On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 06:14:28 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:42:38 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:34:37 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:

What you keep missing is the law says you can't build something

on another man's property. The remedy for that is simple. The

fence gets moved. This isn't some innocent mistake. It's an overt

act of the neighbor or his workmen, not giving a damn and deliberately

putting a fence on another man's property, even after being told

by the owner not to. You want to now believe that a court is going

to get into what is "fair", to make the guy infringed prove that

he's really harmed. This is absurd. The court will order the fence

to be moved. And it's not that it's impossible to do, it's a tiny

backyard with what, 40ft of fence? Good grief.





I'm not missing anything. It doesn't matter what the law says. What

matters is what the judge says.

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.





And the law doesn't say you "can't

build something on another man's property." At best it might say "you

may not....".

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

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.

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.








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.



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.





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.

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...