On Monday, July 1, 2013 3:00:41 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:12:53 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



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.







Well it does matter. There is a significant difference between

"contract law" and "a dispute".

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.




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.

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.






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.

I don't see anyone here saying anything to remotely suggest that.



As such the judge WILL listen to both sides

and almost assuredly will be looking for a FAIR resolution.

Again with the fairness. Good grief.
No. The judge will first apply the LAW.


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

acres.



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?












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?







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

child.



Yawn....











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.







I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.



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

mistake.



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."



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.





















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.





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.

Point? What point? This is not about adverse possession.







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...



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?

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.