By my measurement the fence is about 6 feet off the deed line at this spot. The sign would probably be more effective if it read "permission to use property outside of the fence is granted by the owner to adjoining property owners". By threatening prosecution, and failing to enforce, the adverse possessor hostility is enhanced.
It kinda sounds like at least one property owner thinks they know where the property line is, or........
maybe they have property in Wisconsin also? 😉
Add a few expletives, and add a few surveyor's names, and then you could have an historic document!!
~:)
Wouldn't it have been easier to just put the fence on the property line in the first place?
JBS
I kinda like it. It covers two surveys ago, one survey ago, the current survey and the next ones. The fence stays put, it's just the boundary being moved about.
LOL!!!
Maybe they put the fence up before the survey was done. Never seen that one before have we.....
I always like the sign "The dogs are ok, but the owner is an arse hole with a gun".
I saw one a few years aago that read:
NO HUNTING
NO FISHING
NO SURVEYING
Bruce
Wayne
Several years ago an older gentleman rented my grandmother's house. He kept an old Winchester on the mantle with a sign underneath that read:
"Beware, this gun is loaded...PS I am too."
Andy
Sign on Fence>JBS
Some jurisdictions have a height standard. Around here, if it's over 6' it needs to meet a setback, in some cases equal to the height of the fence...
Sign on Fence>JBS
> Some jurisdictions have a height standard. Around here, if it's over 6' it needs to meet a setback, in some cases equal to the height of the fence...
Yes. I've heard of and seen those ordinances. I'd really like to see one of them challenged some time. It would seem to be a "taking of property." The incentive is to either never fence or to wait for your neighbor to fence. Then you'll gain use of more property than you own.
The solution would be to corroborate with your neighbor (in this day and age?) and work together to construct the fence by agreement with a maintenance provision. Bet the ordinance can't trump that!
If I lived in one of those areas where such an ordinance was in effect, I'd be doing everything I could to change it back to the old-style fence laws (right-hand rule).
JBS
In California that would be a Civil Code 1008 Notice but the sign must use the Statutory Language, "Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: Section 1008, Civil Code."
You would need to post the signs on the boundary line (not the fence) often enough to impart the notice.
Sign on Fence>JBS
I agree with you John. When clients ask me what to do with their fence I recommend that they put it on the line (allowed in MA) or else they might as well consider it a donation to the neighbors.
Sign on Fence>JBS
Part of our obligation is to determine why a fence was constructed where it is, not always constructed for ownership boundary purposes and at the time of construction through today was known by all. We have miles and miles of fences built that do not, nor ever were be intended to define ownership lines. Where we have problems with such things here, it is usually an alien from one population center or another. Setting fences back from the ownership lines sometimes makes very good sense, we just need to attempt to determine what the fence represents and not jump to the conclusion that they all represent ownership claims. Claims should never be allowed until knowledge is disclosed anyway, can't defend something that you have no knowledge about.
jud
> Wouldn't it have been easier to just put the fence on the property line in the first place?
In this case there were several surveys, all by the same surveyor, over a period of a few years (late 70's to early 80's). Each subsequent survey duplicates the mistakes of its predecessors and creates new ones of its own. The deeds, apparently written from one or the other of the surveys, then proceed to drop and/or transpose calls as the boundary lines are moved to and fro through a series of iterations. One can readily imagine the exasperated property owner putting the sign on the fence rather than commissioning yet another round of surveys and deed exchanges.
Another reason why I locate the neighbor's fence even when it isn't close. I don't want my client thinking that is the line and mowing more than need be.
Sign on Fence>JBS
:good:
Sign on Fence>JBS
:good: :good:
I once had an owner say that he was going place a fence on his own property by 6" so that in the future if the neighbor got any cows that started destroying the fence and did nothing to prevent it, he would just open a panel and let the cows out. He was thinking ahead. Jp
> By my measurement the fence is about 6 feet off the deed line at this spot. The sign would probably be more effective if it read "permission to use property outside of the fence is granted by the owner to adjoining property owners". By threatening prosecution, and failing to enforce, the adverse possessor hostility is enhanced.
Not a lawyer, but it would seem that your statement is true. I have always been taught that permission kills adverse possession (it isn't adverse anymore).
I doubt that permission would kill all color of title issues, and some prescriptive rights might exist?
