Six months ago we were sued by my neighbor for adverse possession of 10% of ourproperty. The case is proving costly and lengthy and plaintiff has not shown any evidence to date that would support her claim that she has used land for 10+ years as is law in New York State. Two weeks ago I received a criminal summons for tresspassing on the land neighbor claims as hers.The claim has not been heard in court. There is a judges order for both parties not to perform landscaping/excavation on this area which we have complied.There was no action to provoke this, just my presence.Apparently one doesnt need any evidence to initiate a law case, just time and money.
This is another attempt to intimidate and harrass us and so we will give up property.
My question is: Is there a limit to the number of times a person can sue another over essentially the same claim? Can the plaintiff's lawyer be held responsible for filing a frivolous lawsuit. I read where Congress was attempting to pass a bill that put a limit on frivulous law suits.
Any answers. advice, strategy will be welcome
Thank you
MargieD

You were not sued twice. One was a civil and the second a criminal action. These are separate courts and decisions under the law.

First, are you in violation of the property line? If so, this will not go well for you. Pay the other party for egress and be done with it.

Second, if you are not in violation of the property line have a survey team come out to the property and redefine the lines. Bring their report to court and ask the judge to pay your legal fees and time.

CyJeff,
Thank you for replying
We have had our property re surveyed in 2004 and neighbor finally relented and had hers surveyed in last 2 years ago. Surveys are identical; Original property line is not in dispute. Since survey showed area she was claiming as hers is on our side of property line , neighbor now claims strip of my property as hers using adverse possession as basis of claim. Not proven and as yet no proof has come forward in discovery phase.
Tresspassing claim is bogus.The tresappasing suit is designed to drag out case, make it more expensive and with the hope that we will give in...ie harrassment
This is a small lot, 0.35 acres.
Thank you.
MargieD

Get a good real estate attorney. Take her to court. when you win, ask her for attorney's fees.

Or, better. Get a good real estate attorney. Threaten the above. Make her go away.

Is there a building or anything else up on the property that would give credibility to the claim of adverse possession. It takes more than someone believeing the property to be theirs to invoke adverse possession.

Once this is won, put up a nice strong privacy fence.

Other than an appeal, once the neighbor loses the case, it can't be taken back to court again.

The criminal case will depend on the outcome of the civil case.

If you are also using the land, the neighbor can't claim anything but access rights.

Hi Maggie, still having trouble I see.

Unfortunately any 'pin head' can file a law suit. As the other post indicated Civil and Criminal matters are different - however, Courts also take the position that one should not try and use the criminal system to try and accomplish something that should be dealt with in civil court.

Example: I sell you a car - you pay me with a check. Your check bounces - you breached your end of the contract. Rather than suing you in civil court, I have you charged with Fraud but agree to drop charges if you pay.

You can apply to have frivilous court actions dismissed with costs, you can also file your own law suit for harassment - you've heard it before, sometimes the best defence is a good offence.

Good Luck,

Steve @ www.buyingahouseandsavingmoney.com

Other than an appeal, once the neighbor loses the case, it can't be taken back to court again.

The criminal case will depend on the outcome of the civil case.

If you are also using the land, the neighbor can't claim anything but access rights.

That is incorrect. The civil and criminal cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Civil and criminal cases have different standards of evidence, law and precident. One can be cited in the other, but neither depends on the other.

for instance, OJ was declared innocent in his criminal trial for the murder of his wife, but was found liable for her death in the civil case. Different cases, different law, different outcome.

That is incorrect. The civil and criminal cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

But the prosecutor in the criminal case will usually wait until the civil case of where the property line is and who owns it is decided, and use it as the deciding factor in whether or not to prosecute.

for instance, OJ was declared innocent in his criminal trial for the murder of his wife, but was found liable for her death in the civil case. Different cases, different law, different outcome.

Don't get me started on this. Jay Leno made it impossible to find an unbiased jury for the second trial.

But the prosecutor in the criminal case will usually wait until the civil case of where the property line is and who owns it is decided, and use it as the deciding factor in whether or not to prosecute.

The evidentiary chains that prove ownership of property and/or tresspassing are completely different.

Therefore, even if the OP is found not to own the property in question, she could still be found innocent of trespass.

In fact, the proof that the property line is in dispute may mean that NEITHER party can be accused of trespass.

Don't get me started on this. Jay Leno made it impossible to find an unbiased jury for the second trial.


What "second trial"? He was acquitted. Case over, whether you agree with the jury's verdict or not. He can't be tried for anything relating to the case again.

The CIVIL case, there is a less stringent requirement for absolute proof of guilt. The odds may be more than likely he had something to do with their deaths, but it does not have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. That's why he could be acquitted of criminal charges, but still be found civilly liable.

Most times, the civil case is AFTER a criminal case.

I agree with the verdict of the criminal trial.

By the "second trial," I meant the civil trial. Jay Leno still refers to OJ as having "got off" and being "a killer." Did you really expect an unbiased jury after Leno committed blabbery all over the airwaves?

There is a very salient point which most people overlook in the case. It shows that evidence was planted:

There are an alternating trail of huge amounts of blood and tiny little drops of blood. This would be impossible for a person fleeing a crime scene to leave, because:

- The huge amounts of blood were found where anyone has access: On the driveway in front of Nicole's place, on public streets, and on OJ's property which was not behind locked gates.

- The tiny drops of blood were found in places which were behind OJ's locks and keys: Inside the Bronco, inside the locked gate, and inside the house.

- The huge amounts of blood and the tiny drops alternate along the path OJ would have had to have taken to go from Nicole's place to his own. You can't turn spilled blood on and off like a faucet as you flee a crime scene. Someone planting evidence can put large amounts where he can get to, but he would have to smuggle tiny amounts into the locked areas later.

- How can someone who is spilling large amounts of blood on the road at both ends of a car trip get into a car and leave just a few tiny drops in the car? It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.

Yet a jury found OJ liable mostly because of the tripe Leno put out.

I agree with the verdict of the criminal trial.

By the "second trial," I meant the civil trial. Jay Leno still refers to OJ as having "got off" and being "a killer." Did you really expect an unbiased jury after Leno committed blabbery all over the airwaves?

There is a very salient point which most people overlook in the case. It shows that evidence was planted:

There are an alternating trail of huge amounts of blood and tiny little drops of blood. This would be impossible for a person fleeing a crime scene to leave, because:

- The huge amounts of blood were found where anyone has access: On the driveway in front of Nicole's place, on public streets, and on OJ's property which was not behind locked gates.

- The tiny drops of blood were found in places which were behind OJ's locks and keys: Inside the Bronco, inside the locked gate, and inside the house.

- The huge amounts of blood and the tiny drops alternate along the path OJ would have had to have taken to go from Nicole's place to his own. You can't turn spilled blood on and off like a faucet as you flee a crime scene. Someone planting evidence can put large amounts where he can get to, but he would have to smuggle tiny amounts into the locked areas later.

- How can someone who is spilling large amounts of blood on the road at both ends of a car trip get into a car and leave just a few tiny drops in the car? It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.

Yet a jury found OJ liable mostly because of the tripe Leno put out.

So you are saying that OJ's book, "If I Did It", isn't a confession by a guilty man that cannot suffer double jeopardy?

Wow, when you discount the killer's admission of guilt, you are really going out on a limb.

Other than an appeal, once the neighbor loses the case, it can't be taken back to court again.

The criminal case will depend on the outcome of the civil case.

If you are also using the land, the neighbor can't claim anything but access rights.

You should put a disclaimer in your signature that you know nothing about the law and are just making wild guesses.

It would be a public service to all mankind...and womankind, too!

So you are saying that OJ's book, "If I Did It", isn't a confession by a guilty man that cannot suffer double jeopardy?

Wow, when you discount the killer's admission of guilt, you are really going out on a limb.

His book wasn't a confession. From what I heard, it was a description of how illogical the prosecution's case was, and how he would never have made mistakes the real killer made. But we may never know until after the second coming.

And if he does confess in a book, he loses his double-jeopardy protection. Several court cases exist to show that.

Jay Leno was the one who said it was a confession.

We all know that Jay Leno considers all accused celebrities to be guilty. Look at what Leno has done to Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Ed Smart, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Paris Hilton, etc. It doesn't matter if they were really guilty or not. He makes them guilty in the public eye.

The only one he hasn't considered to be guilty is Hillary Clinton.

If you want a celebrity who got off after even admitting guilt, look at Bill Clinton. His cronies were on the jury.

And if he does confess in a book, he loses his double-jeopardy protection. Several court cases exist to show that.


No, he does not. He was tried and acquitted for the murder of two people. He can now take out a bill board with pictures showing himself in the act and drinking their blood. He won't be tried again. He's protected from being tried two times for the same crime. The prosecution gets one shot. That's why the prosecution normally makes sure that they have enough ammunition going in the first time and a better than average chance of hitting the target. They don't get a mulligan.


Jay Leno was the one who said it was a confession.

Actually, just about everybody with a brain was disgusted. As a matter of fact, Ron Goldman's father was successful in getting any royalties/advaces from the book. It was found (and really, who couldn't figure this out?) that OJ puposely set everything up so that anything he earned was untouchable. Yeah, the judge basically called BS.

If you believe that it was a book written to show the hypocrisy of his prosecution, you also believe that OJ really is looking for the murderer on the golf course. Who knows? Maybe OJ will give the mysterious murderer a mulligan, too.


I won't even comment on your hatred of a stand up comedian who has a late night talk show. If that's where you get your news, that's your problem.

His book wasn't a confession. From what I heard, it was a description of how illogical the prosecution's case was, and how he would never have made mistakes the real killer made. But we may never know until after the second coming.

And if he does confess in a book, he loses his double-jeopardy protection. Several court cases exist to show that.

Jay Leno was the one who said it was a confession.

We all know that Jay Leno considers all accused celebrities to be guilty. Look at what Leno has done to Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Ed Smart, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Paris Hilton, etc. It doesn't matter if they were really guilty or not. He makes them guilty in the public eye.

The only one he hasn't considered to be guilty is Hillary Clinton.

If you want a celebrity who got off after even admitting guilt, look at Bill Clinton. His cronies were on the jury.

You should put a disclaimer in your signature that you know nothing about the law and are just making wild guesses.

It would be a public service to all mankind...and womankind, too!

I thought there was a court ruling a few years ago that when someone confessed to a crime after being acquitted in court, it nullified the first trial as a mistrial. I remember thinking it was strange at the time. Maybe it varies from state to state, depending on what constitutes a mistrial.