I was setting line stakes on a simple lot job this morning and a previous owner of my client's property had built a very nice fence a couple inches inside his line all the way around.?ÿ My client is now doing some extensive landscaping and wanted to make sure he knew where the lines were and hired me to mark the lines.?ÿ Found all but one corner and set thin wooden lathe marked "PROPERTY LINE" all around the perimeter.?ÿ A neighbor lady came out and asked/told me in no uncertain terms, "You'll remove that right".?ÿ I explained to her that I was marking the property lines of her neighbor and those stakes were the property line markers.?ÿ So she says after no consideration, "yes but you'll remove those right".?ÿ Another long explanation that the property line, hers included run right through the center of the stake, the property on the other side is not hers, the fence is built per usual, inside the line by a couple inches and that I've been hired to mark the lines to make sure the new landscaping is not encroaching.?ÿ Guess what response I get.?ÿ "But you'll remove those right"?ÿ Another lengthy explanation about ........... and on and on.?ÿ At least five times verbatim.?ÿ No variation, no understanding, and no common consensus reached.?ÿ I can usually get the very arcane idea if surveying across to folks but it was in direct conflict with her initial reaction and there was not going to be anything besides a satisfied smirk once I "removed that".?ÿ She didn't get her smirk and I didn't get anything across as many different ways as I tried to approach it.?ÿ You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"yes but you'll remove those right".?ÿ
No, your neighbor is paying me to put these here, you will need to talk to them. Maybe, if you ask real nice, they might remove them when they're done...
She's giving you a yes or no question; you're giving her way to much information...
You weren't telling her what she wanted to hear.
After the first explanation, there was no use in repeating it. It was a yes/no question, not an essay question. The answer suggested by Radar should have been used in subsequent replies.
That old gal must have been raised in a home 70 years ago a few decades ahead of the standard.?ÿ You know,?ÿ the kid says gimme and the parent says no, so the kid says I SAID GIMME and the parent folds.?ÿ Maybe on the first repeat request and maybe on the 20th repeat request but the result is the kid gets what he wants.?ÿ Had the situation been handled correctly by the parent when the second demand came forth, there would not have been a third request.
Hijack alert.... Where is it 'usual' to place the fence inside the boundary? I cannot fathom why anyone would surrender property on purpose...
I think it??s because people don??t want to talk to their neighbor or ask for permission when building a shared fence. If it??s on your side, then you don??t have to deal with the neighbor saying no to your style of fence. Also per RCW 16.60.020 shared boundary fences require 50/50 costs split between?ÿneighbors, which might be a tough conversation to have and agree upon with the neighbor.
Not sure how it plays out in court, but per RCW 16.60.055 also allows for the neighbor to remove the fence at any time if erected across the line, so a few inches in may be a safe play to some.
I've seen this done so many times because the owner of Lot A does not want the Owner of Lot B to be able to enclose his property fully by running his fence all the way to the one built inside of Lot A.?ÿ Thus the owner of Lot B is compelled to spend as much to build a fence around his property as the owner of Lot A did.?ÿ Really stupid but you get two fences about six inches apart with every kind of weed known to mankind taking root in that narrow spite strip.
Had one client that wanted extra marking so he could construct his fence a full 30 inches inside the sidelines and the backline.?ÿ He had a 30-inch lawnmower and planned to mow on the outside of his fence so as to keep a beautiful yard.?ÿ If the neighbor wanted to fence in his property line, it would have to be at least 30 inches from my client's fence.
One city in the county to the north has gone totally bonkers and will not allow fences to be built on the property line on any side with a street.?ÿ They say a fence must be erected on the building setback line as they consider a fence to be the same as a building at impacting line of site at corners and alleys.?ÿ Lady had me survey her property which had streets on three sides.?ÿ The setback was another 25 feet on the sides, so she needed markers for the fence builder to follow.?ÿ She really loved her dog.?ÿ That was the sole purpose of the survey.
That old gal must have been raised in a home 70 years ago a few decades ahead of the standard.?ÿ You know,?ÿ the kid says gimme and the parent says no, so the kid says I SAID GIMME and the parent folds.?ÿ Maybe on the first repeat request and maybe on the 20th repeat request but the result is the kid gets what he wants.?ÿ Had the situation been handled correctly by the parent when the second demand came forth,?ÿ bel mari there would not have been a third request.
?ÿ?ÿ
Most HOA around here require a survey in order to approve fence construction, with the implied intent to aid the fencer in building the fence just clear of the lot lines.?ÿ ?ÿI have seen one subdivision which had deeded restrictions stipulating that the fence had to be built upon the lot lines.
The fellow I had mentioned in another thread that told the builder that his fence could not be across the line because he used GPS, moved the fence, this time using "his laser".?ÿ I found the new fence to be about 2 inches over where he made an angle corner.
@tim-libs I've mediated cases on nearly identical statutes in Idaho. The shared cost is both conditional and optional. The removal provision is limited to discoveries of gross error shortly after construction. Treating them as simple absolutes will end poorly.
More to the point, placing the fence inside your line will probably result in the eventual loss of the property beyond the fence. The courts are hammering that home in decision after decision these days..
I worked with a party chief in Washington who suggested to a home owner that they build their fence inside the property line by some amount. The justification was that then the neighbors would be outside of their rights to lean any garbage or whatever up against the fence because doing so would involve crossing the property line.
I was pretty shocked at this advice and do not agree with it but did find it to be an interesting take.
And while I did not agree with his thinking on this, he was a solid surveyor of the old school.
Farmers tend to put fences ON the line and subdivision lot owners tend to keep what is theirs (including all of the fence) on their own property, pretty side out.?ÿ This of course leads to the question of what part of a fence defines the line; center of posts, wire, outer face board, a weighted average of those.?ÿ I've been involved in rural disputes in which the fence is purported to be on the line and I had to draw many details showing the wire and post location in relation to the property line, the fight being about whether or not the new fence was properly centered on line.
When staking a line for one of the owners, I offset the stakes on to the side of the Owner I??m working for by at least a foot or more depending on how much room is available. ?ÿAt the top of the lath, the offset distance is labeled with a circle around it. ?ÿThe adjacent owner has no right to remove the stakes since it is not on their property. Make sure to follow up with an exhibit of what was staked and note the offset.
@wagner152?ÿ
And how do you get the adjoiner to understand that those are offsets and not on the property line? A circled 1.0 isn't going to be obvious to most.?ÿ If I were doing that, I'd probably also paint the actual line.
I would imagine it??s the same here with regards to how the actual laws play out here in Washington State. Those RCWs seem to be a bit vague for the circumstances of a fence being built ??close? to the property line. I??ve seen lawyers get involved and bicker over an inch here and there, but from I recall they argue the case of adverse possession based on a previous fence location, rather than a newly built fence being slightly over the property line where there wasn??t an already established line of usage.
When staking a line for one of the owners, I offset the stakes on to the side of the Owner I??m working for by at least a foot or more depending on how much room is available. ?ÿAt the top of the lath, the offset distance is labeled with a circle around it. ?ÿThe adjacent owner has no right to remove the stakes since it is not on their property. Make sure to follow up with an exhibit of what was staked and note the offset.
In most of my staking, I pretend that the end user, whether it be a homeowner or seasoned project manager is as dumb as a stump and my staking process needs to be crystal clear to them.?ÿ Even then, I am often surprised at their ability to misunderstand the stakes.?ÿ If I intentionally offset line stakes, I'm fairly sure I would be in a lot of battles over fences being built in the wrong spot.?ÿ Idiot proof is a hard standard to achieve.
There is always a more clever idiot.
We had somthing similar on a lake lot. I was digging in our lot's landscaping, looking for a pin. The adjoing landowner confronts me and asks what I am doing. I tell her I am surveying to determine the boundary's location. She did not like that and insisted that they did not want the boundary surveyed. I explained that the neighbor wanted it surveyed and had every right to know their boundary's location. I did my best try to help her understand. She then turned from being annoying to being angry. I was on our lot, so I proceeded to continue with my work and ignore her. She went into the house and you could hear that she was yelling at her husband to do something. The husband approached my boss and calmly inquired about what we were doing and my apparent rude behavior. After a few minutes of discussion he apologized for his wife's behavior and went back into the house.