month ago guy orders two titles.?ÿ he's buying a 10 acre tract and turning around and cutting it in two.?ÿ no sweat.?ÿ do the job, write the descriptions, get paid.
get the call yesterday- his buyer for the other tract.?ÿ "your survey is wrong and we have BIG problems."?ÿ that was the sentence out of her mouth, verbatim, after i returned her call and very pleasantly introduced myself.
turns out she thinks that the delapidated old barbed wire fence that meanders along one long line she just acquired IS the line and should control the line, and the fact that there are monuments in the ground and the fence meanders a bit back and forth (sub-foot) means i should have shot every inch of the 1200' of it, apparently...
here's the kicker:?ÿ of course after i get off the phone with her i look her up.?ÿ local real estate agent.?ÿ also conspicuously in the news for multiple lawsuits against her for fraud and for being the first person ever censured from a local board for various alleged underhanded financial dealings.
and she's crying that i'm destroying her dream retirement property somehow.?ÿ whole thing screams scam and that she's gonna try to pinch me for whatever she can get.
wonder what her response is gonna be when i ask her why she had a signed contract and closing date a month before i was even hired.?ÿ or why the seller asked me how quickly i could get a CAD file to her builder way back when.
I wouldn't even speak or email with this person.?ÿ I've learned that people that practice intentional malice or fraud are best dealt with by lawyers and pipe swinging Mofos. Take your pick.
There's a reason the titles "Realtor" and "Used Car Salesman" evoke the churning of stomach, the angst of wasting time, and just overall slimy feeling when dealing with them.?ÿ Exceptions to the few ( the very few...) that do honorable and valuable work, rare as the might be, like unicorns.
I don't get it. If the fence meanders along the line, less than a foot off it, what's her problem?
I don't get it. If the fence meanders along the line, less than a foot off it, what's her problem?
Her problem is that she doesn't have a problem. So she is trying to manufacture one.
well, mea culpa time.?ÿ kind of.
so here's the deal- i originally chiefed a survey on the parent 10 acre tract about 18 years ago, shot and taped the daylights out of everything.?ÿ went back and updated it in june of 2013 for a new buyer, at which time walked everything, flagged everything, noted and shot changes, and verified a few old shots.?ÿ same routine this last time, except i wasn't under the banner of my old boss.?ÿ i did, however, have photocopies of my old notes, but basically reshot all the... ahem... important stuff (house, driveways, barn) like i'd never been there before.?ÿ part of the routine was walking all the lines and looking for any new fences, etc.?ÿ everything looked hunky dory.?ÿ get out there this morning and go straight to where she's carping there's an issue and... i'll be damned.?ÿ so like i said, i was there in june '13.?ÿ in september '13 the county (who is the adjoiner along two sides, including the line in question) acquired a 20' waterline easement over the subject tract that crossed the fence line.?ÿ they also hydro-axed about a 20' swath along their whole common boundary (the county tract is a 250+ acre park).?ÿ well, lo and behold i go to this big, slightly leaning ash juniper (19") in the fence line, hop the fence, and go back around the other side.?ÿ there are 7 or 8 rusty staples half-pulled out of the trunk.?ÿ walk south 60 feet and there's another cedar- same deal there.?ÿ so then i look more closely at my notes.?ÿ sure enough- shows the fence going around the west side of those two trees.?ÿ except now the fence (same old fence, same old t-posts and cedar posts, same old OLD) is stapled/nailed to the east sides of those two trees.?ÿ which, of course, happens to put it almost 3 feet into the tract.
if i were a conjecturing type of guy- wait, i am- i'm guessing the county hires the contractor to clear out and install the water line, they pulled the old fence out and just rolled it back safely out of the way, spent a month or two doing their thing, and when they were done a couple of random guys on a waterline crew nailed the old fence back up to the same trees without giving a second thought to which side.?ÿ of course the old owners "don't remember" what deal they struck when the county came along and just said "hey, we're gonna take down 200 feet of your fence here for a bit," so they're of no help.?ÿ client lady now thinks i'm a total putz and is still insisting that the whole thing is wrong.?ÿ which... it ain't, but i kinda get her perspective a bit more now.?ÿ only my original sentiment holds- after meeting her in person i'm more convinced than ever that she's hell bent on squeezing a freebie or a refund or a lawsuit or whatever out of every single person she deals with.?ÿ her builder just happened to be there and without giving or asking for too much from him, i could tell he's already terrified of her and he hasn't seen a dime yet.
funny part in the whole thing is when the county went in and got all happy with the hydroax they cut down a few trees that she would have needed to in order to do what she wants, which would probably be a non-starter with the county's tree people.?ÿ even when i pointed THAT out she still wasn't having it.?ÿ AND she still thinks her property line should be dictated by every slightest variation in an old fence line that runs from tree to tree, and upon which one would be hard pressed to find any single point at which it stands up straight enough to qualify as locatable in any good sense of the word.
bottom line is i screwed up.?ÿ not bad- i'd bet the vast majority of anyone on here would have missed it too.?ÿ but strangely enough i feel better about my position in this thing than i did when i was convinced she was a kook and that i had it correct.
I don't get it. If the fence meanders along the line, less than a foot off it, what's her problem?
Her problem is that she doesn't have a problem. So she is trying to manufacture one.
this is definitely true.?ÿ or- i should say, it's definitely a component part of her M.O.
McAllister v. Samuels 857 S.W.2nd 768
Cox v. Olivard 482 S.W.2nd 682
Covers old standing fences of convenience, not the new mis-located one, though.
