On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 03:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:





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.


Note that in the issue that was being responded to the error was a
full foot, not 1.5". Also note that for the issue cited the fence was
built ENTIRELY on the wrong property. So the facts of that case are
NOT the facts of the OPs case. The OPs case has the fence a mere 1.5"
off and it is NOT entirely on the wrong property. Should the OP rely
on the material you cited and remove the fence he might well find
himself in court and later paying to have the fence put back up.

Also note in the material you cited that it takes ONLY one year for
the person who built the fence in the wrong spot to gain the legal
right to have it there. A perfect example of adverse possession and
much sooner then the 20 years you keep talking about.

Stick with me and you may actually learn something.

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:

wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...


I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.


Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.

Ashton,

Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time
that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,
since you keep claiming he didn't say them.

Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:

"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they
still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further
discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it
up?"

To which he replied:

”I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason
they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on
my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their
property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the
pole.”

2 3/4” would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5” placed only
part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.
That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that
the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's
side of the pole.

Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence
was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and
actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the
argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."
Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by
way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's
property.

Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps
you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a
judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by
using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's
property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.


Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes
back to what I said before about the difference between what people
"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an
issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was
objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the
workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the
entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that
he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would
make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only
person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being
sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later
that "I thought you meant....."

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:

wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...


I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.


Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.

Ashton,

Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time
that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,
since you keep claiming he didn't say them.

Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:

"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they
still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further
discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it
up?"

To which he replied:

”I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason
they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on
my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their
property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the
pole.”

2 3/4” would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5” placed only
part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.
That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that
the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's
side of the pole.

Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence
was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and
actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the
argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."
Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by
way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's
property.

Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps
you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a
judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by
using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's
property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.


Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes
back to what I said before about the difference between what people
"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an
issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was
objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the
workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the
entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that
he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would
make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only
person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being
sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later
that "I thought you meant....."

Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you
keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.

Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be
considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would
rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement
was a mistake?

When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said
things like:

"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"

It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is
telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual
reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or
architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to
where to place the fence.

I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge
would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do
you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially
allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:55:35 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 03:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:











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.





Note that in the issue that was being responded to the error was a

full foot, not 1.5". Also note that for the issue cited the fence was

built ENTIRELY on the wrong property. So the facts of that case are

NOT the facts of the OPs case. The OPs case has the fence a mere 1.5"

off and it is NOT entirely on the wrong property. Should the OP rely

on the material you cited and remove the fence he might well find

himself in court and later paying to have the fence put back up.



Also note in the material you cited that it takes ONLY one year for

the person who built the fence in the wrong spot to gain the legal

right to have it there. A perfect example of adverse possession and

much sooner then the 20 years you keep talking about.



Stick with me and you may actually learn something.


Stick with you? You can't even read the law. The Oregon law
does not say what you claim. It does not say that if someone
builds a fence on your property you lose that property via
adverse possession in a year. It says that if someone builds a
fence on your property by mistake and in good faith, that person
then has a year to REMOVE it. During that one year period, you
the property owner can't remove it. It's to give someone who made
an honest mistake one year to remove the fence themselves, before
you tear it down and get it off YOUR property.

Anything else we can help you with, just let us know.

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

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:

wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...


I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.


Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.

Ashton,

Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time
that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,
since you keep claiming he didn't say them.

Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:

"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they
still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further
discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it
up?"

To which he replied:

?I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason
they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on
my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their
property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the
pole.?

2 3/4? would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5? placed only
part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.
That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that
the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's
side of the pole.

Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence
was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and
actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the
argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."
Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by
way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's
property.

Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps
you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a
judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by
using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's
property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.


Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes
back to what I said before about the difference between what people
"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an
issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was
objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the
workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the
entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that
he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would
make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only
person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being
sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later
that "I thought you meant....."

Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you
keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.

Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be
considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would
rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement
was a mistake?

When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said
things like:

"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"

It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is
telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual
reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or
architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to
where to place the fence.

I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge
would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do
you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially
allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?

I guess you didn't understand what I posted. Yes, Don feels he made
himself clear i.e. Don't put it on my property. But is that what was
"heard"? Does he have it in writing? Did he tell the OWNER, not just
the owners agent. I'm not saying my position is necessarily "fair"
from Don's point of view, just what might well happen in court when
there is nothing but -he said, she said- testimony. The judge wasn't
there, he can only make his decision based on what the plaintiff and
defendant tell him combined with any actual facts (surveys,
photographs, contract documents, actual impact) that can be
introduced.

I agree with you that my characterization of Don's original statement
was wrong, However, unless the contractor testifies in court that he
put it there knowing it was against the explicit demands of Don not to
it won't change the likelihood of what will happen in court . So I
don't agree that we know the mistake was deliberate, it could have
been a misunderstanding. It's also a safe bet that if it goes to
court, and Don has nothing signed on paper, or a tape recording of teh
conversation, the contractor will probably have a bad memory of
exactly what was said. Heck, teh contractor could turn the fact that
there was a conversation against Don. Had their been no conversation
there could have been no agreement with Don as to where the fence
might go. Absent such conversation the logical starting point would
be that it shouldn't go on Don's property. However, once Don and teh
contractor agree that there was a conversation it opens the door to
there having been a agreement for it being placed somewhere other then
all on the other owners property. The admission of the conversation
without any documentation of what was agreed to could weaken Don's
case, not strengthen it. Now if there were not only ONE contractors
person in teh conversation but a second one, and still only Don for
his side, you would wind up in court with two people from the
contractors saying "Don said it was OK to put the posts half on his
side." This is why going to court is a last resort and a crap shoot.

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

It reminds me of when I had an 80 Chevy Citation. The brakes
sometimes didn't work and it could be dangerous when pulling out of a
parking lot if you had to stop immediately after having given it the
gas. No matter how hard you pushed on the brake pedal it only had
about 20% stopping power. Lots of other people had the same complaint
but it was not easily reproducible and the gvt wouldn't order a
recall. I called an attorney about it. After explaining teh danger
and my concerns he said "Are you going to park the car and not drive
it anymore until teh case is settled? If not, you are going to be in
the position that you think the car is too unsafe to drive yet you
would be continuing to drive it." A classic no win situation. As
luck would have it, someone T-boned and totaled the car not long
after.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 09:18:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:55:35 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 03:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:











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.





Note that in the issue that was being responded to the error was a

full foot, not 1.5". Also note that for the issue cited the fence was

built ENTIRELY on the wrong property. So the facts of that case are

NOT the facts of the OPs case. The OPs case has the fence a mere 1.5"

off and it is NOT entirely on the wrong property. Should the OP rely

on the material you cited and remove the fence he might well find

himself in court and later paying to have the fence put back up.



Also note in the material you cited that it takes ONLY one year for

the person who built the fence in the wrong spot to gain the legal

right to have it there. A perfect example of adverse possession and

much sooner then the 20 years you keep talking about.



Stick with me and you may actually learn something.


Stick with you? You can't even read the law. The Oregon law
does not say what you claim. It does not say that if someone
builds a fence on your property you lose that property via
adverse possession in a year. It says that if someone builds a
fence on your property by mistake and in good faith, that person
then has a year to REMOVE it. During that one year period, you
the property owner can't remove it. It's to give someone who made
an honest mistake one year to remove the fence themselves, before
you tear it down and get it off YOUR property.

Anything else we can help you with, just let us know.

You're right, I did misread that. Happy to admit that mistake.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 12:10:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:




A classic no win situation. As
luck would have it, someone T-boned and totaled the car not long
after.

So the solution then, is to have someone drive through the fence
forcing it to be rebuilt and properly located.

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

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:

wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

...Major Snippage Occurred...


I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?

Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.


Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.

Ashton,

Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time
that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,
since you keep claiming he didn't say them.

Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:

"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they
still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further
discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it
up?"

To which he replied:

?I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason
they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on
my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their
property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the
pole.?

2 3/4? would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5? placed only
part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.
That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that
the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's
side of the pole.

Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence
was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and
actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the
argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."
Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by
way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's
property.

Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps
you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a
judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by
using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's
property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.


Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes
back to what I said before about the difference between what people
"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an
issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was
objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the
workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the
entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that
he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would
make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only
person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being
sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later
that "I thought you meant....."

Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you
keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.

Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be
considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would
rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement
was a mistake?

When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said
things like:

"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"

It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is
telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual
reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or
architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to
where to place the fence.

I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge
would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do
you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially
allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?

I guess you didn't understand what I posted. Yes, Don feels he made
himself clear i.e. Don't put it on my property. But is that what was
"heard"? Does he have it in writing? Did he tell the OWNER, not just
the owners agent. I'm not saying my position is necessarily "fair"
from Don's point of view, just what might well happen in court when
there is nothing but -he said, she said- testimony. The judge wasn't
there, he can only make his decision based on what the plaintiff and
defendant tell him combined with any actual facts (surveys,
photographs, contract documents, actual impact) that can be
introduced.

I agree with you that my characterization of Don's original statement
was wrong, However, unless the contractor testifies in court that he
put it there knowing it was against the explicit demands of Don not to
it won't change the likelihood of what will happen in court . So I
don't agree that we know the mistake was deliberate, it could have
been a misunderstanding. It's also a safe bet that if it goes to
court, and Don has nothing signed on paper, or a tape recording of teh
conversation, the contractor will probably have a bad memory of
exactly what was said. Heck, teh contractor could turn the fact that
there was a conversation against Don. Had their been no conversation
there could have been no agreement with Don as to where the fence
might go. Absent such conversation the logical starting point would
be that it shouldn't go on Don's property. However, once Don and teh
contractor agree that there was a conversation it opens the door to
there having been a agreement for it being placed somewhere other then
all on the other owners property. The admission of the conversation
without any documentation of what was agreed to could weaken Don's
case, not strengthen it. Now if there were not only ONE contractors
person in teh conversation but a second one, and still only Don for
his side, you would wind up in court with two people from the
contractors saying "Don said it was OK to put the posts half on his
side." This is why going to court is a last resort and a crap shoot.

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

So, IYHO, if Homeowner A says to Homeowner B's contractor, within earshot
of a co-worker of said contractor, "Please make sure that you do not
install that fence on my side of the line", but does not obtain a signed
document from the contractor attesting to what was said, and the contractor
and said co-worker in fact do install the fence on Homeowner A's property,
the judge may take the word of the contractor and his crew over the word of
Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.

If that was actually the case, then I guess any contractor could do
whatever they wanted and then lie to the judge about having a conversation.
What's the difference between the contractor and crew lying about what was
said in an conversation that actually happened vs. simply making up a
conversation that never occurred? As long as the homeowner can't prove that
he never had the conversation, he would lose right?

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."


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.


It reminds me of when I had an 80 Chevy Citation. The brakes
sometimes didn't work and it could be dangerous when pulling out of a
parking lot if you had to stop immediately after having given it the
gas. No matter how hard you pushed on the brake pedal it only had
about 20% stopping power. Lots of other people had the same complaint
but it was not easily reproducible and the gvt wouldn't order a
recall. I called an attorney about it. After explaining teh danger
and my concerns he said "Are you going to park the car and not drive
it anymore until teh case is settled? If not, you are going to be in
the position that you think the car is too unsafe to drive yet you
would be continuing to drive it."

It may *remind* you of the situation with your Citation, but this case is
so different that's not even worth comparing the two.

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 9:14:28 AM UTC-4, 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:







On Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:02:17 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:



On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:13:28 -0700 (PDT), "







wrote:























Judges do consider equity, not just the letter of the law. I've had 40 years of boundary surveys under my belt and have been retained as an expert witness over land issues. Consider the following:















300 foot long block with 12 each 25 foot wide properties. We survey the last property in the block and find that it is only 24 feet wide. We verify that the block is 300 feet in total and find that the first property is sitting on 26 feet width and everyone in between has exactly 25 feet.. Subdivision is about 90 years old. All houses are about the same age. A judge would find it very inequitable to have every one of the owners mover their improvements by one (1) foot. All 10 of the interior lots are encroaching on their neighbor by one foot. Fairness and equity are a big part of the law.















Ivan Vegvary















So, I sign a contract for you to survey my land for $2000.







You perform the work, there is no dispute that it's correct.







I later find that 8 other surveyors are only charging $800







to $1200. I send you a check for $1000, because that's a fair price..







So, is a judge going to decide that $1000 is a fair price







and that's all I have to pay, or is the judge going to enforce







contract law and make me pay you the $2000?















I agree you can come up with extreme cases, like the







one you cite. But even in that example, it isn't even clear to







me who is at fault, how the problem came to be, and







that it can't be solved by straightforward application of







the law. For example, the application of adverse possession.







The last lot is 24ft, it's been that way long enough to







satisfy adverse possession. That could be the end of







story without any need for "fairness". If the 24 ft means







that it doesn't meet the minimums to build some new structure,







put up a new fence, etc, then that's what zoning variances







are for.















And this case thread of someone putting up a fence on your







property 2 months ago is very different. If judges started







allowing a fence to stay based on "fairness", it sets a







very bad precedence. It encourages everyone else to do







the same thing and then sue for "fairness" instead of







property rights. In this thread case, there is no dispute







as to where the property boundary was. The neighbor's







workmen were informed of it. The survey of both neighbors







show it to be in the same place.















My main point is that many people think a judge is there







with fairness and equity as the main concern. If that were







the case, the judge in my surveying work example would say







all you get is $1000, because that is a fair price for the







work. But the judge is going to enforce contract law and







you would get your $2000.























You presented a clear contract law issue which is easily resolved







based on past precedent. The 1.5" property line issue is not the







same.















Why isn't it the same? As the facts are presented here, there is no disagreement



over the survey, no issue of accuracy. The neighbor's contractor was



even informed by Don where the property line is located and that where



they were first going to put the fence was 3" on his side. The



property line is not disputed. Then the contractor and/or neighbor went ahead and built the fence on Don's property anyway. Any monkey with a



transit would know the fence was on the wrong property.



















The use of the equity law is often for cases when the award of money







makes no sense.











Don doesn't want an award. He wants the fence off his property.











Show any real harm from the fence being 1.5" off. Is







that costing you money? No. Just because someone wants to be a dick







(and I'm not saying the OP is in this case) doesn't mean he will be







allowed to.







The "dick" is the neighbor and/or his contractor, who built a



fence on property they don't own. Why would a court reward this



behavior? If they let this guy do it, then why wouldn't anyone



violate any neighbor's property rights, and then leave it up to



the property owner to prove "real harm"?















This is a residential house and it's value is not







diminished because of the loss of 1.5" of property. If the error was







1.5 feet there would be something worth worrying about.







Again, as the facts are presented here, it was *not* a mistake.



And even if it is, what I own is mine. If you come along and



build something on it, it's YOUR problem, not mine. And it's



not up to me to prove that it harms me. Nor is it up to me to



prove that there is loss in my property value. It's up to the



neighbor to show that the fence is on his property, where it



belongs.















Also, lets







say machinery needed to be moved in between that fence and the house







and losing 1.5" means the machinery no longer fits and the guy can't







run his business. In that case equity would be to move the fence.







BS. The property line is clear. The neighbor chose to violate it,



even after being told. The law says you can't build something on



you neighbors property. Judges follow the law.







The thing you keep missing is that this is NOT a contract dispute. The



guy who built the fence did NOT have a contract with the OP, he had a



contract with the owner of the house who had the fence built. If the



court ruled that the fence had to be moved, THEN that homeowner would



have a contract dispute with the contractor who failed to build it on



the property and HE could sue for performance if teh contractor



refused to move the fence. The OP has no standing to sue based on the



contract, he's not a party to it.





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 agree, if it is 1 in or 3 feet, to me they are the same. why you build on other people property? and he has told them not to and showed them why. I have exactly same situation, the previous neighbor built it on my property. My current neighbor and I inherited this problem that is why we are ok with it even it is not fair; but his case is totally different, they could have avoided building that

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

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

wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:



wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:



...Major Snippage Occurred...





I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?



Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.





Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.



Ashton,



Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time

that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,

since you keep claiming he didn't say them.



Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:



"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they

still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further

discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it

up?"



To which he replied:



?I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason

they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on

my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their

property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the

pole.?



2 3/4? would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5? placed only

part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.

That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that

the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's

side of the pole.



Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence

was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and

actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the

argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."

Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by

way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's

property.



Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps

you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a

judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by

using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's

property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.





Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes

back to what I said before about the difference between what people

"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an

issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was

objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the

workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the

entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that

he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would

make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only

person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being

sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later

that "I thought you meant....."



Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you

keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.



Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be

considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would

rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement

was a mistake?



When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said

things like:



"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"



It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is

telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual

reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or

architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to

where to place the fence.



I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge

would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do

you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially

allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?



I guess you didn't understand what I posted. Yes, Don feels he made

himself clear i.e. Don't put it on my property. But is that what was

"heard"? Does he have it in writing? Did he tell the OWNER, not just

the owners agent. I'm not saying my position is necessarily "fair"

from Don's point of view, just what might well happen in court when

there is nothing but -he said, she said- testimony. The judge wasn't

there, he can only make his decision based on what the plaintiff and

defendant tell him combined with any actual facts (surveys,

photographs, contract documents, actual impact) that can be

introduced.



I agree with you that my characterization of Don's original statement

was wrong, However, unless the contractor testifies in court that he

put it there knowing it was against the explicit demands of Don not to

it won't change the likelihood of what will happen in court . So I

don't agree that we know the mistake was deliberate, it could have

been a misunderstanding. It's also a safe bet that if it goes to

court, and Don has nothing signed on paper, or a tape recording of teh

conversation, the contractor will probably have a bad memory of

exactly what was said. Heck, teh contractor could turn the fact that

there was a conversation against Don. Had their been no conversation

there could have been no agreement with Don as to where the fence

might go. Absent such conversation the logical starting point would

be that it shouldn't go on Don's property. However, once Don and teh

contractor agree that there was a conversation it opens the door to

there having been a agreement for it being placed somewhere other then

all on the other owners property. The admission of the conversation

without any documentation of what was agreed to could weaken Don's

case, not strengthen it. Now if there were not only ONE contractors

person in teh conversation but a second one, and still only Don for

his side, you would wind up in court with two people from the

contractors saying "Don said it was OK to put the posts half on his

side." This is why going to court is a last resort and a crap shoot.



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

one...



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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.



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

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

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

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

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

he never had the conversation, he would lose right?


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

A: He did not authorize it

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

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

D: The fence got built on the property anyway.

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




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

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

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

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

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

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



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

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:25:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 12:10:57 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:




A classic no win situation. As
luck would have it, someone T-boned and totaled the car not long
after.

So the solution then, is to have someone drive through the fence
forcing it to be rebuilt and properly located.

Now that's outside the box!!

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.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:40:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
I agree with your point here. The one irrefutable fact is that
there is a 20 ft fence built on land that the owner of the land
says:

A: He did not authorize it

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

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

D: The fence got built on the property anyway.

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




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

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

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

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

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

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



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



Yes, it's so obvious that a 1.5" error is no different then a 1.5 foot
error, or a 15 foot error. And a 0.15" error is similarly just as
much a violation of the property line and also would be ruled by a
judge as sufficient to warrant moving the fence. I know I'm
convinced.

Enough already, here's my ruling:

Since both parties benefit from the fence,
the fence shall be moved so that the center of the fence posts shall be exactly on the lot line.

The net result will be that an equal amount of fence thickness will reside on both sides of the lot line.

On Monday, July 8, 2013 2:24:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

There you go again. From all that's been stated, it's *not* likely
an 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 ????


All indications are that it's *not* an error. 1.5" of land use loss
on a tiny NYC backyard is *not* insignificant. A judge is also going
to apply any de minimus concepts differently when the neighbor's workers
were specifically told not to put the fence on the man's property. And
good grief, any halfway competent worker can place a string line and
easily tell that they are encroaching 1.5" on a 20 ft long backyard fence.

Now, you then think it's up to the rightful property owner to then
prove that he's somehow harmed in a significant way for the judge to
do the most simple, direct thing, which is to order the little 20 ft
fence moved. You seem to want to apply some strange, reverse criminal
level of proof standard. It's not enough that the fence is obviously on
the wrong property. The rightful property owner, according to you, must
mount every hurdle, every presumption in favor of the illegal fence,
every excuse, beyond a reasonable doubt, to get that fence removed.

Seems everyone else here thinks it shouldn't and doesn't usually work
that way.









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.

A confirming witness? It's not an independent witness. It's the
jerk or jerk's who built the fence on the wrong property. The folks
who are going to have to move it if they lose. How much credibility
do they have and why would a judge believe them over the property
owner? A lawyer would have a field day with this guy. Questions like
how long have you been building fences? Did you even tell the owner
you were working for that you were going to put the fence on my
client's property? Your an experiences professional, if my client authorized
you to put the fence on his property, why on earth would you do so
without getting it in writing.....? And hence, I agree with Derby,
a judge isn't likely to take his word over that of the homeowner. It's
simple. Which is more likely? That the property owner who is concerned
about 1.5" gave permission, but now changed his mind, or that the
workers who built it where it did not belong are lying?





And I suppose if there is a third confirming witness that will just be

MORE evidence that they are all lying. Interesting theory.



What's interesting is how you want to apply every hurdle imaginable,
every flimsy excuse, in favor of the skunks who built a fence on another
guy's property. You think it's up to the rightful owner to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt, perhaps beyond EVERY doubt, that the fence should go.
All he has to do is tip the balance of the scales beyond 50-50 to win
the case. From everything I see here, he has way more than that on his
side.









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.


All the "facts" in evidence suggest exactly the opposite. So much
so that YOU are inventing "facts" to try to change the case.

On Monday, July 8, 2013 2:28:45 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:40:00 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

I agree with your point here. The one irrefutable fact is that

there is a 20 ft fence built on land that the owner of the land

says:



A: He did not authorize it



B: He saw they were going to build the fence on his property and

told them not to.



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



D: The fence got built on the property anyway.



All the rest is at best he said, she said. Very easy for a judge

to just cut through all that crap, if it's even raised and tell them to move the 20 ft fence. Ashton is going on like having to move that stupid little

fence is some great burden on those that put it there. It's a little

20ft fence built on the wrong property.









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



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



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



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



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



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







Ahmen to that brother. In Ashton's world, a neigbor can put up

a fence on your property, despite being told not to and then somehow

it's up to you to prove

that you really, really needed that property, to get it back.

To prove that it's

a hardship on you to lose a bit of your property. I think

you and I agree courts don't like to reward bad behavior. If they

OK this, then why wouldn't the next shyster neighbor or contractor

pull the same thing, only worse?







Yes, it's so obvious that a 1.5" error is no different then a 1.5 foot

error, or a 15 foot error. And a 0.15" error is similarly just as

much a violation of the property line and also would be ruled by a

judge as sufficient to warrant moving the fence. I know I'm

convinced.

Do you live in the real world? You have a backyard where a 20' long fence
is going to be erected. We have two pins that mark the endpoints that are
agreed on. Now, could a fence contractor put up a fence as close as possible
to that line and make certain that they didn't go over the line by .15"?
Using commonly available tools, yes, if they really wanted to, they could
do that. One obvious and simple way is just build the fence over by 1"
or so on your own property, to make sure there is some margin for error.
Nothing hard about that, unless you're a skunk who wants to walk all over
other people, take advantage of them.

But if somehow they went over by .15", it's something that workers
taking reasonable care, might do and then I would agree a court would
probably say it's de minimus. But 1.5" you could avoid with a $1 string line.
And in my book, the standard for accuracy and due diligence goes up greatly
when the property owner previously told them not to do it. Plus, as stated
there is an OBVIOUS reason they went over the 1.5", which is to avoid a
zig-zag around a utility pole. All the evidence suggests it was deliberate,
*not* a mistake.

Tekkie can teach you how to snip?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
wrote in message ...
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 6:32:16 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:



wrote:



Ashton Crusher wrote:



...Major Snippage Occurred...





I've never said that. Why do you assume it was deliberate?



Because of the facts stated over and over by Don.





Noting Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate.



Ashton,



Have you actually read all of what Don has said? This is not the first time

that we (including Don) have had to point out the things that Don has said,

since you keep claiming he didn't say them.



Very, very early in this thread I said to Don:



"It seems wierd that you pointed pointed out the property line and they

still encroached upon your property, apparently without any further

discussion. How did the property line discussion go when you brought it

up?"



To which he replied:



?I brought it up with the workmen. They did not disagree. But the reason

they were first trying to put is 2 3/4" over is to get all of the wood on

my side of the telephone pole. The reason they didn't put it fully on their

property, is they wanted to get all of the heading piece on my side of the

Engineering HumorHumor Section:

On this page:
Engineering Terminology
Top Ten Reasons To Date an Engineer
Top Ten Reasons NOT to Date an Engineer
You Might Be An Engineer If...
Joke


"For an optimist the glass is half full, for a pessimist it's half empty, and
for an engineer is twice bigger than necessary." Engineering

Terminology
What is said / What it means
A number of different approaches are being tried./We don't know where we're going, but we're moving.
An extensive report is being prepared on a fresh approach to the problem./We just hired three guys... We'll let them kick it around for a while.
Developped after years of intensive research./It was discovered by accident.
Modifications are underway to correct certain minor difficulties./We threw
the whole thing out and are starting from scratch.
Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive./The darn thing blew up
when we threw the switch.
Test results were extremely gratifying./It works, and boy are we surprised !
The design will be finalized in the next reporting period./We haven't
started this job yet, but we've got to say something.
The entire concept is unworkable./The only guy who understood the thing
just quit.
We need close project coordination./We should have asked someone else.
Alternate: Let's spread the responsibility for this.


"Clothes are the lowest priority for an engineer, assuming the basic
thresholds for temperature and decency have been satisfied. If no appendages
are freezing or sticking together, and if no genitalia or mammary glands are
swinging around in plain view, then the objective of clothing has been met.
Anything else is a waste."

Top Ten Reasons To Date an Engineer
The world does
revolve around us... We pick the coordinate system.
Find out what those other buttons on your calculator do.
We know how to handle stress and strain in our relationships.
Parents will approve.
Help with your math homework.
Can calculate head pressure.
Looks good on a resume.
Free body diagrams.
High starting salary.
Extremely good looking


"You can't spell Geek without EE."
Top Ten Reasons NOT to Date an
EngineerT-shirt and jeans are their formal dress.
Hot dog and a six-pack is their seven-course meal.
The only social life known of is to post and talk on the net.
Flames like a monster and speaks like a pussycat.
Works from 6:30am to 7:30pm daily.
No morning kisses and no evening walks.
No matter how hard you cry and how loud you yell, he just sits there calmly
discussing your emotion in terms of mathematical logic.
Only listens to classic rock. Hates everything from Bach to Prince.
Touches his car more often than you.
Talks in acronyms.
Can't leave that damn pencil off his ear for a minute.
Will file a divorce if you call him in the middle of debugging.


From the back page of the Engineering Weekly ("Ingenioren," a weekly paper for
Danish engineers) on May 19th, 1995.


"Q: What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers ?
A: Mechanical Engineers build weapons, Civil Engineers build targets."

You Might
Be An Engineer If...You have no life - and you can PROVE it mathematically.
You enjoy pain.
You know vector calculus but you can't remember how to do long division.
You chuckle whenever anyone says "centrifugal force".
You've actually used every single function on your graphing calculator.
It is sunny and 70 degrees outside, and you are working on a computer.
You frequently whistle the theme song to "MacGyver".
You know how to integrate a chicken and can take the derivative of water.
You think in "math".
You've calculated that the World Series actually diverges.
You hesitate to look at something because you don't want to break down its
wave function.
You have a pet named after a scientist.
You laugh at jokes about mathematicians.
The Humane society has you arrested because you actually performed the
Schrodinger's Cat experiment.
You can translate English into Binary.
You can't remember what's behind the door in the engineering building which
says "Exit".
You have to bring a jacket with you, in the middle of summer, because there's
a wind-chill factor in the lab.
You are completely addicted to caffeine.
You avoid doing anything because you don't want to contribute to the eventual
heat-death of the universe.
You consider ANY non-engineering course "easy".
When your professor asks you where your homework is, you claim to have
accidentally determined its momentum so precisely, that according to
Heisenberg it could be anywhere in the universe.
The "fun" center of your brain has deteriorated from lack of use.
You'll assume that a "horse" is a "sphere" in order to make the math easier.
The blinking 12:00 on someone's VCR draws you in like a tractor beam to fix
it.
You bring a computer manual / technical journal as vacation reading.
The salesperson at Circuit City can't answer any of your questions.
You can't help eavesdropping in computer stores... and correcting the
salesperson.
You're in line for the guillotine... it stops working properly... and you
offer to fix it.
You go on the rides at Disneyland and sit backwards to see how they do the
special effects.
You have any "Dilbert" comics displayed in your work area.
You have a habit of destroying things in order to see how they work.
You have never backed up your hard drive.
You haven't bought any new underwear or socks for yourself since you got
married.
You spent more on your calculator than on your wedding ring.
You think that when people around you yawn, it's because they didn't get
enough sleep.
You would rather get more dots per inch than miles per gallon
You've ever calculated how much you make per second.
Your favorite James Bond character is "Q," the guy who makes the gadgets.
You understood more than five of these jokes.
You make a copy of this list, and post it on your door (or your home page !)


"Boring: See Engineers." —
From the Yellow Pages.
JokeA man was crossing a
road one day when a frog called out to him and said: "If you kiss me, I'll turn
into a beautiful princess".
He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket. The frog spoke up
again and said: "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I
will stay with you for one week."
The man took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the
pocket. The frog then cried out: "If you kiss me and turn me back into a
princess, I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want".
Again the man took the
frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.
Finally, the frog asked: "What is the matter ? I've told you I'm a beautiful
princess, that I'll stay with you for a week and do anything you want. Why won't
you kiss me ?"
The man said, "Look I'm a software engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend,
but a talking frog is cool."



YOU'RE PROBABLY AN ENGINEER...
If you introduce your wife as -

If your spouse sends you an e-mail instead of calling you to dinner

If you can quote scenes from any Monty Python movie

If you want an 24X CD-ROM drive for Christmas

If Dilbert is your hero

If you stare at an orange juice container because it says CONCENTRATE

If you can name 6 Star Trek episodes

If the only jokes you receive are through e-mail

If your wris****ch has more computing power than a 486DX-50

If your idea of good interpersonal communication means getting the decimal point in the right place

If you look forward to Christmas only to put together the kids' toys

If you use a CAD package to design your son's Pine Wood Derby car

If you've used coathangers and duct tape for something other than hanging coats and taping ducts

If, at Christmas, it goes without saying that you will be the one to find the burnt-out bulb in the string

If you window shop at Radio Shack

If your ideal evening consists of fast-forwarding through the latest sci-fi movie looking for technical inaccuracies

If you have -Dilbert- comics displayed anywhere in your work area

If you carry on a one-hour debate over the expected results of a test that actually takes five minutes to run

If you're convinced you can build a phaser out of your garage door opener and your camera's flash attachment

If you don't even know where the cover to your personal computer is

If you've modified your can opener to be microprocessor driven

If you know the direction the water swirls when you flush

If you own -Official Star Trek- anything

If you've ever taken the back off your TV just to see what's inside

If a team of you and your co-workers have set out to modify the antenna on the radio in your work area for better reception

If you thought the concoction ET used to phone home was stupid

If you ever burned down the gymnasium with your Science Fair project

If you're currently gathering the components to build your own nuclear reactor

If you own one or more short-sleeve dress shirts

If you've never backed-up your hard drive

If you're aware that computers are actually only good for playing games, but are afraid to say it out loud

If you truly believe aliens are living among us

If you've ever saved the power cord from a broken appliance

If you've ever purchased an electronic appliance -as-is-

If you see a good design and still have to change it

If the salespeople at Circuit City can't answer any of your questions

If you still own a slide rule and you know how to work it

If the thought that a CD could refer to finance and music never enters your mind

If you own a set of itty-bitty screwdrivers, but you don't remember where they are

If you rotate your screen savers more frequently than your automobile tires

If you have a functioning home copier machine, but every toaster you own turns bread into charcoal

If you have more toys than your kids

If you need a checklist to turn on the TV

If you've introduced your kids by the wrong name

If your wife thinks your taste in ties is bizarre

If you have a habit of destroying things in order to see how they work

If your IQ is bigger than your weight

If the microphone or visual aids at a meeting don't work and you rush up to the front to fix it

If you can remember 7 computer passwords but not your anniversary

If you've memorized the program schedule for the Discovery channel and have seen most of the shows already

If you've ever owned a calculator with no equal key and know what RPN stands for

If your father sat 2 inches in front of your family's first color TV with a magnifying lens to see how they made the colors, and you grew up thinking that was normal

If you know how to take the cover off of your computer, and what size screwdriver to use

If you can type 70 words a minute but can't read your own handwriting

If people groan at the party when you pick out the music

If you can't remember where you parked your car for the 3rd time this week

If people hound you for pocket protectors at Halloween time

If you did the sound system for your senior prom

If your checkbook always balances

If your girlfriend says the way you dress is no reflection on her

If your wris****ch has more buttons than a telephone

If you have more friends on the Internet than in real life

If you thought the real heroes of -Apollo 13- were the mission controllers

If you think your computer looks better without the cover

If you think that when people around you yawn, its because they didn't get
enough sleep

If your wife hasn't the foggiest idea what you do at work

If you spend more on your home computer than your car

If you know what http:// stands for

If you've ever tried to repair a $5 radio

If you have a neatly sorted collection of old bolts and nuts in your garage

If your favorite part of the 6 o clock news is comparing their latest satellite weather picture with yours

If your three-year-old son asks why the sky is blue and you try to explain atmospheric absorption theory

If your lap-top computer costs more than your car

If your 4 basic food groups a 1. Caffeine 2. Fat 3. Sugar 4.Chocolate

If you read all of this.

Subject: Cold Enough For You?
Date: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:21 AM

60 deg F: Southern Californians shiver uncontrollably.
People in New England sunbathe. Survivalists continue to split wood.

50 deg F: New Yorkers try to turn on the heat.
People in New England plant gardens.

40 deg F: Italian & English cars won't start.
People in New England drive with the windows down.
Survivalists go buy a couple more bottles of propane.

32 deg F: Distilled water freezes. The water at
Moosehead Lake in Maine starts getting cooler.

20 deg F: Floridians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats.
People in New England throw on a flannel shirt, buttons open.

15 deg F: New York City landlords finally turn up the heat.
People in New England have the last cookout before it gets cold.

0 deg F: All the people in Miami die . New Englanders close the windows.
Survivalists light a fire in the fireplace, and put some more fuel in
the heater.

10 below zero: Californians escape en masse to Mexico.
Girl Scouts in New England sell cookies door to door.
Survivalists continue to post on Usenet.

25 below zero: Las Vegas disintegrates.
People in New England rummage around the attic to find some winter
coats.
Survivalists get out their snowblowers.

40 below zero: Washington DC runs out of hot air.
People in New England let the dogs sleep indoors.
Survivalistst put on another blanket on the bed.

100 below zero: Santa Claus abandons the North Pole. Some New
Englanders are frustrated when they can't start their "kahs".
Survivalists enjoy a big pot of chili on the stove.

460 below zero (absolute zero on the Kelvin Scale): All atomic motion stops.
People in New England start saying . . "Cold 'nuff for ya?"
Canadians let their dogs sleep indoors for one night.

500 deg below zero: Hell freezes over. Red Sox win World Series.
________________


pole.?



2 3/4? would have placed the entire fence on his property, 1.5? placed only

part of the poles on his property and allowed the top to clear the pole.

That was actually the 2nd time very early in the thread that Don noted that

the workman put the fence on his property in order to get the top on Don's

side of the pole.



Many of us have mentioned, numerous times, that the placement of the fence

was *not* a mistake, at least according to Don. If you'll go back and

actually read some of the things that Don said, perhaps you'll see that the

argument that a judge may not simply say "It's only 1.5", live with it."

Perhaps you'll see that by doing that he would be allowing the neighbor, by

way of the contractor, to decide what he can do to some other person's

property.



Since the placement of the fence on Don's property was deliberate, perhaps

you should restate your argument. You don't have to change what you think a

judge might do if you don't want to, but at least form your opinion by

using the correct facts: the fence was deliberately placed on Don's

property for the sole purpose of having the top clear the pole.





Thanks for pointing out that info. I do recall reading it and it goes

back to what I said before about the difference between what people

"said" versus what people "thought was said" and how that can be an

issue in court. Don may well have thought they understood that he was

objecting to ANY of it being on his property. But the

workman/contractor may have thought that while he objected to the

entire thing being on his property to facilitate the pole problem that

he was ok with part of the posts being on his property if that would

make things work out OK relative to the pole. Surely I'm not the only

person to have ever had a conversation with someone and left being

sure we both understand what was to be done only to find out later

that "I thought you meant....."



Hmm... I don't see anything in your response related to the arguments you

keep making about the placement being a mistake and how a judge would rule.



Regardless if it was all or partial, the placement can no longer be

considered a mistake. Wasn't a lot of your argument about how a judge would

rule (in this case) based almost entirely on the fact that the placement

was a mistake?



When you made your statements about how a judge would rule, you often said

things like:



"Noting (sic) Don said indicates the final mistake was deliberate"



It has now been pointed out with complete certainty (assuming that Don is

telling the truth) that there was no mistake and that there was an actual

reason (the pole) and thus a conscious decision made by the contractor or

architect or fence owner (hereafter known as the "fence party") as to

where to place the fence.



I am now curious as to how that changes your argument as to how a judge

would rule. Based on the deliberateness of the fence party's actions, do

you still feel that a judge would allow the fence to remain, essentially

allowing the fence party to deliberately encroach upon Don's property?



I guess you didn't understand what I posted. Yes, Don feels he made

himself clear i.e. Don't put it on my property. But is that what was

"heard"? Does he have it in writing? Did he tell the OWNER, not just

the owners agent. I'm not saying my position is necessarily "fair"

from Don's point of view, just what might well happen in court when

there is nothing but -he said, she said- testimony. The judge wasn't

there, he can only make his decision based on what the plaintiff and

defendant tell him combined with any actual facts (surveys,

photographs, contract documents, actual impact) that can be

introduced.



I agree with you that my characterization of Don's original statement

was wrong, However, unless the contractor testifies in court that he

put it there knowing it was against the explicit demands of Don not to

it won't change the likelihood of what will happen in court . So I

don't agree that we know the mistake was deliberate, it could have

been a misunderstanding. It's also a safe bet that if it goes to

court, and Don has nothing signed on paper, or a tape recording of teh

conversation, the contractor will probably have a bad memory of

exactly what was said. Heck, teh contractor could turn the fact that

there was a conversation against Don. Had their been no conversation

there could have been no agreement with Don as to where the fence

might go. Absent such conversation the logical starting point would

be that it shouldn't go on Don's property. However, once Don and teh

contractor agree that there was a conversation it opens the door to

there having been a agreement for it being placed somewhere other then

all on the other owners property. The admission of the conversation

without any documentation of what was agreed to could weaken Don's

case, not strengthen it. Now if there were not only ONE contractors

person in teh conversation but a second one, and still only Don for

his side, you would wind up in court with two people from the

contractors saying "Don said it was OK to put the posts half on his

side." This is why going to court is a last resort and a crap shoot.



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

one...



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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.



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

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

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

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

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

he never had the conversation, he would lose right?


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

A: He did not authorize it

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

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

D: The fence got built on the property anyway.

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




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

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

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

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

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

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



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

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


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.
In any such case I am familiar with, if there is any kind of he said
controversy, the rule is that they default to what is on paper. I really
don't think a non-documented bit of discussion would hold much weight.
The judge should look at the documentation and rule based on the deed.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:58:51 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
But far simpler than all of this is to simply slice off the part that is in
my yard. Very simple to do.

What the hell do you mean by "slice off?"

Are you talking about splitting the posts vertically or something? What about the part underground?

Frankly, you've only made a half-hearted attempt to contact the owner about the issue. You probably emailed or called a whopping one time and left a voicemail...

If this is such a big deal to you put some real effort into making contact, and don't let up until you physically talk to someone.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:29:14 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
I just e-mailed the contractor. I had been trying to not rub him the wrong
way. He has some capabilities that not all contractors have. I have been
hoping to hire him for projects at my house. This e-mail may burn my
bridges with him.

Jeezus Kee-rist, email is NOT the way to handle this. Everybody is so damned timid and shy, afraid of human contact.

Email is still not a primary business correspondence on things of importance. You need to pay the contractor a physical visit, or call him on the phone and talk with him personally.

On Monday, July 8, 2013 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:29:14 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:

I just e-mailed the contractor. I had been trying to not rub him the wrong

way. He has some capabilities that not all contractors have. I have been

hoping to hire him for projects at my house. This e-mail may burn my

bridges with him.



Jeezus Kee-rist, email is NOT the way to handle this. Everybody is so damned timid and shy, afraid of human contact.



Email is still not a primary business correspondence on things of importance. You need to pay the contractor a physical visit, or call him on the phone and talk with him personally.


I would disagree. Today email is a primary means of business communications.
And unlike a visit or a phone call, you have proof of what you sent, what
their reply was. If you wind up in court, that is good evidence. With a
call or conversation, there is no proof of who said what.

If they ignore emails, for something where I want to put them on notice,
I'd send a registered letter.

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:58:51 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
But far simpler than all of this is to simply slice off the part that is in
my yard. Very simple to do.

What the hell do you mean by "slice off?"
Are you talking about splitting the posts vertically or something? What about the part underground?

Yes. If I left the top alone he wouldn't even know. He can't see my side. I
would leave what is underground. Right now I waiting for the city to cite
him for it being overheight. And to see what the city says about it being
an inadequate retaining wall. Right now the wall is already bulging out
onto my property.

It appears that on the side walls there is cement board between the soil
and the 3/4" cedar. There is not along the back wall.

I want to put a fence across my backside. It will be mahogany. It will last
50 years. I don't want to have to put it 2" inside the property line.

The fence is at an angle. One post is 1-7/8" inside. The next post is
1-1/2" inside. And the last two posts can't be easily measured, but let's
say 1-1/4" inside.

Frankly, you've only made a half-hearted attempt to contact the owner about the issue. You probably emailed or called a whopping one time and left a voicemail...
If this is such a big deal to you put some real effort into making contact, and don't let up until you physically talk to someone.

I do not have an e-mail address for the owner. Nor is there a phone number.
Walking around the block is the only way I have to contact him. When I did
meet with him I gave him my card and he said he would e-mail me. He did
not. I gather his tactic is to simply ignore me and hope I give up.

The city can take 40 days to come inspect. Someone else complained about
the fence height. It took them 45 days to visit. I don't know where they
measured from (not my property), and the inspector claimed it was okay.

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

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:19:08 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:58:51 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
But far simpler than all of this is to simply slice off the part that is in
my yard. Very simple to do.

What the hell do you mean by "slice off?"
Are you talking about splitting the posts vertically or something? What about the part underground?

Yes. If I left the top alone he wouldn't even know. He can't see my side. I
would leave what is underground. Right now I waiting for the city to cite
him for it being overheight. And to see what the city says about it being
an inadequate retaining wall. Right now the wall is already bulging out
onto my property.

It appears that on the side walls there is cement board between the soil
and the 3/4" cedar. There is not along the back wall.

I want to put a fence across my backside. It will be mahogany. It will last
50 years. I don't want to have to put it 2" inside the property line.

The fence is at an angle. One post is 1-7/8" inside. The next post is
1-1/2" inside. And the last two posts can't be easily measured, but let's
say 1-1/4" inside.

Frankly, you've only made a half-hearted attempt to contact the owner about the issue. You probably emailed or called a whopping one time and left a voicemail...
If this is such a big deal to you put some real effort into making contact, and don't let up until you physically talk to someone.

I do not have an e-mail address for the owner. Nor is there a phone number.
Walking around the block is the only way I have to contact him. When I did
meet with him I gave him my card and he said he would e-mail me. He did
not. I gather his tactic is to simply ignore me and hope I give up.

The city can take 40 days to come inspect. Someone else complained about
the fence height. It took them 45 days to visit. I don't know where they
measured from (not my property), and the inspector claimed it was okay.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
From his side it likely IS legal - above the fill.

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:20:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:19:08 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
Someone else complained about
the fence height. It took them 45 days to visit. I don't know where they
measured from (not my property), and the inspector claimed it was okay.

From his side it likely IS legal - above the fill.

The regulations state it is measured from the natural terrain. There is
86-1/2" of wood siting on top of the soil when viewed from my side. Maximum
is 72".

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

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 23:56:10 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:20:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:19:08 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
Someone else complained about
the fence height. It took them 45 days to visit. I don't know where they
measured from (not my property), and the inspector claimed it was okay.

From his side it likely IS legal - above the fill.

The regulations state it is measured from the natural terrain. There is
86-1/2" of wood siting on top of the soil when viewed from my side. Maximum
is 72".

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Like I said - from owners side it appears legal

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).

When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).

When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.

Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC.

I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board
between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor
thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know
what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the
dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful
to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house.
The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.

I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the
owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"
cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.

Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,
the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my
contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to
renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.

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

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:36:57 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).



When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.



Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC.



I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board

between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor

thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know

what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the

dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful

to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house..

The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.



I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the

owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"

cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.



Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,

the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my

contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to

renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.



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


You know, after the above, you've earned being added to my list of
village idiots for which there is no hope.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:36:57 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).

When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.

Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC.

I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board
between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor
thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know
what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the
dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful
to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house.
The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.

I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the
owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"
cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.

Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,
the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my
contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to
renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.

You know, after the above, you've earned being added to my list of
village idiots for which there is no hope.

If I have to send a registered letter I will. But at this early stage it
makes no sense to rub the neighbor the wrong way with a threatening letter.

The contractor has not stated that he isn't going to correct it. Even in my
conversation with the owner I said I was going to wait to see what the city
says about its height, and how much over it is. Certainly no one is going
to do anything until we know the answer to this.

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

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 6:36:46 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:36:57 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).



When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.



Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC..



I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board

between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor

thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know

what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the

dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful

to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house.

The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.



I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the

owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"

cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.



Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,

the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my

contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to

renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.



You know, after the above, you've earned being added to my list of

village idiots for which there is no hope.



If I have to send a registered letter I will. But at this early stage it

makes no sense to rub the neighbor the wrong way with a threatening letter.

On Monday, July 8, 2013 12:24:29 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2013 11:26:10 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Email is still not a primary business correspondence on things of importance. You need to pay the contractor a physical visit, or call him on the phone and talk with him personally.

I would disagree. Today email is a primary means of business communications.
And unlike a visit or a phone call, you have proof of what you sent, what
their reply was. If you wind up in court, that is good evidence. With a
call or conversation, there is no proof of who said what.

It is *A* means of business communication, not the primary means though.

It's so easy to send emails that your "important" email gets lost in the dozens of other "important" emails everyone else is sending.

The email is proof you made contact. You still need to follow up with a phone call, to make sure they read the email and understood it.

At work, management gets so many emails in a day it's not humanly possible to read them all, so they don't. "I sent you an email" is not an excuse when they're not aware of some issue that goes up the food chain to the executives.

So, you email, follow up with a phone call, and in some cases, a physical visit to the manager's office.

If they ignore emails, for something where I want to put them on notice,
I'd send a registered letter.

On Monday, July 8, 2013 7:19:08 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
If this is such a big deal to you put some real effort into making contact, and don't let up until you physically talk to someone.

I do not have an e-mail address for the owner. Nor is there a phone number.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:52:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You just don't get it. I've sided with you, that the fence should be
moved and that you'd likely prevail if it went as far as court. But
everyone here, even those of us that disagree about that aspect, AFAIK,
agree that you should be communicating with the property owner, not
his architect and contractors. Yet, for some strange reason, you persist.

I've talked with the property owner. Apparently he is willing to delegate
the solution to the architect and contractor.

As for rubbing someone the wrong way, if I were your neighbor, by now, I'd be royaly ****ed. He's paying those companies to follow his directions and you are wasting their time, interfering.

How am I wasting their time? It is not like they are billing the owner by
the hour to talk with me. The architect is on a fixed price contract. The
contractor only charges for work that is done.

That path is a perilous one. You talk to the architect, you talk to
the contractor, what happens if they tear apart what is there, redo it
and then the neighbor sues you for $5000 for the cost? IMO, he would have
an excellent case. You have no business being involved in crafting a
"solution" with any of the contractors of the owner, only the owner
directly, unless the owner says he want you involved with them. He just
says, "I didn't tell them to do it that way....."

You think they would tear it down without telling the owner what they are
doing and what it will cost? You got to be kidding me.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out. Nothing is going to happen until
after the city comes and inspects. There is nothing to talk about until we
get their report.

And I am certainly not going to send some threatening letter by registered
mail. Unless he has refused to fix it. But at this point no one has said
anything about not fixing it.

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

On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, 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 bot

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 04:42:35 -0400, God wrote:

Enough already, here's my ruling:

Since both parties benefit from the fence,
the fence shall be moved so that the center of the fence posts shall be exactly on the lot line.

The net result will be that an equal amount of fence thickness will reside on both sides of the lot line.



I assume the posts are in concrete but that may be a bad assumption. I
have to wonder if the people who are so insistent that a 1.5" error on
the SURFACE must be corrected don't care that under the surface the
concrete encroach's on the neighbor.

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:36:57 PM UTC-4, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).



When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.



Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC.



I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board

between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor

thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know

what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the

dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful

to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house.

The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.



I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the

owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"

cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.



Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,

the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my

contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to

renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.



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


You know, after the above, you've earned being added to my list of
village idiots for which there is no hope.

And you keep showing that you are just a thug.

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:36:57 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:49:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, 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).

When is Mr. Wiss going to craft a letter and send it by registered mail return receipt requested to the offending back-lot homeowner???? There is a lot of almost random speculation going on here, Mr. Wiss could settle most of it by formally notifying the property owner that his fence is in violation of (height, location, etc?) and stating in the letter EXACTLY what the offending homeowner must do to satisfy Mr. Wiss. I would also send a copy of the letter to the city official/dept that is responsible for enforcing whatever laws Mr. Wiss cites. This isn't quite rocket science, these things have been going on for centuries and the remedy is to do what I just suggested.

Not in the near future. And if I do send it, I wouldn't be copying NYC.

I met with the architect today. Even the sides where he put cement board
between the soil and the wood are problematic. He says the contractor
thought he left enough leeway that it wasn't on my property. I don't know
what markers the surveyor left for his survey on that property. But the
dimension he gave them from the house to the back line became less useful
to them after the neighbor built an addition across the back of his house.
The backside of the house as a reference point was lost.

I'm not going to do anything until the city inspector comes and cites the
owner for the fence being too tall, and gives some opinion on the 3/4"
cedar retaining wall that is already bulging some.

Then I will work with the architect and contractor to resolve it. Remember,
the architect is also my architect. And the contractor was to be my
contractor, though he is so slow on that job I no longer trust him to
renovate my kitchen in a timely fashion.

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

Maybe you can clarify something. Originally I was left with the
impression that immediately before this fence was built there was a
brand new survey done outlining all the corners of the lot. From what
you wrote above it sounds like that survey was a while ago and that
since that time some of the reference points for the survey have been
destroyed and the property line was established as best it could be
with whatever reference points were left. If that's the case how much
assurance is there that the presumed current fence line for this new
fence is within 6 inches of the right spot?

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:24:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Maybe you can clarify something. Originally I was left with the
impression that immediately before this fence was built there was a
brand new survey done outlining all the corners of the lot. From what
you wrote above it sounds like that survey was a while ago and that
since that time some of the reference points for the survey have been
destroyed and the property line was established as best it could be
with whatever reference points were left. If that's the case how much
assurance is there that the presumed current fence line for this new
fence is within 6 inches of the right spot?

The neighbor's survey was done some years ago. He had to do it before he
added the extension across the back. That job is now going on three years.
He bought the house on August 10, 2010. One would usually contract with the
architect prior to that, and probably prior to going into contract on the
house.

My survey was more recent, but before they put their new fence up. I got
the name of the surveyor they used from the contractor. I wanted to use the
same one. When he was doing my survey he checked to see if they put the new
extension on the property line. They did. He had me look into his scope and
see it pointing right along the edge of the building.

I don't know what reference points were given to the neighbor. I was only
given side ones. I had the length from the back of the house for the back
line. There were no stakes. Old fences were in the way. There are marks on
the house. Then pins in old fences with distances and marks on the phone
pole (covered over with the new fence) and a mark on my a/c condensor pad.

You can see the survey he
http://donwiss.com/manuals/house/492...out-Survey.pdf

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 04:42:35 -0400, God wrote:

Enough already, here's my ruling:

Since both parties benefit from the fence,
the fence shall be moved so that the center of the fence posts shall be
exactly on the lot line.

The net result will be that an equal amount of fence thickness will
reside on both sides of the lot line.



I assume the posts are in concrete but that may be a bad assumption. I
have to wonder if the people who are so insistent that a 1.5" error on
the SURFACE must be corrected don't care that under the surface the
concrete encroach's on the neighbor.

Why, after all this time, and even after your earlier acceptance of the
facts, are you still using the word "error"? I really thought we had gotten
past that issue.

Have you now reached the point where you are arguing just to argue? When I
trim the limbs of my neighbor's tree that hang over my house, do you think
that I dig down along the property line and remove roots? Can you guess why
I don't?