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.
If there's no dispute then what's the problem??
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.
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.
Next time some wants to know how to scramble eggs I guess you'll tell
them all about how to fry chicken eh?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Yes, of course they did. That's why its called ADVERSE possession.
Better look up the definition of 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.
With the property boundary clearly marked, knows to both parties?
Do you like to let people walk all over you, flip you the finger?
Nope. But I'm not an asshole either. You keep assuming all manner of
things we don't know.
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.
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....
Not unexpectedly, when you are shown to be blowing smoke out your ass
you suddenly lose interest.
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.
I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?
Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.
Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/ne...-c-101517.html
Under ORS 90.060:
(1) When any person has built or builds, by mistake and in good faith, a 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, go upon 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 section 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 then wait a year before removing it yourself.