We are building a new home on our lot in Los Angeles County. We
discovered during the planning stages that the fence between us and
our neighbors is way onto our side of the property line and they've
been using 1450 square feet of our postage-stamp-size lot for the past
5.5 years as part of their driveway and backyard. Our architect went
over to explain what we'd discovered, and the neighbors freaked out.
Within two days, we received a letter from their attorney, asking us
to not tear down the wall until they could get their own survey done,
so we waited and kept silent while we worried ourselves sick. When we
got the results of their survey, which confirmed our own, we called
their attorney and asked if we could all meet and discuss. "No, they
are going to sue you for an easement" is what we were told. The very
same day they got the survey, their lawyer typed up the complaint.
Our cooperation cost us dearly--the wall stands to this day, four
months later, and we don't go to court for the first hearing until
April.

Fast forward to the week prior to our Planning Commission meeting to
get approval for our new home. We showed our plans to every home
within a 300 foot radius, and got unanimous support from all neighbors
except next door and their best friends on their other side. We had
to turn in our signed approvals to the Planning Commission staff a
week prior to the hearing. The entire packet is public record and the
next door neighbors went and got a copy of it.

Two days before the hearing, the next door neighbor's wife then went
around the neighborhood and told all of our other neighbors that the
property line is in dispute and that our project should be delayed
just long enough for the courts to decide on the easement issue.
Several of them got the impression that we were either building over
the property line or over the easement line, which is patently false.
21 neighbors, under the false information they were given, agreed with
her and signed a statement indicating their opinions that our project
should be delayed.

The problem is that there is no disputing the real property line.
There is no disputing where the wall is. The only thing pending is
whether or not they will get their easement on our land, and continue
to use it to enjoy a wider driveway than all of the other homes in our
neighborhood. Our new home is to be built on our side of this
proposed easement and has no effect on it. She has damaged our
reputation with all of our neighbors, who think we are trying to
circumvent the law, and she used her deception to try to convince the
Planning Commission that we should be delayed. Luckily, the
commissioners didn't have any jurisdiction over the legal issue and
approved the house as long as we don't build a new wall at this time.
Unfortunately, our other neighbors are now hostile toward us and one
nastily told my wife that we should mediate. How do you mediate with
people who file a lawsuit the day they get the survey? She left
their home in tears because we used to socialize with them and those
days are now over--they took the side of the lying neighbor. We plan
to countersue them for damages (the delay is costing us $2600 a month
rent on an additional home) and now for slander. We don't care about
the monetary end of the slander charge ($1 would be fine), but do
intend to use a winning verdict on this to make it clear to our
neighbors that we were not doing anything evil, as they've been led to
believe. We have signed statements from four of the other neighbors
proving that they misunderstood the issues our neighbor's wife raised
in her little "court of public opinion". We've been tried and hanged
without being able to defend ourselves, and we don't even know who the
other 17 of the 21 neighbors are. We are just sickened by this, and
we don't exactly want to humilate ourselves by going knocking on doors
trying to clear our names.

Should we add slander in the countersuit for damages/malicious
prosecution with regard to the easement issue?

In article <2eks105jlc92ukvnprrsb1ofao9hm4qf5u@4ax.com>, FullofBaloney
<EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:
Should we add slander in the countersuit for damages/malicious prosecution with regard to the easement issue?

I am not going to comment on the slander issue. The bigger question
here is what your end goal is. You are building a house next to
these people, and you are going to be thier neighbors for a number
of years. And you are going to need to live in this neighborhood.
Do you really want to start a war here and keep it going? Or do
you want to find some way to settle this thing?

First off, accept that your neighbors are a little nutty. You are
not going to be able to treat them like normal people because they
don't react normally.

Second, write a letter that very briefly describes the property
situation, and include a copy of the survey drawing. State that
your neighbor has been occupying your land without your permission
for a number of years, and that their survey confirms this. Then
state that you attempted to negotiate, but that your neighbors
filed suit rather than talking to you. Finally, state that you
are not trying to do anything dirty or underhanded, rather, you
are simply trying to use land that you have legally bought and
paid for. State that you are trying to do this in as friendly
and neighborly way was possible.

Next, photocopy this letter and personally deliver to any
neighbor within sight distance of your property. Include
everyone on your block, and the next block or two.

Once that is done, continue with your project as you have been
allowed to do by the building commission.

Finally, see your lawyer and figure out what your options are.

The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession",
where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner
does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of
the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to
know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start
using this land. Perhaps you could rent some construction equipment
and park it on the disputed land as a show that you are acutally
using it, and intend to further use it in the future. This is a
case where an ounce of lawyer can give you a gallon of results.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

In article <2eks105jlc92ukvnprrsb1ofao9hm4qf5u@4ax.com>,
FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:We are building a new home on our lot in Los Angeles County. Wediscovered during the planning stages that the fence between us andour neighbors is way onto our side of the property line and they'vebeen using 1450 square feet of our postage-stamp-size lot for the past5.5 years as part of their driveway and backyard. Our architect wentover to explain what we'd discovered, and the neighbors freaked out.Within two days, we received a letter from their attorney, asking usto not tear down the wall until they could get their own survey done,so we waited and kept silent while we worried ourselves sick. When wegot the results of their survey, which confirmed our own, we calledtheir attorney and asked if we could all meet and discuss. "No, theyare going to sue you for an easement" is what we were told. The verysame day they got the survey, their lawyer typed up the complaint.Our cooperation cost us dearly--the wall stands to this day, fourmonths later, and we don't go to court for the first hearing untilApril.

So why haven't you torn down their fence on your property? Then sue
them for the "rent" on the land they used without permission.
Two days before the hearing, the next door neighbor's wife then wentaround the neighborhood and told all of our other neighbors that theproperty line is in dispute and that our project should be delayedjust long enough for the courts to decide on the easement issue.

The property line isn't in dispute.

They aren't trying for an easement, either, they're trying to take the
land by "adverse possession". I don't think they've been doing this
long enough to get it.
The problem is that there is no disputing the real property line.There is no disputing where the wall is. The only thing pending iswhether or not they will get their easement on our land, and continueto use it to enjoy a wider driveway than all of the other homes in ourneighborhood.

An easement would allow _common_ use. If they've walled off your
ability to use it, it's _taking_.
Unfortunately, our other neighbors are now hostile toward us and onenastily told my wife that we should mediate. How do you mediate withpeople who file a lawsuit the day they get the survey?

Mediate over how much they owe you for the past few years' use of your
property.

Seth

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in message
news:<8r0020t7jj5hec0la3pgpdpredvla8ut14@4ax.com>... In article <2eks105jlc92ukvnprrsb1ofao9hm4qf5u@4ax.com>, FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:We are building a new home on our lot in Los Angeles County. Wediscovered during the planning stages that the fence between us andour neighbors is way onto our side of the property line and they'vebeen using 1450 square feet of our postage-stamp-size lot for the past5.5 years as part of their driveway and backyard. Our architect wentover to explain what we'd discovered, and the neighbors freaked out.Within two days, we received a letter from their attorney, asking usto not tear down the wall until they could get their own survey done,so we waited and kept silent while we worried ourselves sick. When wegot the results of their survey, which confirmed our own, we calledtheir attorney and asked if we could all meet and discuss. "No, theyare going to sue you for an easement" is what we were told. The verysame day they got the survey, their lawyer typed up the complaint.Our cooperation cost us dearly--the wall stands to this day, fourmonths later, and we don't go to court for the first hearing untilApril. So why haven't you torn down their fence on your property? Then sue them for the "rent" on the land they used without permission.

Part of the agreement to get planning commission approval was that we
agree to not tear down the fence until the litigation is concluded.Two days before the hearing, the next door neighbor's wife then wentaround the neighborhood and told all of our other neighbors that theproperty line is in dispute and that our project should be delayedjust long enough for the courts to decide on the easement issue. The property line isn't in dispute.

I know that, and you know that, but others are ignorant and she took
advantage of that.
They aren't trying for an easement, either, they're trying to take the land by "adverse possession". I don't think they've been doing this long enough to get it.

Our attorney says there is no such thing as a backyard easement,
because we are being prevented from using our own land.The problem is that there is no disputing the real property line.There is no disputing where the wall is. The only thing pending iswhether or not they will get their easement on our land, and continueto use it to enjoy a wider driveway than all of the other homes in ourneighborhood. An easement would allow _common_ use. If they've walled off your ability to use it, it's _taking_.

That's what our attorney says. They didn't build the wall, but they
assumed when they bought the house that they were buying "wall to
wall".
Unfortunately, our other neighbors are now hostile toward us and onenastily told my wife that we should mediate. How do you mediate withpeople who file a lawsuit the day they get the survey? Mediate over how much they owe you for the past few years' use of your property.

I actually got a second legal opinion and we are going to demand
mediation now.
Seth

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:<8q00209c1j9dd3vbq41v85p2e178mst564@4ax.com>... In article <2eks105jlc92ukvnprrsb1ofao9hm4qf5u@4ax.com>, FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote: Should we add slander in the countersuit for damages/malicious prosecution with regard to the easement issue? I am not going to comment on the slander issue. The bigger question here is what your end goal is. You are building a house next to these people, and you are going to be thier neighbors for a number of years. And you are going to need to live in this neighborhood. Do you really want to start a war here and keep it going? Or do you want to find some way to settle this thing?

Well, we didn't start the war. They did. Obviously, they want a war.
This will not be a happy place to live and I doubt they'll stay.
First off, accept that your neighbors are a little nutty. You are not going to be able to treat them like normal people because they don't react normally. Second, write a letter that very briefly describes the property situation, and include a copy of the survey drawing. State that your neighbor has been occupying your land without your permission for a number of years, and that their survey confirms this. Then state that you attempted to negotiate, but that your neighbors filed suit rather than talking to you. Finally, state that you are not trying to do anything dirty or underhanded, rather, you are simply trying to use land that you have legally bought and paid for. State that you are trying to do this in as friendly and neighborly way was possible.

Good idea. I think I will also advise them that they should all have
surveys done so they don't end up in the same boat as us. No one
around here does that when they buy property, yet we bought land in
Oklahoma years ago, and it was required. We've learned a valuable
lesson here and will spread the word.
Next, photocopy this letter and personally deliver to any neighbor within sight distance of your property. Include everyone on your block, and the next block or two. Once that is done, continue with your project as you have been allowed to do by the building commission. Finally, see your lawyer and figure out what your options are.

Thanks, we are represented by an attorney, but everytime we call him
it's a minimum of $50.00, or another two square yards of carpet.
The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession", where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start using this land. Perhaps you could rent some construction equipment and park it on the disputed land as a show that you are acutally using it, and intend to further use it in the future. This is a case where an ounce of lawyer can give you a gallon of results. -john-

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0500, John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com>
wrote: The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession", where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start

There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession"
which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying to
occupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there is
a wall and you cannot employ "self help".

One way is by filing suit to settle the boundary line. An ejectment
action or some other proper claim as a counter claim to the suit that's
already filed would work.

Also possession is not adverse if you grant permission, so a letter
agreeing to allow the neighbor to continue using the driveway for some
period of time would also work would also stop the clock on the adverse
possession. You wouldn't need a lengthy break, just enough to start the
clock back at zero.

1450 sq ft? Holy moley.

Isaac

In article <iru720hdevc5mfiq2vnd71tcpo1v2dvdml@4ax.com>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession"which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying tooccupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there isa wall and you cannot employ "self help".

Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have
the right to knock it down?

Seth

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:13:01 -0500, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote: In article <iru720hdevc5mfiq2vnd71tcpo1v2dvdml@4ax.com>, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession"which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying tooccupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there isa wall and you cannot employ "self help". Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have the right to knock it down?

There is a bit more going on in this situation than that.

Generally speaking though, in residential contexts, self-help for recovering
residential property has been abolished by statute in most jurisdictions
because it often leads to violence. Also, it just might turn out that you
are wrong. You're supposed to go to court.

The other problem is that even if you are right, the court might
award some other remedy in lieu of requiring the wall to come down.
The court is going to consider how much the neighbor has invested in
the improvement, and the degree of encroachment.

If you've already knocked down the wall, you may find yourself owing
the neighbor money rather than vice versa.

Isaac

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:edcd20tm314j5hmcvlqg926opamm51r912@4ax.com... Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have the right to knock it down?

Suppose you make a mistake? If it's been there so long already, why not take
the time to let the court clean up the paperwork?

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<iru720hdevc5mfiq2vnd71tcpo1v2dvdml@4ax.com>... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0500, John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote: The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession", where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession" which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying to occupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there is a wall and you cannot employ "self help".

California is 5 years, and allows tacking, which means that the time
previous neighbors used the land is added to the time the current
neighbors have been using it. At least they have not been paying
taxes on it, which is why they are suing for a prescriptive easement
and not adverse possession.

Yeah, using it ourselves is just about impossible.
One way is by filing suit to settle the boundary line. An ejectment action or some other proper claim as a counter claim to the suit that's already filed would work.

The boundary line is not in dispute. The decision to be made is
whether they will be allowed to continue to enjoy use of our land as
they are accustomed to.
Also possession is not adverse if you grant permission, so a letter agreeing to allow the neighbor to continue using the driveway for some period of time would also work would also stop the clock on the adverse possession. You wouldn't need a lengthy break, just enough to start the clock back at zero.

It's too late--over five years already. 1450 sq ft? Holy moley.

Yeah, tell me about it. Same size as our house! Isaac

We took down half of the existing fence this weekend. The police had
to be called (by us). Now, suddenly, the neighbors want to talk.
They don't want to budge an inch, but they are anxious to resolve
this.

It's starting to look like we will win this case.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<iru720hdevc5mfiq2vnd71tcpo1v2dvdml@4ax.com>... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0500, John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote: The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession", where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession" which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying to occupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there is a wall and you cannot employ "self help".

Exactly. All we can really do is get some lawn chairs and go sit on
what they think is part of their driveway, dribble a basketball on it,
get in their faces...
One way is by filing suit to settle the boundary line. An ejectment action or some other proper claim as a counter claim to the suit that's already filed would work.

They have filed the suit because they want rights to our land.
Also possession is not adverse if you grant permission, so a letter agreeing to allow the neighbor to continue using the driveway for some period of time would also work would also stop the clock on the adverse possession.

It's too late for that. The required time is only five years in
California.

You wouldn't need a lengthy break, just enough to start the clock back at zero. 1450 sq ft? Holy moley.

Yes, just about the size of the current house. We put a chain link
fence on the back half of the property line this past weekend and will
start enjoying sharing the strip of land with them, until we get to
court. They will be sick of us when this is over. Isaac

sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in message
news:<vbqh20dkp78au0j8mfs1kapvp66392c24m@4ax.com>... Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<iru720hdevc5mfiq2vnd71tcpo1v2dvdml@4ax.com>... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0500, John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote: The problem is that there is this thing called "adverse possession", where if someone uses land for a period of time, and the owner does not dispute it, the land can become the legal property of the squatter. This varies by location and local law. You need to know if that is the case here. At the very least, you want to start There are a number of ways to stop the clock on "adverse possession" which in some states can occur in as little as 7 years. Trying to occupy the land yourself is going to be difficult because there is a wall and you cannot employ "self help". California is 5 years, and allows tacking, which means that the time previous neighbors used the land is added to the time the current neighbors have been using it. At least they have not been paying taxes on it, which is why they are suing for a prescriptive easement and not adverse possession.

"Prescriptive easement" is inapplicable to a case such as this in
California; see the cases Silacci v. Abramson, Mehdizadeh v. Mincer,
and Raab v. Casper. In Silacci, the court described its hostile
attitude toward prescriptive easements thus:

"A purported easement that in fact gives the owner of the dominant
tenement exclusive use of the property of the servient tenement is not
an easement at all, but a disguised form of title by adverse
possession.... The grant of such relief is reserved for highly unusual
situations involving public utilities or health and safety concerns,
and 'has no application to a simple backyard dispute like this one.'"

If they're using an attorney, he should know better and refuse to
represent them. If they're not, you might look into getting their suit
thrown out on a summary judgement.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:29:49 -0500, Sandy <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote: California is 5 years, and allows tacking, which means that the time previous neighbors used the land is added to the time the current neighbors have been using it. At least they have not been paying taxes on it, which is why they are suing for a prescriptive easement and not adverse possession.

Ugh. I expected that tacking would be allowed, but 5 years seems quite
short.

In North Carolina, unless there is an erroneous title covering the
property, the period is 20 years. The period is 7 years if under color
of title.

Isaac

In article <haqh20dppmpp6ms1do9fet5ls2970rm7ed@4ax.com>,
Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:edcd20tm314j5hmcvlqg926opamm51r912@4ax .com... Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have the right to knock it down?Suppose you make a mistake?

Isn't that why surveyors carry insurance? (Remember, in this case,
two different surveyors, working for two different parties, both
concluded that the wall was well into the OP's property.)

Seth

In article <3aqh2016pa3k1au1ak02m54gkfhjeqolft@4ax.com>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
The other problem is that even if you are right, the court mightaward some other remedy in lieu of requiring the wall to come down.The court is going to consider how much the neighbor has invested inthe improvement, and the degree of encroachment.

In one case I read about (a casino in Atlantic City, where a neighbor
refused to sell her home), the casino was built one foot too far
over. IIRC, the homeowner settled for a _lot_ of money because the
casino owner would have been required to remove that last foot of the
building.

I don't see how a neighbor can invest enough to take property, in less
than the time for adverse possession.

Seth

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:05:39 -0500, Christopher Green
<cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Prescriptive easement" is inapplicable to a case such as this in California; see the cases Silacci v. Abramson, Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, and Raab v. Casper. In Silacci, the court described its hostile attitude toward prescriptive easements thus:

Interesting. I was wondering why the neighbor seemed willing
to negotiate. That court's logic makes sense for fact situations
involving someone walling off part of your property. That would
not be just borrowing some extra drive way, they are stealing your
land.

In North Carolina, there would still be the risk of adverse possession
because NC does not require the squatter to pay taxes on the land to be
eligible. But it would take 20 years of walling someone off of their
land rather than just 5.

Isaac

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:06:05 -0500, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote: In article <3aqh2016pa3k1au1ak02m54gkfhjeqolft@4ax.com>, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:The other problem is that even if you are right, the court mightaward some other remedy in lieu of requiring the wall to come down.The court is going to consider how much the neighbor has invested inthe improvement, and the degree of encroachment. In one case I read about (a casino in Atlantic City, where a neighbor refused to sell her home), the casino was built one foot too far over. IIRC, the homeowner settled for a _lot_ of money because the casino owner would have been required to remove that last foot of the building. I don't see how a neighbor can invest enough to take property, in less than the time for adverse possession.

They would not be able to simply take the property. They might be given
the chance to purchase it at fair market value even if you did not wish
to sell.

In some cases (and at least in some jurisdictions), if a neighbor's
improvement encroaches onto your property and the encroachment is not
wilful, the court will decide that the fair thing to do is for the
neighbor to buy the property from you so that he does not lose the
value of the improvement.

The facts in this case don't seem to fit that scenario, and I don't
know if California courts even make such rulings. But if they did,
what do you think would be the resulf if you had ripped up the wall?
You'd get your property back, but you'd have to compensate your neighbor
for the price of the wall, which would just stink.

Isaac

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ucrk20t70hike8qb31f1guiccno5334277@4ax.com... In article <haqh20dppmpp6ms1do9fet5ls2970rm7ed@4ax.com>, Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:edcd20tm314j5hmcvlqg926opamm51r912@4ax .com... Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have the right to knock it down?Suppose you make a mistake? Isn't that why surveyors carry insurance? (Remember, in this case, two different surveyors, working for two different parties, both concluded that the wall was well into the OP's property.)

The insurance status of the surveyors does not change the liability of the
person who knocks down the fence, particularly if that person invokes
self-help before getting the OK from a judge. Damages due to this mistake
are wholly avoidable by getting judicial approval beforehand.

"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<oq9q20deokt3h1dj7d1jrijsdoeikgd4h6@4ax.com>... The insurance status of the surveyors does not change the liability of the person who knocks down the fence, particularly if that person invokes self-help before getting the OK from a judge. Damages due to this mistake are wholly avoidable by getting judicial approval beforehand.

I'm not Seth, but if it comes down to letting the clock run out
on adverse possession, versus taking my chances that my surveyor
is right, or if he's wrong that he'll have to cover my damages
for relying on him, I might take my chances with self-help.

Especially if it's a pretty flimsy wall -- what's my exposure?

But if it's an expensive wall, and it's not terribly in my way,
and waiting isn't going to do anything (plenty of time left on
adverse possession; it's old enough that it won't stop being
new while I'm waiting; I don't have to get that strip of lawn
landscaped this month) I'd probably wait.

--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
In North Carolina, there would still be the risk of adverse possession because NC does not require the squatter to pay taxes on the land to be eligible. But it would take 20 years of walling someone off of their land rather than just 5.

In California I doubt that the tax issue would be a problem. Because
whenever anybody does any construction on his property, the county
assessor comes out and reassesses the property for tax purposes. If
your taxes are increased due to construction you make that happens to
be on someone else's land, a court may well say that you actually did
pay the property taxes on that portion of the property.

Stu

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:40:34 -0500, Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote: "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:ucrk20t70hike8qb31f1guiccno5334277@4ax.com... In article <haqh20dppmpp6ms1do9fet5ls2970rm7ed@4ax.com>, Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:edcd20tm314j5hmcvlqg926opamm51r912@4ax .com...> Why not? If someone else builds a wall on my land, why don't I have> the right to knock it down?Suppose you make a mistake? Isn't that why surveyors carry insurance? (Remember, in this case, two different surveyors, working for two different parties, both concluded that the wall was well into the OP's property.) The insurance status of the surveyors does not change the liability of the person who knocks down the fence, particularly if that person invokes self-help before getting the OK from a judge. Damages due to this mistake are wholly avoidable by getting judicial approval beforehand.

OTOH getting a survey from a licensed surveryor prior to building the
wall may improve the legal position of the person building the wall
if the survey turns out to be in error. Unless your intent is to
start the clock on adverse possession, it would be a mistake to
build an expensive improvement near the property line without getting
a survey.

Isaac

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<5q9q20hcfies2f9894gq8rc6h3bpuo8goe@4ax.com>... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:06:05 -0500, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote: In article <3aqh2016pa3k1au1ak02m54gkfhjeqolft@4ax.com>, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:The other problem is that even if you are right, the court mightaward some other remedy in lieu of requiring the wall to come down.The court is going to consider how much the neighbor has invested inthe improvement, and the degree of encroachment. In one case I read about (a casino in Atlantic City, where a neighbor refused to sell her home), the casino was built one foot too far over. IIRC, the homeowner settled for a _lot_ of money because the casino owner would have been required to remove that last foot of the building. I don't see how a neighbor can invest enough to take property, in less than the time for adverse possession. They would not be able to simply take the property. They might be given the chance to purchase it at fair market value even if you did not wish to sell. In some cases (and at least in some jurisdictions), if a neighbor's improvement encroaches onto your property and the encroachment is not wilful, the court will decide that the fair thing to do is for the neighbor to buy the property from you so that he does not lose the value of the improvement. The facts in this case don't seem to fit that scenario, and I don't know if California courts even make such rulings. But if they did, what do you think would be the resulf if you had ripped up the wall? You'd get your property back, but you'd have to compensate your neighbor for the price of the wall, which would just stink. Isaac

California courts have been granting full rights to the true owner
over the past 15 years or so, so the law is on our side, luckily. We
still have our concerns though and may have to spend what it takes to
fight it out in court, but that's okay. I have money set aside from
settling with my surgeon over LASIK malpractice--more money than I'd
bet they are willing to spend on this battle. I think they are
probably willing to risk a few thousand, but will eventually quit.
Obviously, their lawyer is telling them they will win. He wants their
money.

We are going to start enjoying our property now--will be camping out
in lawn chairs, dribbling basketballs, riding skateboards, listening
to CDs, etc. on our part of their driveway. They are not going to
like having my boys running up and down their driveway all the time.
They are about to learn what sharing is like. When we are through
with them, they will either give up or move away. We can tear down
the wall--it is ours.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:22:26 -0500, Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>
wrote: Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote: In North Carolina, there would still be the risk of adverse possession because NC does not require the squatter to pay taxes on the land to be eligible. But it would take 20 years of walling someone off of their land rather than just 5. In California I doubt that the tax issue would be a problem. Because whenever anybody does any construction on his property, the county assessor comes out and reassesses the property for tax purposes. If your taxes are increased due to construction you make that happens to be on someone else's land, a court may well say that you actually did pay the property taxes on that portion of the property.

I don't think things work that way. Several arguments come to mind, but
I think the best one is that the neighbor was not paying those taxes
because the real owner of the other lot was paying them. It's probably
impossible to pay the taxes on a portion of a neighboring lot unless you
pay the taxes on the whole thing.

Isaac Stu

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:<1lvv20h8jnmp5dm3ilsf59ks0v8dfokk2h@4ax.com>... Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote: In North Carolina, there would still be the risk of adverse possession because NC does not require the squatter to pay taxes on the land to be eligible. But it would take 20 years of walling someone off of their land rather than just 5. In California I doubt that the tax issue would be a problem. Because whenever anybody does any construction on his property, the county assessor comes out and reassesses the property for tax purposes. If your taxes are increased due to construction you make that happens to be on someone else's land, a court may well say that you actually did pay the property taxes on that portion of the property. Stu

That was one of the issues in Raab v. Casper -- Casper had built
substantial structures, including part of his home, on land that
belonged to Raab; he also presented a claim that he was assessed and
paid taxes on the assessor's assumption that these were his property,
yet he was not entitled to adverse possession.

On the other hand, in Hirshfield v. Schwartz, the Schwartzes were
allowed to keep various structures that encroached on small parts of
the Hirshfields' land, on an equitable protective order. There, the
Schwartzes' trespass was small and affected land that the Hirshfields
could not make use of anyway, and the court held that the Schwartzes
would be at much hardship to remove the encroaching structures. Still,
their victory was far from total: the Schwartzes were required to pay
money damages in lieu of removing their improvements, and their
protective easement was to be good only so long as they owned the
property.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

In article <5q9q20hcfies2f9894gq8rc6h3bpuo8goe@4ax.com>,
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
In some cases (and at least in some jurisdictions), if a neighbor'simprovement encroaches onto your property and the encroachment is notwilful, the court will decide that the fair thing to do is for theneighbor to buy the property from you so that he does not lose thevalue of the improvement.

Your entire property? Or just the part he "improved"?

In the latter case, is the "fair market value" defined by the increase
in value the neighbor sees, or the decrease you see? (If your
property shrinks to the point that you can't usefully build a house on
it, that's pretty close to its full value.) What if, say, you'd paid
an architect for plans to build, and the zoning regulations now
prohibited _that_ house, but might allow a smaller (or
differently-shaped or -situated) house? Would the neighbor have to
pay all the sunk costs for services that are no longer of value to
you?

Seth

It seems "Christopher Green" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:On the other hand, in Hirshfield v. Schwartz, the Schwartzes wereallowed to keep various structures that encroached on small parts ofthe Hirshfields' land, on an equitable protective order. There, theSchwartzes' trespass was small and affected land that the Hirshfieldscould not make use of anyway, and the court held that the Schwartzeswould be at much hardship to remove the encroaching structures. Still,their victory was far from total: the Schwartzes were required to paymoney damages in lieu of removing their improvements, and theirprotective easement was to be good only so long as they owned theproperty.

I am struck by that last provision. If I understand you right, that
means that when the Schwartzes(*) sold their property the
improvements had to be demolished. That must have rather severely
impacted their ability to sell!



(*) How nice to see someone who still knows the correct way to
pluralize a proper name!

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:51:06 -0500, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> wrote: In article <5q9q20hcfies2f9894gq8rc6h3bpuo8goe@4ax.com>, Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:In some cases (and at least in some jurisdictions), if a neighbor'simprovement encroaches onto your property and the encroachment is notwilful, the court will decide that the fair thing to do is for theneighbor to buy the property from you so that he does not lose thevalue of the improvement. Your entire property? Or just the part he "improved"? In the latter case, is the "fair market value" defined by the increase in value the neighbor sees, or the decrease you see? (If your

Both would have to be considered. The negative effects to both parties
would have to be weighed, and the fact that the rightful owner must be
respected would also have to be considered. But the court might not
make the neighbor destroy his swimming pool just to recover a few inches
of the owner's property.
property shrinks to the point that you can't usefully build a house on it, that's pretty close to its full value.) What if, say, you'd paid an architect for plans to build, and the zoning regulations now prohibited _that_ house, but might allow a smaller (or differently-shaped or -situated) house? Would the neighbor have to pay all the sunk costs for services that are no longer of value to you?

If the circumstances were as you describe, the neighbor would be less
likely to get any relief. He'd have to remove the improvement.

Isaac

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:<mtc730982sr0t7crrb3apbg9jk7b1ngd1t@4ax.com>... It seems "Christopher Green" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:On the other hand, in Hirshfield v. Schwartz, the Schwartzes wereallowed to keep various structures that encroached on small parts ofthe Hirshfields' land, on an equitable protective order. There, theSchwartzes' trespass was small and affected land that the Hirshfieldscould not make use of anyway, and the court held that the Schwartzeswould be at much hardship to remove the encroaching structures. Still,their victory was far from total: the Schwartzes were required to paymoney damages in lieu of removing their improvements, and theirprotective easement was to be good only so long as they owned theproperty. I am struck by that last provision. If I understand you right, that means that when the Schwartzes(*) sold their property the improvements had to be demolished. That must have rather severely impacted their ability to sell!

I'm not sure whatever happened to the Schwartzes and their wall. The
Hirshfields are two elderly ladies (who are avid rock gardeners), but
the Schwartzes are a young family with children at home. (The
improvements were to create a safe play area for their children.) It
could conceivably be many years before the easement becomes an issue
again.

--
Chris Green

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<3q9q20lsv0ol10q82k4qfua2ltjjsn7om1@4ax.com>... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:05:39 -0500, Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Prescriptive easement" is inapplicable to a case such as this in California; see the cases Silacci v. Abramson, Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, and Raab v. Casper. In Silacci, the court described its hostile attitude toward prescriptive easements thus: Interesting. I was wondering why the neighbor seemed willing to negotiate.

They don't want to spend any more money on this than they have to, but
when it came to a conversation with them, they were not willing to
budge and told me that they'd spoken to several attorneys, all of whom
had told them that they have a great case.

Of course, we called many attorneys too, and were told that WE have a
great case.

That court's logic makes sense for fact situations involving someone walling off part of your property. That would not be just borrowing some extra drive way, they are stealing your land.

The current neighbors did not build the wall. None of us knew about
this, because the wall was built 25-35 years ago. There is no permit
on it, so no one is sure who built it and why it was built so far from
the property line. The only clue we have to go on is that our lot is
higher than the neighbors' and possibly the wall was built on the high
side for privacy's sake and to avoid the cost of building an 8 foot
wall rather than the existing 5 foot wall.

I have read a LOT about the requirements for an easement, and I don't
believe that the law intends a mistake such as what has happened here
to qualify for "open and notorious". It was not open, nor notorious,
to anyone. The way the laws were written were with the intention that
the landowner knows about the encroachment, but does nothing about it
for the required period of time, and that the encroacher knows what he
is doing and intends to make a claim after the required amount of
time, which is five years here.

The very best that our neighbors can hope for is that we end up
sharing a common area with no wall. They will have zero privacy
coming and going, because they only use the door on our side of their
house.

We spent last weekend relaxing in lawnchairs in their driveway (on our
side of the property line). The husband got ticked---it's really
getting to him. My kids are walking up the steps he built on our
land, and he's been yelling at them and even physically chased them
all the way up to the top of the hill the other day to try to make
them stop using the steps; and he accused them of feeding his dog
through the fence, which was a total lie--I was videotaping them the
entire time they were up there. He told them he'd called the SPCA on
them, and that he will sue us if anything happens to his dog.

Tomorrow they will lose more privacy, as we remove cypress trees that
we planted on our side of the existing wall. Our kids will be playing
on the "easement" and driving them nuts. We need to continue to
educate them, so they understand what life will be like if we are not
allowed to put a new wall on our property line. We plan to do
something new to impact their lives every week until they realize that
life as they once knew it is over, thanks to their sue-happy, greedy
mentality.

In North Carolina, there would still be the risk of adverse possession because NC does not require the squatter to pay taxes on the land to be eligible. But it would take 20 years of walling someone off of their land rather than just 5. Isaac

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:45:14 -0500 FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> whittled
these words: Of course, we called many attorneys too, and were told that WE have a great case.

Perfectly normal as easement law is complex and many cases could go eithe
way.
I have read a LOT about the requirements for an easement, and I don't believe that the law intends a mistake such as what has happened here to qualify for "open and notorious".
It was not open,

Open generally means "discoverable" which is not the same thing as
obviously encroaching. Had either parties involved in building the wall
cared to discover its location relative to their interests they could have
done so.
nor notorious, to anyone.

I think you will find that it is not so clear whether it is "notorious" or
not. A court could easily find that it was.
The way the laws were written were with the intention that the landowner knows about the encroachment,

Not exactly. The history permitting adverse use was that if the grantee
failed to use the land, was inattentive, and somone else put it into
production then THEY deserved the beneift of the land. So the criteria is
that the encroachment should be discoverable by the attentive owner, one
who patrols and protects the land. Actual knowledge of the adverse use is
not required, and so far as I know never has been.
but does nothing about it for the required period of time,

yes
and that the encroacher knows what he

No, not this either. There does not need to be any intent to encroach,
nor does there need to be an intent to acquire rights the person knows
belongs to another. The phrase generally used is "under claim of right"
which simply means that the encroacher is entering and or taking
possession as if they are the true owner. It could easily be they enter
as if they are the true owner because they actually believe it. That is,
in fact, the case in the majority of successful cases, although the
reasonableness of that belief varies. But the belief, reasonable or not,
is not (techinically) a factor. The encroacher does what he does in
disregard for any conflicting rights. The defeating factor for "claim of
right" is entry in recognition that another person could give or withdraw
the right to do so.
is doing and intends to make a claim after the required amount of time, which is five years here.

No. The entry is made claiming the right to make it. That element
happens
at the time of the initial entry. There does not need to be an intent to
make an adverse claim in the future. The passage of time element is one
that pefects the claimed rights if they did not exist at the time of
entry. Intent to take land known to belong to another is not an element.
If you believe you are entering with the right to do so then there need be
no future plan to perfect that right. It is already yours. Sure, there
*can* be intentional intrusion and claim, but it is not required.
The very best that our neighbors can hope for is that we end up sharing a common area with no wall. They will have zero privacy coming and going, because they only use the door on our side of their house.

It is good to have an upbeat outlook, but I wouldn't count on your
assessment of the meaning of the law as predicting the outcome. Easement
law is very situation specific. A case involving only a fence may not be
viewed the same as a case involving a substantial wall, driveway and other
significant uses.

As you will have noticed boundary line and easement issues can be very
emotional. It can also get extremely expensive. My practical advice is
that your life will be more pleasant if you can find a way toward
mediation, and keep a focus on addressing your respective needs instead of
defending a line that was unimportant to you when you aquirede the
property. You did not build the wall and its location was not so
insufferable that you found the property unacceptable. I understand
wanting what appears in your deed. Its perfectly natural. And your
neighbors got to a bad start on the issue. Holding on to that natural
anger and feeding the war is not going to be a win for you no matter what
happens. It will suck you and your family dry both emotionally and
financially. Find a way to set aside the most recent hostilities and work
toward a common resolution.

Diane Blackman

cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message
news:<qivb30tel27253et5m3l47bobanrk52b4t@4ax.com>... Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<mtc730982sr0t7crrb3apbg9jk7b1ngd1t@4ax.com>... It seems "Christopher Green" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:On the other hand, in Hirshfield v. Schwartz, the Schwartzes wereallowed to keep various structures that encroached on small parts ofthe Hirshfields' land, on an equitable protective order. There, theSchwartzes' trespass was small and affected land that the Hirshfieldscould not make use of anyway, and the court held that the Schwartzeswould be at much hardship to remove the encroaching structures. Still,their victory was far from total: the Schwartzes were required to paymoney damages in lieu of removing their improvements, and theirprotective easement was to be good only so long as they owned theproperty. I am struck by that last provision. If I understand you right, that means that when the Schwartzes(*) sold their property the improvements had to be demolished. That must have rather severely impacted their ability to sell! I'm not sure whatever happened to the Schwartzes and their wall. The Hirshfields are two elderly ladies (who are avid rock gardeners), but the Schwartzes are a young family with children at home. (The improvements were to create a safe play area for their children.) It could conceivably be many years before the easement becomes an issue again.


I heard that they were all so unhappy with the conclusion of the court
that they worked it out between them more satisfactorily.

Last night, our neighbor pushed my 13 year old son off his skateboard,
while he was riding it on the disputed easement area. My son fell
over a short block wall and scraped his back. We had the neighbor
arrested and will have to get a restraining order against him. I
think that pursuing the easement will be the least of his concerns for
a while. He's been calling my kids obscene names for two weeks and
chasing them off the area, but we never dreamt he'd lay a hand on
them.

In article <ulhm305el5hbksbf7403849b9k1p58s2f8@4ax.com>,
FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:
The current neighbors did not build the wall. None of us knew aboutthis, because the wall was built 25-35 years ago.

That could be a problem. How long have you owned the land?
There is no permiton it, so no one is sure who built it and why it was built so far fromthe property line.

Although if a permit was required, that might help you.
I have read a LOT about the requirements for an easement, and I don'tbelieve that the law intends a mistake such as what has happened hereto qualify for "open and notorious". It was not open, nor notorious,to anyone.

How was the wall hidden?
The way the laws were written were with the intention thatthe landowner knows about the encroachment, but does nothing about itfor the required period of time,

Who was the landowner then? Did he know?
and that the encroacher knows what heis doing and intends to make a claim after the required amount oftime, which is five years here.

Maybe he did, all those decades ago.

Seth

FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:Last night, our neighbor pushed my 13 year old son off his skateboard,while he was riding it on the disputed easement area. My son fellover a short block wall and scraped his back. We had the neighborarrested and will have to get a restraining order against him. Ithink that pursuing the easement will be the least of his concerns fora while. He's been calling my kids obscene names for two weeks andchasing them off the area, but we never dreamt he'd lay a hand onthem.

If you "never dreamt he'd lay a hand on them", then you are
unrealistic. The "war" you are proposing to start with your neighbor
(increasing harrassment over the his encroachment on your property)
could easily lead to one of you -- or one of your children -- being
shot dead!

That's why the law frowns on "self-help" in situations like this. You
should either negotiate an amicable settlement (with the help of
attorneys and/or professional mediators, if necessary), or choose an
attorney and force the issue in court.

Yes, it's possible that your campaign of lawn chairs on the driveway,
children playing in the "easement", etc. might drive your neighbor to
give up his claim on part of your property. It's also possible that
_he_ will go to court and get an injunction and/or damages against you
for your obviously malicious behavior. Or, as I said, that he might
pull a gun and shoot you or your children. Is this really worth the
risk?

--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

on 24 Feb 2004 EyeBaloney@yahoo.com (FullofBaloney) wrote in
Newsgroups: misc.legal.moderated


Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:<3q9q20lsv0ol10q82k4qfua2ltjjsn7om1@4ax.com>... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:05:39 -0500, Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Prescriptive easement" is inapplicable to a case such as this in California; see the cases Silacci v. Abramson, Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, and Raab v. Casper. In Silacci, the court described its hostile attitude toward prescriptive easements thus: Interesting. I was wondering why the neighbor seemed willing to negotiate.
They don't want to spend any more money on this than they have to, but
when it came to a conversation with them, they were not willing to
budge and told me that they'd spoken to several attorneys, all of whom
had told them that they have a great case.
Of course, we called many attorneys too, and were told that WE have a
great case.

<snip for brevity>
I have read a LOT about the requirements for an easement, and I don't
believe that the law intends a mistake such as what has happened here
to qualify for "open and notorious". It was not open, nor notorious,
to anyone. The way the laws were written were with the intention that
the landowner knows about the encroachment, but does nothing about it
for the required period of time, and that the encroacher knows what he
is doing and intends to make a claim after the required amount of
time, which is five years here.

<snip>

Do the neighbors have another point where they might be able to access thier
property? This may help you defeat their claims.

By the way, are you following through with slander in your counterclaim?

Good luck!


Lawrence R. Lake, RPF
Redding, CA

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:59:48 -0500, Barry Gold <bgold@nyx.net> wrote: FullofBaloney <EyeBaloney@yahoo.com> wrote:Last night, our neighbor pushed my 13 year old son off his skateboard,while he was riding it on the disputed easement area. My son fellover a short block wall and scraped his back. We had the neighborarrested and will have to get a restraining order against him. Ithink that pursuing the easement will be the least of his concerns fora while. He's been calling my kids obscene names for two weeks andchasing them off the area, but we never dreamt he'd lay a hand onthem. If you "never dreamt he'd lay a hand on them", then you are unrealistic. The "war" you are proposing to start with your neighbor (increasing harrassment over the his encroachment on your property) could easily lead to one of you -- or one of your children -- being shot dead!

Exactly. I'm appalled that anyone would involve their children in
this way. If you are paying a lawyer, why escalate the confrontation
with the neighbors by physically challenging them?

Isaac

lrlake@aol.com (Larry Lake) wrote in message
news:<f5rr30hjfenraug38n3f11k2g9bjggsieh@4ax.com>... on 24 Feb 2004 EyeBaloney@yahoo.com (FullofBaloney) wrote in Newsgroups: misc.legal.moderated Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<3q9q20lsv0ol10q82k4qfua2ltjjsn7om1@4ax.com>... On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:05:39 -0500, Christopher Green <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote: "Prescriptive easement" is inapplicable to a case such as this in California; see the cases Silacci v. Abramson, Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, and Raab v. Casper. In Silacci, the court described its hostile attitude toward prescriptive easements thus: Interesting. I was wondering why the neighbor seemed willing to negotiate.They don't want to spend any more money on this than they have to, but when it came to a conversation with them, they were not willing to budge and told me that they'd spoken to several attorneys, all of whom had told them that they have a great case.Of course, we called many attorneys too, and were told that WE have a great case. <snip for brevity>I have read a LOT about the requirements for an easement, and I don't believe that the law intends a mistake such as what has happened here to qualify for "open and notorious". It was not open, nor notorious, to anyone. The way the laws were written were with the intention that the landowner knows about the encroachment, but does nothing about it for the required period of time, and that the encroacher knows what he is doing and intends to make a claim after the required amount of time, which is five years here. <snip> Do the neighbors have another point where they might be able to access thier property? This may help you defeat their claims.

Yes, on the other side of the house. We offered to pay to cut a gate
in, but that is unacceptable to them. By the way, are you following through with slander in your counterclaim?

We have not counter-sued yet. There was a woman driving huge black
Cadillac visiting with them yesterday, and they were showing her
around the property. Maybe she was a real estate agent and maybe they
are moving....
Good luck!

Thanks!
Lawrence R. Lake, RPF Redding, CA

EyeBaloney@yahoo.com (FullofBaloney) wrote in message
news:<rod64016inqidhqsakausdkink13shlrgv@4ax.com>...
We have not counter-sued yet. There was a woman driving huge black Cadillac visiting with them yesterday, and they were showing her around the property. Maybe she was a real estate agent and maybe they are moving....

Given the difficulties that will probably arise if they try to sell
the property before this is settled, it seems equally likely (if not
more so) that she is their attorney.

Before you push any more of this guy's buttons, I strongly suggest you
read The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker. You may be painting your
neighbor into a corner that will result in an escalation of violence.

tlbwriter@yahoo.com (Tracy) wrote in message
news:<c13i40pe03n9k3g0o4p8vi47f88cf7rds4@4ax.com>... EyeBaloney@yahoo.com (FullofBaloney) wrote in message news:<rod64016inqidhqsakausdkink13shlrgv@4ax.com>... We have not counter-sued yet. There was a woman driving huge black Cadillac visiting with them yesterday, and they were showing her around the property. Maybe she was a real estate agent and maybe they are moving.... Given the difficulties that will probably arise if they try to sell the property before this is settled, it seems equally likely (if not more so) that she is their attorney. Before you push any more of this guy's buttons, I strongly suggest you read The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker. You may be painting your neighbor into a corner that will result in an escalation of violence.

She has a personalized license plate and we tracked her down and she
is a real estate agent. Coincidentally, just after she left, our
neighbor finally took down his Christmas lights and they've been
seriously cleaning out the house this week. Time will tell why she
was visiting. She may have told them that she wants nothing to do
with listing their house until the situation has been resolved, but
gave them some tips on preparing to sell when it's over.

We will have no further interactions with the neighbor. Wouldn't want
to cause him to violate his restraining order and get himself into
more trouble!