMOVE it. During that one year period, you
the property owner can't remove it. It's to give someone who made
an honest mistake one year to remove the fence themselves, before
you tear it down and get it off YOUR property.
Anything else we can help you with, just let us know.
Or he may look at neither. The intent of my lease was exactly what it
said--for me not to get stuck with legal fees if the tenant defaulted.
But the judge ignored that and told them to pay only the amount of rent.
No way he could have enforced it.
Then I made the mistake of paying the lawyer MORE money to file for wage
garnishment. Which was useless, as the dude promptly quit that job and
got another. Lawyer offered to do it again for another hundred
On Saturday, June 29, 2013 9:14:28 AM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
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
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:34:37 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
years of boundary surveys under my belt and have been retained as an expert
witness over land issues. Consider the following:
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 property 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 mover their improvements by one
(1) foot. All 10 of the interior lots are encroaching on their neighbor by one
foot. Fairness and equity are a big part of the law.
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.