Up there in Minnesota:
Roger Weber of rural Nashwauk is being sued by Mark Besemann of Iron after Weber used a power saw to bisect the building. Weber then removed half of the garage he insists was built, decades ago, on property that he now owns.
Neighbor's Garage Sawed in Half
How not to run for election.
I expect that Mr. Weber is going to get an education.
Since both sides were owned by the same family until recently there is not likely to be a AP situation. Permissive use. But there is going to be a matter of misrepresentation in the sale. Fraud. Not a good thing for a person who aspires to public office.
Their right of ingress and egress has been extinguished. One must protect one's own. But that was a little over the top. Now he has lots of publicity to 'help' his campaign.
Sounds like the brother was ticked from day one about the sister getting the house. I don't see enough in the news article to to come to any conclusion about the line, the original intent of the split or the state law. The guy with the chain saw is a bit off base, whether the actions he took will have a price, who knows. My long term experience with news articles where I really know the facts show they really shouldn't be depended upon to be all correct.
Funny thing is I just got through reading a story about a couple guys that were given a large land grant in California in order to slow the advancement of the Russian settlers. The land grants were conditional in that they had to establish permanent ranches on the land. Two guys were partners on one land grant. Long story short, there was a betrayal about who's name the land was in and the betrayed friend cut their home in half with a whipsaw, put his half on skids and skidded it off the land with a team of oxen.
-----
That garage loos like it was more than halfway across the property line...either that or it was a pretty shallow building.
In a few cases in Oklahoma the purchase of property that has an encroachment upon it has been ruled to be a permissive acknowledgement of the buyer. The contract, representation and conditions of the sale are paramount in this case.
In any event, I just cannot see any scenario that the cutter doesn't owe the cuttee some damages.
Let's hope the judge isn't on his re-election staff. :snarky:
Time to go RTK that baby!
🙂
N
Betcha there's a room there now that doesn't close by a tenth. How you reckon that gets described?
Some politicians just have no sense of diplomacy or tact.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
"On Oct. 3, 2013, months after the garage had been halved, Roger Weber paid to have the land re-surveyed. Indeed, the correct property line between what had been Robert Weber’s land and Roger Weber’s land runs about halfway through the garage, almost exactly where the garage was cut."
The only thing that really matters in the story.
> The only thing that really matters in the story.
If only it was that easy.
True, true.
Har-har! I'm surprised he's only asking for $40,000 damages; that would barely keep a lawyer interested around here.
As a side note, the weirdest "house splitting" I ever witnessed was in Newport Beach,Ca., a two (three?)story beachfront home near the infamous "Wedge", maybe 5,000 square feet, quite the mansion. Anywhoo, a nasty divorce settled with the place being carefully split in two and modified so it was two homes instead of one with about a 3 foot gap. It's on the harbor entrance channel so I got to see the operation from start to finish; took months.
This sounds very much like Ross v. DeLorenzo, 672 P.2d 1338 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
The interesting part is:
Finally, in 1980, defendant hired a surveyor, who placed the location of the boundary on a line almost exactly bisecting the middle house. The accuracy of this survey was stipulated at trial. After the survey, defendant sought the advice of another lawyer, who testified that, when confronted with the survey results, plaintiff was not interested in negotiating an agreement regarding the property. Defendant's attorney advised him that, in order to avoid losing the property by adverse possession, he needed to terminate plaintiff's trespass. The property in dispute consists of 29 feet extending from the center of the middle house to the east edge of the driveway bordering defendant's duplex. On the basis of his understanding that the middle house was not occupied, the attorney advised defendant to take certain steps, including construction of a wall down the middle of the house, to terminate plaintiff's occupation of the disputed area. While plaintiff was at work, defendant entered the house by removing the front door. He built a wall through the living room corresponding to the survey line and moved plaintiff's furniture to what he considered to be "her side of the house." Plaintiff sued and obtained a decree that the property line was the east side of the driveway bordering defendants' duplex and a judgment for general and punitive damages on the trespass claim.
I read the whole case.
The appellate court overturned the trial court and held the survey line as the boundary.
The appeals court then sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the the award of damages for trespass since the appeals court ruled the property line remained in it's original location, through the middle of the house.
Ross v. DeLorenzo had the effect of consolidating the various forms of unwritten boundary agreement doctrines in to a single "Boundary by Agreement" doctrine in Oregon Law.
"There are three essential requirements for application of the doctrine of boundary by agreement. First, there must be an initial uncertainty or dispute as to the "true" location of the boundary....Second, the uncertainty must be resolved by an agreement, express or implied, to recognize a particular line as the boundary...Finally, the parties must evidence their agreement by subsequent activities. ..."