COLBERT v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ATMORE

As I read it, they were throwing stuff up against the wall, so to speak, and hoping something would stick.

It sounds as if the Colberts should have found a lawyer who would properly advise them about their chances of success in this case with the evidence against them. Both surveyors said the wall was not over the line.

I saw no testimony indicating that either surveyor ever shot the location of the actual face of the remaining wall to determine its relationship to the theoretical plane they determined as the true property boundary.

You mean after the demo of the bank wall? You think the Colbert wall might have bowed onto the bank property? I still don't see how the bank was responsible for the hole in the Colbert wall and it sounds like these buildings had been there for so long even a somewhat irregular interface between the two walls would be considered the property line. Stranger things have happened in courts of law, though. I could see some judge or jury deciding that the bank had developed some obligation to shield the hole-y Colbert wall from rainfall.

I don't remember and am too lazy to look back at the case, was the bank there first? Maybe the Colbert building people thought they could build a crappy wall on that side because they could rely on the bank wall to keep out the rain. Bad assumption in my opinion.

Interesting, know both surveyors and the Colberts.

In Alabama, it is easy to figure out who wins in these cases, just look for the deeper pockets. A bank against private individuals? No brainer.

I'm not saying the courts are corrupt, rather whoever can keep it tied up the longest and generates the most legal fees will win.

What's a JML?
It sounded to me like the court came to the right decision.
Do you guys think they dropped the ball?