neighbor's fence partially on my property

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.

Reply to
trader4
Loading thread data ...

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 dollars.....

Reply to
Wes Groleau

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.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

Asht ...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.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

I lived 12 years in Brooklyn. I think it's a Don Wiss thing.

>
Reply to
micky

I don't know if I posted this or not. When the guy put the fence around my backyard, to avoid the downspout, he put ONE post an inch or two onto my townhouse neighbor's property. He put the next post and all the others right where they should be, and so the 8 feet from one post to the other is at an angle, In our case, it's a corner of the yard between the deck, the house wall, and the fence, where no one goes except to connect the garden hose. No one has complained. I wouldn't complain either if I had the house next door.

Reply to
micky

De minimus, non curat lex. The law does not cure minimal [problems]. This is a recognized principle in the law.

What is too small to cure is a topic of its own. Lots of factors make a difference. I this were the Ponderosa ranch with 50,000 acres, an inch and a half would mean nothing.

Reply to
micky

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 posts.

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

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? Good grief.

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? Good grief!

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:

formatting link
operty--c-101517.html

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 damage thereby. (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.

Reply to
trader4

FTR, 20 years is the maiximum and only true in some states.

I think it's as little as 7 years in other states.

Reply to
micky

A liease does nothing unless you get the other party to sign it!!! You need a one-sided document that does't require a signature by the other party.

I'm in the middle of something like this right now, and I'm not sure about details, or even the big picture, but I'm hoping to give him formal permission. revocable by me at any time, to wallk on a portion of my lawn and to mow the lawn. (and maybe to trim the bushes)

He seems to sincerely think he owns this piece about 250 square feet, but I don't want him to get a or b above anyhow.

I'm at the end of the group and my townhouse doesn't face the street, even though the house two doors to my left does (the street turns) my lot is 6-sided, and the first owner of this town house built the fence around the lot so it didn't surround these 250 sqft., because it looks nicer this way, and so as not to interfere with the easement that the other neighbors have to walk between his house and mine, to get to their back yards.

I plan to sent him a cerifeid letter return receipt with the license, the permission, and to register it at the county clerk's office along with my deed.

Reply to
micky

Yes, that fence is pretty ugly. Even if it were int he right place.

NY State and NYC have been around for a long time and have a lot of people, and they usually have good law on most subjects

Unlike Md. which is low in population and was even lower for a long time and doesn't even have case law on many things.

Or thoughtless. He certainly deserves a chance to know what is going on. A visit without leaving a note is no visit at all. He should leave a note taped to the door (it can be done so that no one can read it unless they really try. , another one in the mailbox. , send a letter, and send a certified letter with return receipt.

I know this n'hood. For 12 years I lived 2 miles away. It's a v. nice n'hood, not cheap at all, and everyone probably has some idea of what the law requires.

Reply to
micky

This post looks like a forgery to me.

Reply to
micky

I can see why the fact that he knows the arch and the contractor has dostracted him about whom to talk to. But now is the time to get over that.

Reply to
micky

Trader is right. You are wrong. Contractors do what they're told, and even if he wasn't told to put it where he did, your recourse is with the land owner. This is not like criminal law, where the killer for hire is guilty of murder and so is the guy who hired him. If you couldn't find the owner and neither of these guys would tell you who it was, you might have a case against them, but do you think either of them is going to go to that fence and tear it down because you complain? Or give permission for you to cut off 1 1/2 inches? Of course not. If they did, the owner would yell at you, you would say the contractor said it was okay, and the owner would sue the contractor or architect, whoever said it was okay. Neither of them is going to help you.

YOU are foolish to keep concentrating on the contractor and architect.

If you actually have to sue, you might be advised to sue all three parties, so whoever you do sue doesn't blame someone who's not in court, but that's a topic for later.

If you don't believe us, ask on misc.legal.moderated . Which is very slow now, but cheaper than hiring a lawyer. you may need to that too.

You can't cut off parts of the fence. It IS destroying the fence, even if the fence doesn't fall down.

If you are nice, maybe the owner will agree , but only do it if he agrees in writing, to let you or someone skilled cut off half the fence, but I doubt it. You'll have to leave the below ground parts full size, or the posts will be loose and the fence will fall over. Then you will have torn down the part even you think is on his land.

Cedar fences last a long time, the wood posts if they are not cedar but treated probably 30 years or more, Anything that is cedar, posts, pickets and rails 25 years or maybe less. The rails last longer if they get sunlight. . Cedar is naturally resistant to rot, but not forever.

If the fence stands, you do want to give him written permission, and have him sign an acknowledgement of the permission (because he may well lose what you gave him, or die, or sell the house) so that when the fence finally does fall down, there is no doubt you own what you own. (no adverse possession or prescriptive easement)

I can't follow this or the rest of your descriptions at all.

Reply to
micky

If it's on your property, then its your fence. Modify it to your own wishes by carving your name on it, painting it to your own taste, (perhaps with your schools colors) and otherwise treating it as if it were your own property. (which it is) Or, if you prefer, tear it down, or cover it with ligns that express your own political and religious beliefs, and be sure to put them on the side of the fence that faces his house. IOW, make it look God-awful to him.....

Reply to
Bill Graham

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.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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....."

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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?

Reply to
DerbyDad03

he matter, in an answer from a lawyer given to someone asking the question

-property--c-101517.html

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.

Reply to
trader4

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:57:16 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03 wrote:

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.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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.