Neighbor opposing longtime fence stuck in pickle
Neighbor opposing longtime fence stuck in pickle
DEAR BENNY: I purchased my home in September 2000. My survey indicated that my fence was encroaching on my neighbor's property by 3 feet. My home was built in 1955 and I am the second owner. The 4-foot chain-link fence has encircled this property for approximately 40 years, and my neighbor (who inherited his home from his parents) indicated that he had no plans of erecting a fence because his companion is claustrophobic.
Recently, however, my neighbor and his contractor began constructing an addition to his home that will include a 6-foot wooden fence. Of course, now he wants his 3 feet back. His proposal is to move my fence over 3 feet, reset it, remove/replace my existing double gate with a single one at his expense, and draw up a contract for both of us to sign.
I went to both my city assessor's office, and maps and surveys office. Both offices confirmed that my fence was on his property in the back of the house (3 feet) and that his fence was on my property in the front of my house by 3 feet. I did speak to him about this new development, telling him that I wanted an attorney to intercede on my behalf. Needless to say, he wasn't too pleased with my decision. What can I do? --Francine
DEAR FRANCINE: You, or preferably your lawyer, should explain that he may lose the 3 feet based on the concept of "adverse possession." This means that if you have used someone else's land openly and without permission, you can file a suit for adverse possession. Different states have different periods of time in which you have to use that property.
However, if you pursue this avenue, you run the risk that he countersues you claiming adverse possession of the property in front of your house.
I strongly suggest that you try to resolve this on a friendly basis. It may be that you will have to retain an attorney who can try to mediate an amicable solution. Perhaps each of you can give up a portion of your land. Otherwise, litigation may be your only recourse.
DEAR BENNY: We waited two years for a lake home's price to go down and we finally bought the home in May 2009. We were also lucky enough to sell our existing home the first day on the market. In light of Obama extending the tax credits for first-time homebuyers, we also heard about a new credit for homebuyers. Will we qualify for this new tax credit? --Mary
DEAR MARY: I am afraid that you bought your home too soon. As I read the new law, called "The Worker Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009," only consumers who buy another principal residence after Nov. 6, 2009, are eligible for the up-to-$6,500 tax credit. That was the date the law was signed by the president.
If you already own a home that you use as your principal residence, and have owned and used it as your primary residence for at least five consecutive years out of an eight-year period ending on the date you buy a new principal residence, you can claim this credit.
But, you must buy that new home between Nov. 6, 2009, and April 30, 2010. However, if you are under contract by April 30, and can close (i.e., go to escrow) by June 30, 2010, you are still entitled to the credit.
The old law, which still remains in effect, gave the credit only to first-time homebuyers. The new law expanded the credit -- although for $1,500 less -- for homeowners who want to "move up" to another primary residence. It should be noted, however, that the purchase price of the new house does not have to be more than the sales price of the older house.
This new law will have to be tested and clarified. Discuss your specific issue with your own tax advisers.
DEAR BENNY: I just read your response on a question about publishing the names of delinquent owners. I served as our first treasurer since turnover of our 234 single-family-home association. I, too, was asked that question and responded as you suggest, deeming it a confidential matter.
Would there be any legal problem if the names of members in good standing were posted and kept current as payments are received? Those not on the list would then be considered in arrears. I can see a possible problem in which a delinquent owner pays before an updated list appears, causing him or her to feel falsely accused of delinquency. I guess I may have answered my own question, but would appreciate a response. --Les
DEAR LES: You are a brave man for serving as treasurer in your community association. Service on a board of directors is frustrating, time-consuming and without pay. But, it is your home and you want to make sure it keeps its value; that's why most board members take the time to serve.
Yes, you have answered your own question. I support letting homeowners know who is delinquent with their association fees. But, as you suggest, there is risk involved. If you state in some public communication that, for example, "Mary Jones owes the association $350," what happens if Mary just paid the money? She has been defamed and could sue the association for libel.
So whether you post the names of delinquent owners or you post the names of current owners, you have to make sure that you put a date on that published information. I see nothing wrong with saying that "as of Dec. 31, 2009, Mary Jones owes $350. Even if she made a payment the next day, your publication was accurate.
What's Your Home Worth?