Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:54:07 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...


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.

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.


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....."

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?