On Sunday, July 7, 2013 6:32:16 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

wrote:



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?



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.



Take a deep breath before reading the next sentence because it's a long

one...



So, IYHO, if Homeowner A says to Homeowner B's contractor, within earshot

of a co-worker of said contractor, "Please make sure that you do not

install that fence on my side of the line", but does not obtain a signed

document from the contractor attesting to what was said, and the contractor

and said co-worker in fact do install the fence on Homeowner A's property,

the judge may take the word of the contractor and his crew over the word of

Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.



If that was actually the case, then I guess any contractor could do

whatever they wanted and then lie to the judge about having a conversation.

What's the difference between the contractor and crew lying about what was

said in an conversation that actually happened vs. simply making up a

conversation that never occurred? As long as the homeowner can't prove that

he never had the conversation, he would lose right?


I agree with your point here. The one irrefutable fact is that
there is a 20 ft fence built on land that the owner of the land
says:

A: He did not authorize it

B: He saw they were going to build the fence on his property and
told them not to.

C: There was a clear boundary line, no dispute as to where it was

D: The fence got built on the property anyway.

All the rest is at best he said, she said. Very easy for a judge
to just cut through all that crap, if it's even raised and tell them to move the 20 ft fence. Ashton is going on like having to move that stupid little
fence is some great burden on those that put it there. It's a little
20ft fence built on the wrong property.




IMHO, if there was a case of Homeowner A said-Homeowner B's contractor

said, and Homeowner A was the one whose property was encroached upon by

Homeowner B's contractor, the judge will side with Homeowner A. To side

with the contractor puts us into the realm of allowing the taking of

someone else's property with nothing more than the contractor saying "Your

Honor, he said I could. Ask my partner, he'll back me up."



Ahmen to that brother. In Ashton's world, a neigbor can put up
a fence on your property, despite being told not to and then somehow
it's up to you to prove
that you really, really needed that property, to get it back.
To prove that it's
a hardship on you to lose a bit of your property. I think
you and I agree courts don't like to reward bad behavior. If they
OK this, then why wouldn't the next shyster neighbor or contractor
pull the same thing, only worse?