On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:11:41 -0400, DerbyDad03
wrote:

On 6/28/2013 6:00 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if this case was
slightly different... lets say that the contractor built the fence 1.5
inches away from the property line. Now that owner sees this and
tells teh contractor to move the fence over 1.5". The contractor
refuses. This would actually be a case in contract law. What do you
think the judge would say? Would he tell the contractor he must move
teh fence so it is EXAXCTLY on the line but not over? Or would he
listen to the contractor say "I always build a little short of the
line to be sure I don't put the homeowner in jeopardy should it turn
out there is a slight survey error. In 20 years of building fences no
one has ever complained before. I don't think it makes sense to move
the fence and create the possibility of encroachment." and after
listening to the contractor the judge might say "You re right, this is
an insignificant deviation that creates no actual harm to the
homeowner. Case dismissed.

Just as would happen for the case in question....



There's a huge, huge, huge (that's 3 x huge) difference between a
dispute involving the incorrect placement of a fence by a contractor
when the fence is entirely on the property of the individual that
signed the contract and the incorrect placement of a fence onto the
property of someone who is in no way involved in the contract.

I seriously doubt that even the same judge would consider an
encroachment onto a third party's property equivalent to the fence
between placed inside the property line of the land owner whocontracted
the fence.

Well, we have opposite viewpoints on what a judge will due. I'm sure
this isn't the first time two people reach different views based on
the same facts.

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. And the law doesn't say you "can't
build something on another man's property." At best it might say "you
may not....". 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.

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.

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.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:36:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:




An awful lot of bull**** over 1 1/2 inches of space which WILL NEVER BE USED BY
ANYONE. This guy watches the contractor build the fence where it now is and THEN
complains. Why didn't he say something BEFORE it was completed? He KNEW that it was going AROUND that power pole...by letting the building continue he was
by his inaction OKAYING the whole shebang.



IIRC, he did make it known at the time. Should he have gotten a gun
and stopped them?

I'll tell you what he should have done based on what I've seen happen
OVER AND OVER again on major highway construction projects. IF it was
all that important to him that it NOT encroach he should have sent an
"inspector" out as the work was being done to protect his interests.
In court it would go like this...

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So you knew the fence was in the wrong
spot and told them not to put it there.
Plaintiff: Yes
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - so it was of some importance to you?
Plaintiff: Yes
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Did you tell the contractor why it was
important?
Plaintiff - I just told him it was in the wrong place, that's all he
needed to know.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And when the contractor started over
building the fence at the second line, did you go check that line?
Plaintiff - No.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Why not if the location was so
important to you?
Plaintiff - I didn't think it was my job to inspect his work.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So it was important enough to check on
the first day, but not important enough to check on the second day
when he started over?
Plaintiff - no, it was still important.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - yet you didn't check. Why was it
important?
Plaintiff - it's my property.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And how will the loss of that 1.5"
affect your use of the property?
Plaintiff - it will just irritate me.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - - but will it affect where you can park
your car or where you can grow flowers, or does it affect the drainage
or what?
Plaintiff - no, it doesn't affect any of those things, it just bothers
me.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So except for your hurt feelings, this
error has no actual impact to your continued use and enjoyment of your
property?
Plaintiff - That's right
..
..
..
Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has
admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and
enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the
property. It may even raise the value since there is now a fence
where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has
demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.

Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage
to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award
them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.
Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be
wasted on these trivial matters.

Wes Groleau writes:

On 06-29-2013 09:41, wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a newsreader
that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!

--
Dan Espen

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:48:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:



.
Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has
admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and
enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the
property. It may even raise the value since there is now a fence
where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has
demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.

Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage
to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award
them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.
Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be
wasted on these trivial matters.

Not quite the way I see it. To a point I agree the yard is still
usable. My conclusion is different.

Judge: For ignoring the law, the contractor must pay damages of
$xxx.xx for loss of land use and court costs and attorney's fees.
Perhaps in the future you will pay more attention and respect the laws
and neighbor's property.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:32:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:



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.

If it was me, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably not sue though. I
may even settle out of court for a good bottle of bourbon. If it was
six inches, a foot, yes, it would not be so simple.

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.





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?




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.








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.





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...

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:36:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy

wrote:









An awful lot of bull**** over 1 1/2 inches of space which WILL NEVER BE USED BY

ANYONE. This guy watches the contractor build the fence where it now is and THEN

complains. Why didn't he say something BEFORE it was completed? He KNEW that it was going AROUND that power pole...by letting the building continue he was

by his inaction OKAYING the whole shebang.







IIRC, he did make it known at the time. Should he have gotten a gun

and stopped them?



I'll tell you what he should have done based on what I've seen happen

OVER AND OVER again on major highway construction projects. IF it was

all that important to him that it NOT encroach he should have sent an

"inspector" out as the work was being done to protect his interests.

In court it would go like this...



Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So you knew the fence was in the wrong

spot and told them not to put it there.

Plaintiff: Yes

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - so it was of some importance to you?

Plaintiff: Yes

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Did you tell the contractor why it was

important?

Plaintiff - I just told him it was in the wrong place, that's all he

needed to know.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And when the contractor started over

building the fence at the second line, did you go check that line?

Plaintiff - No.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Why not if the location was so

important to you?

Plaintiff - I didn't think it was my job to inspect his work.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So it was important enough to check on

the first day, but not important enough to check on the second day

when he started over?

Plaintiff - no, it was still important.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - yet you didn't check. Why was it

important?

Plaintiff - it's my property.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And how will the loss of that 1.5"

affect your use of the property?

Plaintiff - it will just irritate me.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - - but will it affect where you can park

your car or where you can grow flowers, or does it affect the drainage

or what?

Plaintiff - no, it doesn't affect any of those things, it just bothers

me.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So except for your hurt feelings, this

error has no actual impact to your continued use and enjoyment of your

property?

Plaintiff - That's right

.

Yawn.... This is like the a defense counsel for a rape
case blaming the victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood
at night.

And the plaintiff could just say they were not home
when it was being done. And then you conveniently assume
that plaintiff is going to be so dumb to just agree it's
about his "hurt feelings"? Of course he's going to say,
my back yard is tiny, I want that 1.5" instead of my
neighbor stealing it from me. I paid for it. It's mine.
I pay real estate taxes on it, and over the years it's
amounted to $500. Pretty weak strawman.






.

.

Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has

admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and

enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the

property.

Lame strawman!




It may even raise the value since there is now a fence

where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has

demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.



Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage

to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award

them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.

Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be

wasted on these trivial matters.

Strawman!

On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:

On 06-29-2013 09:41, wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a newsreader
that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!


One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post with 912 lines;
yikes!

Jon

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:12:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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...

To put things in perspective. The back side neighbor's property is 21'
wide. It is a rare one that is more than the standard 20'. On my block most
don't even have 20'. There are a bunch of 18' and inches, some 18', four
that are 16.25' and one that is 12.5' wide.

My back yard is 20' x 29' 5-3/4".

Land here is worth about $800/sq ft. Maybe more. There are no empty plots.
It makes it hard to apportion between land and house value.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On 6/30/2013 10:18 AM, Don Wiss wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:12:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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...

To put things in perspective. The back side neighbor's property is 21'
wide. It is a rare one that is more than the standard 20'. On my block most
don't even have 20'. There are a bunch of 18' and inches, some 18', four
that are 16.25' and one that is 12.5' wide.

My back yard is 20' x 29' 5-3/4".

Land here is worth about $800/sq ft. Maybe more. There are no empty plots.
It makes it hard to apportion between land and house value.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

What's more, unless your property are within 100' of a corner, you are
required to have a 30' rear yard. While your 29' 5-3/4" is probably
grandfathered in, it is an illegal code violation to make it any less
than that.
--
Peace,
bobJ

Jon Danniken wrote:
On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:

On 06-29-2013 09:41, wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a newsreader
that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!


One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post with 912 lines;
yikes!

Jon

It was a very important sentence that needed the other 912 lines to give it
context. ;-)

DerbyDad03 writes:

Jon Danniken wrote:
On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:

On 06-29-2013 09:41, wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a newsreader
that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!

One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post with 912 lines;
yikes!

It was a very important sentence that needed the other 912 lines to give it
context. ;-)

And it needed to be quadruple spaced because text needs breathing room.

No smiley included, figure it out.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:05:24 -0400, Dan Espen
wrote:

{ Major slippages made]

No smiley included, figure it out.

I missed that.

On 06-30-2013 09:12, wrote:
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.

I'm sure many of them do. I hope the majority. But I've been in court
more than once and I've seen the other more than once.

On one occasion, the judge said (with the court recorder still
transcribing!) that the covenants were violated but that he the
paperwork required for ruling that way was inconvenient.

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
€” John F. Kennedy

In ,
Jon Danniken belched:
On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:

On 06-29-2013 09:41, wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a
newsreader that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!


One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post with 912 lines;
yikes!

Jon

the problem lies with trader4.
using google groups, replies are double spaced and make ya dizzy scrolling
to find the reply

ChairMan wrote:
Jon Danniken belched:
On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:
wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider finding a
newsreader that doesn't quadruple the length of what you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!


One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post with 912 lines;
yikes!


the problem lies with trader4.
using google groups, replies are double spaced and make ya dizzy scrolling
to find the reply

There are about five or six google groupers contributing to the problem,
of which he is but one, and he is not the one with the whopper I
mentioned above.

I specifically did not single out any members of that subset, because
those who give a rat's ass will get the message and trim their posts,
and any that remain will have proven themselves as beyond repair. YMMV.

Jon

Jon Danniken wrote:
ChairMan wrote:
Jon Danniken belched:
On 06/29/2013 06:51 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Wes Groleau writes:
wrote:
snip

Since you don't like to snip, could you consider
finding a
newsreader that doesn't quadruple the length of what
you quote?

Damn straight, that sucked!


One fellow in this thread added one sentence to a post
with 912
lines; yikes!


the problem lies with trader4.
using google groups, replies are double spaced and make
ya dizzy
scrolling to find the reply

There are about five or six google groupers contributing
to the
problem, of which he is but one, and he is not the one
with the
whopper I mentioned above.

Yeah I know, didn't mean to single him out.
Let me rephrase it to google groupers, theng
Especially when replying to another googlersheeze


I specifically did not single out any members of that
subset, because
those who give a rat's ass will get the message and trim
their posts,
and any that remain will have proven themselves as beyond
repair.
YMMV.


I don't understand why so many tolerate google with the
recent events.
There are many free news servers to use, but folks don't use
'em.
I'm not sure they can do much about the way google formats
their post, but then I don't know much about what options if
any they give you.
I much prefer a NNTP server over web based anyday

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 07:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:48:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:



.
Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has
admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and
enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the
property. It may even raise the value since there is now a fence
where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has
demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.

Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage
to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award
them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.
Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be
wasted on these trivial matters.

Not quite the way I see it. To a point I agree the yard is still
usable. My conclusion is different.

Judge: For ignoring the law,

What law did the contractor ignore? Please be specific.



the contractor must pay damages of
$xxx.xx for loss of land use and court costs and attorney's fees.
Perhaps in the future you will pay more attention and respect the laws
and neighbor's property.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:24:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:36:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy

wrote:









An awful lot of bull**** over 1 1/2 inches of space which WILL NEVER BE USED BY

ANYONE. This guy watches the contractor build the fence where it now is and THEN

complains. Why didn't he say something BEFORE it was completed? He KNEW that it was going AROUND that power pole...by letting the building continue he was

by his inaction OKAYING the whole shebang.







IIRC, he did make it known at the time. Should he have gotten a gun

and stopped them?



I'll tell you what he should have done based on what I've seen happen

OVER AND OVER again on major highway construction projects. IF it was

all that important to him that it NOT encroach he should have sent an

"inspector" out as the work was being done to protect his interests.

In court it would go like this...



Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So you knew the fence was in the wrong

spot and told them not to put it there.

Plaintiff: Yes

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - so it was of some importance to you?

Plaintiff: Yes

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Did you tell the contractor why it was

important?

Plaintiff - I just told him it was in the wrong place, that's all he

needed to know.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And when the contractor started over

building the fence at the second line, did you go check that line?

Plaintiff - No.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Why not if the location was so

important to you?

Plaintiff - I didn't think it was my job to inspect his work.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So it was important enough to check on

the first day, but not important enough to check on the second day

when he started over?

Plaintiff - no, it was still important.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - yet you didn't check. Why was it

important?

Plaintiff - it's my property.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And how will the loss of that 1.5"

affect your use of the property?

Plaintiff - it will just irritate me.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - - but will it affect where you can park

your car or where you can grow flowers, or does it affect the drainage

or what?

Plaintiff - no, it doesn't affect any of those things, it just bothers

me.

Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So except for your hurt feelings, this

error has no actual impact to your continued use and enjoyment of your

property?

Plaintiff - That's right

.

Yawn.... This is like the a defense counsel for a rape
case blaming the victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood
at night.

And the plaintiff could just say they were not home
when it was being done.

So you suborn perjury?

And then you conveniently assume
that plaintiff is going to be so dumb to just agree it's
about his "hurt feelings"? Of course he's going to say,
my back yard is tiny, I want that 1.5" instead of my
neighbor stealing it from me. I paid for it. It's mine.
I pay real estate taxes on it, and over the years it's
amounted to $500. Pretty weak strawman.


I saw nothing that indicated teh back yard was "tiny" or that the lost
of the 1.5" was going to create the slightest problem.

RE Taxes are not based on how many square inches of lot you have.



Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has

admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and

enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the

property.

Lame strawman!



It's just the facts.



It may even raise the value since there is now a fence

where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has

demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.



Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage

to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award

them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.

Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be

wasted on these trivial matters.

Strawman!


Just the facts.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 07:58:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:32:25 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:



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.

If it was me, I'm not sure what I'd do. Probably not sue though. I
may even settle out of court for a good bottle of bourbon. If it was
six inches, a foot, yes, it would not be so simple.


I agree.

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". 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.

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. As such the judge WILL listen to both sides
and almost assuredly will be looking for a FAIR resolution. 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.




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.




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? 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."








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.





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?

On 06/30/2013 11:29 PM, ChairMan wrote:

I don't understand why so many tolerate google with the
recent events.
There are many free news servers to use, but folks don't use
'em.
I'm not sure they can do much about the way google formats
their post, but then I don't know much about what options if
any they give you.
I much prefer a NNTP server over web based anyday

I think it's like anything, really; once a person becomes accustomed to
something it becomes ingrained, and more difficult to change. Then
there are also some people who might use, say, a work computer, or
someone else's computer, so for them having a consistent HTML interface
makes sense.

My guess is that those users either don't know what they are doing,
because google hides all of the quoted content behind a "Show quoted
text" link, or they just don't care. Perhaps we should remind them
about etiquette more often, as those who came before us were more wont
to do.

Unfortunately, google doesn't care about usenet, and from their behavior
since taking over deja, most likely would prefer that it went away
entirely. Otherwise they might put up a prompt stating, "Your message
is quoting a lot of lines, are you sure about that?", among numerous
other things.

Jon

On 7/1/2013 2:38 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:24:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:36:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy
snip
And then you conveniently assume
that plaintiff is going to be so dumb to just agree it's
about his "hurt feelings"? Of course he's going to say,
my back yard is tiny, I want that 1.5" instead of my
neighbor stealing it from me. I paid for it. It's mine.
I pay real estate taxes on it, and over the years it's
amounted to $500. Pretty weak strawman.


I saw nothing that indicated teh back yard was "tiny" or that the lost
of the 1.5" was going to create the slightest problem.

Did you not see that his back yard is (was) 29' 5-3/4" deep while NYC
zoning requires a 30' rear yard. It is patently illegal and subject to
DOB violation to make your property less complying in terms of zoning


RE Taxes are not based on how many square inches of lot you have.

They sure are in NYC.
--
Peace,
bobJ



snip

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.

On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC-4, Marilyn & Bob wrote:
On 7/1/2013 2:38 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 06:24:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:36:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy

snip

And then you conveniently assume

that plaintiff is going to be so dumb to just agree it's

about his "hurt feelings"? Of course he's going to say,

my back yard is tiny, I want that 1.5" instead of my

neighbor stealing it from me. I paid for it. It's mine.

I pay real estate taxes on it, and over the years it's

amounted to $500. Pretty weak strawman.





I saw nothing that indicated teh back yard was "tiny" or that the lost

of the 1.5" was going to create the slightest problem.



Did you not see that his back yard is (was) 29' 5-3/4" deep while NYC

zoning requires a 30' rear yard. It is patently illegal and subject to

DOB violation to make your property less complying in terms of zoning



Good point that shows 1.5" less just makes things worse for him.








RE Taxes are not based on how many square inches of lot you have.



They sure are in NYC.

--

As they are in most cities and towns. My tax bill has an assessment
for the land and one for the improvements. The tax on the land is
based on it's size.

On 07-01-2013 03:00, Ashton Crusher wrote:
"contract law" and "a dispute". 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

Or he may look at neither. The intent of my lease was exactly what it
said--for me not to get stuck with legal fees if the tenant defaulted.
But the judge ignored that and told them to pay only the amount of rent.
No way he could have enforced it.

Then I made the mistake of paying the lawyer MORE money to file for wage
garnishment. Which was useless, as the dude promptly quit that job and
got another. Lawyer offered to do it again for another hundred
dollars.....

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
€” John F. Kennedy

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.



If there's no dispute then what's the problem??




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?




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. 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.







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.











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.


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.








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?

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.



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.

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.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:44:03 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

In ,
belched:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:24:51 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:59:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:



And in the end, you beef, your claim, your course of
action is with the PROPERTY OWNER.

+1
he keeps ducking that question
must be a New York thing

I lived 12 years in Brooklyn. I think it's a Don Wiss thing.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:24:14 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:


Both surveys show the line in the same place, right? And despite that, they
encroached on your property, right? Question: why did you not stop them?

I have no idea what the law is relative to this but law is usually rational
and follows common sense. Those lead me to two beliefs:

1. You can't just chop away

2. You can force them to move the fence and reimburse you for any expenses
you may incur in doing so.

What they *should* have done is set the fence into *their* property to
bypass the pole. That or get the utility company to move the pole
sufficiently onto their lot so they could put the fence on the line and
clear the pole.

I don't know if I posted this or not. When the guy put the fence
around my backyard, to avoid the downspout, he put ONE post an inch or
two onto my townhouse neighbor's property. He put the next post and
all the others right where they should be, and so the 8 feet from one
post to the other is at an angle, In our case, it's a corner of the
yard between the deck, the house wall, and the fence, where no one
goes except to connect the garden hose. No one has complained. I
wouldn't complain either if I had the house next door.

If you haven't already done so, sending them a registered letter with return
receipt might be in order; just state that their recent construction has
encroached on your property and tell them to rectify it within x days/weeks.

After that, lawyer time, good luck.

--

dadiOH

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:24:34 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:30:18 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:32:55 -0400, Don Wiss

wrote:



On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:24:14 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:



Both surveys show the line in the same place, right?



Correct.



And despite that, they

encroached on your property, right? Question: why did you not stop them?



I stopped them when they tried to put it 2 3/4" over. I showed them where

the line is. I assumed that they then did it right. Only now have I

discovered that they didn't. And the discovery was made when my fence guy

put in the side fence and it didn't line up with this fence. So we measured

to see what was going on.



Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).





That would slightly change my prior response since you did raise the

issue with them. That said, I think you would still lose if this goes

to court. There is only the most trivial of harm to you from what's

happened and it seems like the issue with your fence could have been

easily fixed at the time it was built had the contractor cared how it

was going to line up - apparently he didn't or he would have spotted

it before putting up your fence. In this kind of civil dispute

there's a good chance the court is not going to focus on

technicalities of the law, otherwise they would order a fence moved

even if encroached even a sixteenth of an inch over the property line.

The court is more likely to look at what an equitably/fair solution

would be after hearing from all parties. If I were the judge knowing

what I know at this point I'd not be likely to order the fence moved.

But another person as judge, god only knows what someone else might

decide. I'm having a hard time picturing how/why your fence was not

able to line up with this one.

You're misinformed as to what courts and judges do. They aren't
there to figure out what is fair.

De minimus, non curat lex. The law does not cure minimal
[problems]. This is a recognized principle in the law.

What is too small to cure is a topic of its own. Lots of factors
make a difference. I this were the Ponderosa ranch with 50,000 acres,
an inch and a half would mean nothing.

They are there to apply the rule of law. And I think you will find
plenty of case law that says you can't build something on another
person's property. 1.5" isn't much, but it's also clear why they did
it. By doing it, they got their fence around a telephone poll.
IMO, this would be a slam dunk win, and the fence would have to be
moved. To follow your reasoning, a neighbor could build his house
where it's not supposed to be, then because it's an inconvenience to
redo it, he gets away with it.

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.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 06:41:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



the property owner fails to object the guy doing the building may wind

up with ownership thru adverse possession. The possession has to be

notorious and adverse and typically for a certain period of time.

Yeah, like 20 years.

FTR, 20 years is the maiximum and only true in some states.

I think it's as little as 7 years in other states.

It's been two months. And the party also has
to pay the real estate taxes on the property for those 20 years.
The neighbor isn't paying the taxes, Don is.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:07 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:56:44 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

The back yard neighbor has put up a fence that is 1 1/2" on my property.

I went through this a few years ago.

In California, the law, as I remember it, is weird about the subtleties
surrounding these two types of property disputes:
a. prescriptive easement
b. adverse possession

In the first case, your implied consent allowing the fence to overshadow
your property line can be used in the future to allow a judge to prescribe
an easement (usually for the *subsequent* property owner).

In the second case, the neighbor is knowingly overshadowing your property
line, against your will, and you allow it for a long enough period that
the neighbor actually can lay claim to the land.

In both cases, if you merely write a lease (e.g., for $1 a year), that
allows the overshadowing, you maintain clear rights to the overshadowed
land.

A liease does nothing unless you get the other party to sign it!!!
You need a one-sided document that does't require a signature by the
other party.

I'm in the middle of something like this right now, and I'm not sure
about details, or even the big picture, but I'm hoping to give him
formal permission. revocable by me at any time, to wallk on a portion
of my lawn and to mow the lawn. (and maybe to trim the bushes)

He seems to sincerely think he owns this piece about 250 square feet,
but I don't want him to get a or b above anyhow.

I'm at the end of the group and my townhouse doesn't face the street,
even though the house two doors to my left does (the street turns) my
lot is 6-sided, and the first owner of this town house built the
fence around the lot so it didn't surround these 250 sqft., because
it looks nicer this way, and so as not to interfere with the easement
that the other neighbors have to walk between his house and mine, to
get to their back yards.

I plan to sent him a cerifeid letter return receipt with the license,
the permission, and to register it at the county clerk's office along
with my deed.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:59:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Check your local regulations. Some say the good side must face the
outside of the yard. It may not apply on a property line, but does on
the outside by a sidewalk.

Yes, that fence is pretty ugly. Even if it were int he right place.

NY State and NYC have been around for a long time and have a lot of
people, and they usually have good law on most subjects

Unlike Md. which is low in population and was even lower for a long
time and doesn't even have case law on many things.

In any case, it sounds like your neighbor is self centered and does
not give a damn about you or your property line.

Or thoughtless. He certainly deserves a chance to know what is going
on. A visit without leaving a note is no visit at all. He should
leave a note taped to the door (it can be done so that no one can read
it unless they really try. , another one in the mailbox. , send a
letter, and send a certified letter with return receipt.

I know this n'hood. For 12 years I lived 2 miles away. It's a v.
nice n'hood, not cheap at all, and everyone probably has some idea of
what the law requires.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:42:09 -0400, jeff_wisnia
wrote:

Don Wiss wrote:
The back yard neighbor has put up a fence that is 1 1/2" on my property.
They have a survey. I also have a survey from the same surveyor. I showed
them where the line was. But they went ahead and did this in order to have
the entire top fit behind a phone pole that is on their property. Had they
not faced the good side towards themselves, it would not have been an
issue.

All that is on my property are the 4x4 posts and the top. Do I have the
right to slice the posts and top right at the line? The fence back is
attached to the fence sides, which would give it stability. The reason for
doing this is the properties are staggered. I'm adding a fence to the back
where this fence isn't, and it won't line up.

I know I have the right to cut off tree limbs that hang over. But do I also
have the right to cut back a fence that is hanging over?

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).



I'm surprised you haven't yet mentioned how much you are paying in
property tax for that 1-1/2 inch strip of land you can't use and moan
about your neighbor not offering to reimburse you that amount each year. G

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Jeff


This post looks like a forgery to me.

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:30:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:44:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Have you actually talked to the neighbor directly yet????????????

Some people have neighbor bogey. An exaggerated fear, like people that
have "convict bogey" - an exaggerated fear of convicted felons.

I can see why the fact that he knows the arch and the contractor has
dostracted him about whom to talk to. But now is the time to get
over that.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT), in alt.home.repair trader
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:11:17 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:17:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



It defies reason that you're emailing the contractor, the architect

and not talking to the owner. If I was either of those guys, I wouldn't

talk to you.



Because they were the ones that did this. I can assume you the owner

doesn't know anything about this. The architect designed the fence. The

contractor built it. All the owner did was to pay for it. And the one

responsible to fix it would be the contractor. He is the one that knowingly

put the fence on my property.



Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).


You're looking in the wrong end of the telescope. Your beef, your
claim, your disagreement is with the PROPERTY OWNER. Sure, if I saw
a fence contractor putting up a fence on my property, I would go over
and tell them that they can't. You apparently did that, talking to
some workers, though maybe not the contractor himself. That's good.
But then you should have immediately gone over and TALKED TO THE
PROPERTY OWNER. Even worse, when they actually started putting up
the fence, you did nothing. At that point, you should have gone over
to the workers, tell them that they are trespassing and that you
won't allow them to put up a fence on your property. Since you
hadn't done so, that would have been a good opportunity to go ring
the neighbor's door bell. And if they insisted they were going to
proceed, you should have called the police.

Now, months later, you still haven't talked to the owner. Instead
you persist in screwing around with their architect and fence
company. If I were either of those guys, I wouldn't waste my time
talking to you. This is a good example of how these nasty neighborhood
feuds start. The neighbor is wrong. But the way you're handling it
is just dumb too. What is so hard about talking to the neighbor?

Trader is right. You are wrong. Contractors do what they're told,
and even if he wasn't told to put it where he did, your recourse is
with the land owner. This is not like criminal law, where the killer
for hire is guilty of murder and so is the guy who hired him. If
you couldn't find the owner and neither of these guys would tell you
who it was, you might have a case against them, but do you think
either of them is going to go to that fence and tear it down because
you complain? Or give permission for you to cut off 1 1/2 inches? Of
course not. If they did, the owner would yell at you, you would say
the contractor said it was okay, and the owner would sue the
contractor or architect, whoever said it was okay. Neither of them
is going to help you.

YOU are foolish to keep concentrating on the contractor and architect.

If you actually have to sue, you might be advised to sue all three
parties, so whoever you do sue doesn't blame someone who's not in
court, but that's a topic for later.

If you don't believe us, ask on misc.legal.moderated . Which is very
slow now, but cheaper than hiring a lawyer. you may need to that
too.

You can't cut off parts of the fence. It IS destroying the fence,
even if the fence doesn't fall down.

If you are nice, maybe the owner will agree , but only do it if he
agrees in writing, to let you or someone skilled cut off half the
fence, but I doubt it. You'll have to leave the below ground parts
full size, or the posts will be loose and the fence will fall over.
Then you will have torn down the part even you think is on his land.

Cedar fences last a long time, the wood posts if they are not cedar
but treated probably 30 years or more, Anything that is cedar, posts,
pickets and rails 25 years or maybe less. The rails last longer if
they get sunlight. . Cedar is naturally resistant to rot, but not
forever.

If the fence stands, you do want to give him written permission, and
have him sign an acknowledgement of the permission (because he may
well lose what you gave him, or die, or sell the house) so that when
the fence finally does fall down, there is no doubt you own what you
own. (no adverse possession or prescriptive easement)



Unlikely. The back wall is fully integrated into the side fence. The fence
would still have two 4x4s that are behind my next door neighbor's property.

I can't follow this or the rest of your descriptions at all.

micky wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:07 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:56:44 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

The back yard neighbor has put up a fence that is 1 1/2" on my
property.

I went through this a few years ago.

In California, the law, as I remember it, is weird about the
subtleties surrounding these two types of property disputes:
a. prescriptive easement
b. adverse possession

In the first case, your implied consent allowing the fence to
overshadow your property line can be used in the future to allow a
judge to prescribe an easement (usually for the *subsequent*
property owner).

In the second case, the neighbor is knowingly overshadowing your
property line, against your will, and you allow it for a long enough
period that the neighbor actually can lay claim to the land.

In both cases, if you merely write a lease (e.g., for $1 a year),
that allows the overshadowing, you maintain clear rights to the
overshadowed land.

A liease does nothing unless you get the other party to sign it!!!
You need a one-sided document that does't require a signature by the
other party.

I'm in the middle of something like this right now, and I'm not sure
about details, or even the big picture, but I'm hoping to give him
formal permission. revocable by me at any time, to wallk on a portion
of my lawn and to mow the lawn. (and maybe to trim the bushes)

He seems to sincerely think he owns this piece about 250 square feet,
but I don't want him to get a or b above anyhow.

I'm at the end of the group and my townhouse doesn't face the street,
even though the house two doors to my left does (the street turns) my
lot is 6-sided, and the first owner of this town house built the
fence around the lot so it didn't surround these 250 sqft., because
it looks nicer this way, and so as not to interfere with the easement
that the other neighbors have to walk between his house and mine, to
get to their back yards.

I plan to sent him a cerifeid letter return receipt with the license,
the permission, and to register it at the county clerk's office along
with my deed.

If it's on your property, then its your fence. Modify it to your own wishes
by carving your name on it, painting it to your own taste, (perhaps with
your schools colors) and otherwise treating it as if it were your own
property. (which it is) Or, if you prefer, tear it down, or cover it with
ligns that express your own political and religious beliefs, and be sure to
put them on the side of the fence that faces his house. IOW, make it look
God-awful to him.....