Kris Morgan, post: 386949, member: 29 wrote: We are not a court, nor are we a judge or jury, and certainly not the executioner. When the legal definition of something is "illegal", then unless we have parole evidence to prove that it is illegal, it's a protrusion/intrusion/use by another.
parol.......dammit! (emvision smiley-face here....I'm not really mad)
And how is parol testimony proof? at best it's just more evidence. It might be that one guys "testifies" that it is illegal and another guy testifies that it is legal..... How does parol testimony prove it? And is it your job to determine if is illegal at all? Then why don't you just use the word encroachment, based on all the evidence?
I kind of like someone else's comment that it is simply an "apparent encroachment", since it crosses the boundary line you are surveying and appears to encroach.
Tom Adams, post: 387022, member: 7285 wrote: parol.......dammit! (emvision smiley-face here....I'm not really mad)
And how is parol testimony proof? at best it's just more evidence. It might be that one guys "testifies" that it is illegal and another guy testifies that it is legal..... How does parol testimony prove it? And is it your job to determine if is illegal at all? Then why don't you just use the word encroachment, based on all the evidence?
I kind of like someone else's comment that it is simply an "apparent encroachment", since it crosses the boundary line you are surveying and appears to encroach.
For what it's worth, "possible" is a much better term than "apparent"...
What ever happened to just showing the fence and just labeling it a 'wood fence' etc..?
Half the time I don't even know who's darn wood fence is who's.
Tom Adams, post: 387022, member: 7285 wrote: parol.......dammit! (emvision smiley-face here....I'm not really mad)
And how is parol testimony proof? at best it's just more evidence. It might be that one guys "testifies" that it is illegal and another guy testifies that it is legal..... How does parol testimony prove it? And is it your job to determine if is illegal at all? Then why don't you just use the word encroachment, based on all the evidence?
I kind of like someone else's comment that it is simply an "apparent encroachment", since it crosses the boundary line you are surveying and appears to encroach.
First, ya got me. Misspelled. Second, parol evidence is the same testimony given in court. Required to be first hand knowledge, and depending on who and what they are saying, can be just as good as an original corner in the dirt, undisturbed. For example, if the neighbor says, Yes, I know that the fence is 15 feet onto my neighbor, I built it there, I don't like him, and I'm working on an adverse posession claim (I've heard stuff like this before), then YES, it's an encroachment! We have a winner on an example of WHEN I MIGHT use encroachment!
Rich., post: 387032, member: 10450 wrote: What ever happened to just showing the fence and just labeling it a 'wood fence' etc..?
Half the time I don't even know who's darn wood fence is who's.
Sorry for being spelling police ....but "whose" is the possessive pronoun...."who's" is a contraction for "who is".
I agree with labeling a wood fence a wood fence, but it might be a matter of being more clear that there is a potential issue if you put a flag on it.
Kris Morgan, post: 387074, member: 29 wrote: First, ya got me. Misspelled.
Sorry for being a jerk (or maybe some nicer word). Typos are always more abundant on a site like this one. And especially when the spell-check can't really catch it. There are a few words are just kind of pet peeves of mine. I still like the term "apparent encroachment". You are determining a property line and something appears to encroach. You want to alert your client that the issue is there and he might want to address it. I don't think you are making some big legal determination but, as a boundary expert you are pointing out issues near the property line.
[USER=7285]@Tom Adams[/USER] , hell I didn't think you were a jerk, or anything else. No worries from this end brother!
🙂
On the other hand, those dammed speeling poelice should bee band.
I have always indicated these sort of areas as "Lawn Area of Smith" or "Garden Area of Smith" or "Area Occupied by Smith", with the appropriate label saying say 10FT Over or what have you.
We (SAMSOG) had Gary Kent speak to us about the new ALTA/NSPS survey standards last week. One of the questions raised was about the use of the term encroachment. Gary used the definition of encroachment as an "Illegal Trespass". I have always been of the same mind but just never used that particular definition. An encroachment is illegal and we don't determine legality. I have never "labeled" an "encroachment", I just show the area (with a detail if necessary) with dimensions. This brings the possible problem to the attention of the user without making a judgement call on legality.
Andy
A couple of decades ago I used the term regularly. Gave it up after reading about the potential liability. Do not make statements today about such things.
