On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:32:16 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

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.


All I'm saying is that the judge can ONLY go by what is testified
to/produced as evidence in court. Combine that with a 1.5" error. As
has been said before, if this was a 1.5 FOOT error it would be
something clearly amiss. As one of the other posters mentioned, there
is some legal saying about disputes that are so trivial as to not be
court-worthy. IMHO this is in that general area. Not sure if it was
you or someone else but the question has been asked before, at what
point is an error so meaningless and trivial that you wouldn't argue
about it... 1/32", 1/16", 1/8", half inch, inch, 1.5" or ????


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?


It's going to depend on the facts of the case. Yes, they could lie
about having teh conversation but that wasn't what was discussed in
this case - I don't think anyone said anyone else was going to be
lying about whether an actual conversation took place. You have
introduced a new issue, the issue of "WAS" there a conversation. So
if the contractor says there was, and the owner says there wasn't you
have a different circumstance then when both agree there WAS a
conversation but disagree on what they believed was agreed to.

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."


So under your theory a confirming witness is to be an assumed liar.
And I suppose if there is a third confirming witness that will just be
MORE evidence that they are all lying. Interesting theory.



With what we know, it remains, IMHO, a losing court battle.

If you choose to believe that the judge will side with the contractor and
his crew over the person whose property was encroached upon.

I don't think the judge is going to "side" with anyone. He's going to
rule based on what is introduced in court. If everyone said "we never
talked to anyone" then it's easy for the judge to simply look at the
magnitude of the error, whether it actually damages the homeowner, and
rule on it. If people all say "we talked about it" but one side says
"... and agreed we could have the posts split the line." but the other
side says "....and agreed it would all be off MY property.", now the
judge might take the possibility of misunderstanding into account ,or
maybe he wouldn't. For some reason you seem to think I'm saying the
contractor will ALSWAYS win so he should ALWAYS cheat. I've never
said that he'll always win, only that I think his odds are good that
he will win this particular one based on the facts in evidence.