Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 8 Cleveland)   In order to settle property dispute, local government cuts building into two pieces. No word if King Solomon was on council   (fox8.com) divider line
    More: Strange, content, region  
•       •       •

4361 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 19 Oct 2019 at 11:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Copy Link



42 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
edmo [TotalFark] [OhFark]  
Smartest (13)   Funniest (3)  
2019-10-19 9:28:46 AM  
Now complain it violates setback rules.
 
phrawgh  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 11:33:39 AM  
This has all happened before.
 
zobear  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (3)  
2019-10-19 11:35:37 AM  
Simpson's did it.
 
robodog  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 11:38:40 AM  

edmo: Now complain it violates setback rules.


They can pass an exception which they would obviously do.
 
2019-10-19 11:40:08 AM  
Jacob's father-in-law would say, "Oh, did I promise you the pretty house?  Nah, you're getting the ugly house.  The pretty one can be yours too, but it's on the market ten years from now."
 
2019-10-19 11:41:29 AM  
Well, I mean, it IS Ohio.
 
Crunch61  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 11:43:50 AM  
Split not buildings or babies, but bananas.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 11:46:28 AM  
There was a case in Massachusetts where a man wanted to seize half a house to pay off a debt. Not a 50% interest in a house, half of the physical house. It was a modular house under construction so that was possible without a chainsaw. The courts ultimately ruled that wasn't allowed. Having a judgment against somebody doesn't allow you to wreck the person's property out of spite.
 
2019-10-19 11:46:56 AM  
"Their offer was half what my damages were."

Right. [eye roll]
 
ReapTheChaos  
Smartest (29)   Funniest (1)  
2019-10-19 11:48:40 AM  
So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?
 
TWX  
Smartest (11)   Funniest (2)  
2019-10-19 12:08:33 PM  

ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?


And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.
 
El_Dan  
Smartest (6)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 12:09:45 PM  
Litigious moron plays stupid games and wins a stupid prize. Based on that picture I'm also not sure how he possibly thinks that is 1/3 of the building.
 
2019-10-19 12:15:10 PM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2019-10-19 12:15:29 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2019-10-19 12:16:28 PM  
He got a decent fence, some lumber, and some sheet aluminum out of the deal.
Not too bad at the end of the day.
 
Riche  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 12:21:11 PM  
Not enough info to be sure on this, but it seems the land owner and city both are being assholes.

Building a structure so close to your property line without making damn sure you aren't encroaching is flat out stupid.

And the landowner in the end didn't let contractors on his land-- even to properly tear down the shed-- to, ya know, FIX the problem?

Without more info I can only guess he was demanding some insane amount of money. Of course, maybe he started making those excess demands only after the city kept dicking him over. Impossible to say.

So now the guy has a useless and structurally unsound... wall... on his land. Sooner or later he's going to have to either pay out of his own pocket to tear it down and haul it off or spend a lot of effort doing it himself.

And the city taxpayers have to pay to tear down and rebuild what was a perfectly good large storage shed.
 
2019-10-19 12:40:02 PM  

TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.


I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.
 
2019-10-19 12:43:47 PM  

ReapTheChaos: TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.

I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.


If land is worth $2,000/acre and they offer you $1000/acre and you refuse to take it, you aren't being a dick.
 
2019-10-19 12:48:43 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: ReapTheChaos: TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.

I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.

If land is worth $2,000/acre and they offer you $1000/acre and you refuse to take it, you aren't being a dick.


The article never states their offer was below the value of the land, the guy himself stated that what they offered was half of what his "damages" were, while never stating what those damages actually are.
 
TWX  
Smartest (6)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 12:48:50 PM  

ReapTheChaos: TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.

I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.


So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.
 
Dear Jerk  
Smartest (4)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 12:55:12 PM  
State erects building party on man's land. Man complains. State plans to remove building. Man does not allow state on property. State removes what it can. Man complains that stump of building is still on his land. Next, state needs to order man to remove the hazard. The ass was angling for a big payout.
 
2019-10-19 12:59:22 PM  

ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?


That's the way I see it, they handled it the only way left to them.   I am not sure what the guy owning the land a bit of the building was encroaching  was going for but it seems clear what ever it was he did not get it.   I suspect he was trying to get the city to sell him the land the building was on or pay him way above market for his property.
 
2019-10-19 1:04:11 PM  
Ruggles shouldn't notice house number 9 3/4.
 
2019-10-19 1:06:53 PM  
Since this is Fark, I'm going all in: Sounds like this nutjob farmer fancies himself to be a sovereign citizen and/or has been trying to Brad Wesley the city for years through his strong arm legal tactics.
 
El_Dan  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 1:09:07 PM  
TWX:So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.


Damages are generally meant to be compensatory, i.e. based on something. This guy isn't entitled to punitive damages for a property line issue.
 
abhorrent1  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 1:54:37 PM  
The refusing to let them on his property to fix the problem is kind of a dick move.
 
jackmalice  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (1)  
2019-10-19 1:58:54 PM  

El_Dan: TWX:So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.

Damages are generally meant to be compensatory, i.e. based on something. This guy isn't entitled to punitive damages for a property line issue.


Trespass is always an intentional tort, for which punitive damages are allowed.
 
2019-10-19 2:04:34 PM  

jackmalice: Trespass is always an intentional tort, for which punitive damages are allowed.


Sounds like he should sue the guy who didn't let them fix the problem, then.
 
jackmalice  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (9)  
2019-10-19 2:15:53 PM  

strathmeyer: jackmalice: Trespass is always an intentional tort, for which punitive damages are allowed.

Sounds like he should sue the guy who didn't let them fix the problem, then.


Clearly what happened was 1) the town screwed up; and 2) the "victim" is an unprincipled jerk. As a lawyer, whenever I have a client like that, what I really want to is this:

Me:  I'd love to have 100 clients like you.

Him:  Why?

Me:  Because I have 1,000 clients like you.
 
2019-10-19 2:43:55 PM  
Oh, Ohio.  You so crazy.
 
2019-10-19 2:47:33 PM  
Technically you don't own the actual land you own the rights to it. The government actually owns it. That why they can take it if you don't pay property taxes.
 
dkulprit  
Smartest (2)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 3:28:45 PM  

ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?


This.  While it is bogus that they encroached on his land... there wasn't any "damage" outside of to a small strip of land.  All that they really owed him was getting off his property and repairing the grass.  This guy sounds like he is trying to turn nothing into gold.
 
dkulprit  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (1)  
2019-10-19 3:34:05 PM  

TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.


They were definitely dicks by encroaching, but this guy was asking for thousands of dollars in damages.  They offered to fix the issue and repair the damage to his empty property, but he wouldn't allow them on the property to do that.  I've dealt with enough villages to know there probably wasn't any malice or attempt at strongarming by building on his property, just incompetence.  But somehow this guy thinks he is owed something for a 30ft x 30ft piece of land.

Hopefully he digs his heels in and tries suing them, once that happens it will be shown they had reasonable attempts at a resolution and he gets to pay all of the legal fees.

It used to be that people's dreams were to win the lottery, now it's they dream of someone doing something that can mildly inconvenience them so they can sue.  It's stupid, and this one of those cases.  The muncipilaties offers at resolving the issue were completely reasonable, he wanted money for it but so far has been unable to prove actual damages.
 
dkulprit  
Smartest (1)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 3:43:16 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: ReapTheChaos: TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.

I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.

If land is worth $2,000/acre and they offer you $1000/acre and you refuse to take it, you aren't being a dick.


That's not what was happening.  They weren't offering 50% of what they land was worth, they offered 50% of what the "damages" were to him in his eyes. Have you looked at the pictures.  Dude owns tons of acres, that doesn't make it ok they messed up by building on his property, but it didn't keep him from doing anything.  His argument is that it kept him from "using" the property, it's a garbage argument.  He's just trying to milk it and get money out of it.  He will lose.  Town made reasonable attempts at resolving issue.
 
2019-10-19 3:46:55 PM  

TWX: ReapTheChaos: TWX: ReapTheChaos: So the town builds a shed that sits partially on the guys property, who then tries to strong arm the town into paying him for damages. The town attempts to reach an agreement with the guy, even offering to buy the property, but the guy refuses. The town decides to just tear down the shed, but again, the guy refuses to let them on his property, which leaves them with no choice but to do this.

And this guy thinks the town are the ones being unreasonable and stupid?

And it's not the town strong-arming the guy into trying to compel him to part with his property by having built upon property they did not own?

The guy well may be a dick, but the town government appears to be full of dicks too.

I see nothing in the article that would lead me to believe they were trying to strong arm or compel the guy into anything. Now if they were trying to pull some eminent domain type BS, then maybe, but the guy readily admits they offered to buy the property, which he refused because their offer was less than half of what he was asking for in "damages".

Don't get me wrong, the town was clearly wrong for not doing a proper land survey before they built the shed, but in the end the guy seems to be the one being a dick about this whole thing.

So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.


You're assuming that the offer made by the city was too low, when in fact we have no such information other than one interested party's claim. TFA does not state what the land is worth nor does it state what the offer was. 
Maybe it was a fair offer and the guy is unreasonably greedy, Maybe it was a ridiculous offer and the guy's reaction is understandable.

I see nothing in TFA that could help an informed opinion.
 
dkulprit  
Smartest (3)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 3:48:05 PM  

El_Dan: TWX:So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.

Damages are generally meant to be compensatory, i.e. based on something. This guy isn't entitled to punitive damages for a property line issue.


Outside of repair to the property that was damaged by them building on it.  But considering it appears to just be wild land anyways it's just tearing building down and throwing some seed on it.

The only real monetary damages I could see would be if he was in the process of selling the land, was close to contract signed and whomever was planning on buying it decided to back out because they didn't feel like dealing with the legal issues of battling the town or didn't want "less" land.  Outside of that that they only owe him for repair to the land they damaged, so just some grass.
 
2019-10-19 5:27:48 PM  
When I was a kid our neighbors built a well on our property and they just.... changed the property line.
 
emtwo [TotalFark]  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 7:18:17 PM  
Farmer:  Hey township, your building is partly on my land.

Township:  Well damn. Would you like to sell us the two feet of land?

Farmer:  No.

Township:  Okay, we'll have a crew come out and remove it from your property.

Farmer:  No. You can't bring a crew on my land until you pay me for emotional distress!

Township:  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Okay, enjoy your two feet of unsafe structure!
 
Rik01 [TotalFark]  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-19 7:57:57 PM  
Just a bunch of morons here. Nothing to see. Move on.
 
2019-10-19 9:20:05 PM  

TWX: So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?


Maybe, to be neighborly and only if it was a minor issue. I've got two anecdotes.

The guy who was the scoutmaster of my Boy Scout Troop had neighbors that put up a fence. No big deal, the fence was there for years. During some sort of property survey it was discovered that the fence was actually on his property. The actual width of the fence was a total of about 6", maximum. To solve the issue he just sold 1' of his land to the neighbor for $1. There was nothing about this that caused an issue, so it was being neighborly.

My aunt and uncle had neighbors who were building a garage/carport over their driveway. The eaves of the garage extended about a foot into their property. When this was noted, the neighbors asked my aunt and uncle to sell them whatever of their property it would take to avoid the issue. Upon consulting a lawyer, the problem is that all the lots on that block were 50' wide, which was the minimum to meet code for having a habitable structure on the property. To make the lot any narrower would mean that if anything happened to the house (fire, tornado, tree branch smashing the house, etc.) a replacement house would not be allowed to be built on the land. Thus, it meant that selling any part of their property would put them in the position that they wouldn't be able to rebuild their house in case something happened to the current house. They denied the sale to the neighbor and had to go to court to force them to tear down their carport.
 
El_Dan  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (0)  
2019-10-20 12:40:20 AM  

jackmalice: El_Dan: TWX:So if your neighbor were to build a structure that crosses onto your property and on your discovering this, offered you a minimal amount of money to buy the land that the building sat upon, would you be willing to settle for that minimal amount of money?

I don't have a problem with the concept of damages when one party was so egregious that it did something as stupid as build across a property line.

Damages are generally meant to be compensatory, i.e. based on something. This guy isn't entitled to punitive damages for a property line issue.

Trespass is always an intentional tort, for which punitive damages are allowed.


How about you Google "elements of trespass" and get back to me. Because that isn't what this is, your GED in law notwithstanding.
 
flynn80  
Smartest (0)   Funniest (1)  
2019-10-20 1:18:09 PM  

stevenvictx: Technically you don't own the actual land you own the rights to it. The government actually owns it. That why they can take it if you don't pay property taxes.


The government violated their own building codes by not doing a proper survey before building the structure.  The government is supposed to purchase land for the erection of needful buildings.  Storage is not a necessity.  If the government takes your land, that if theft.  Property taxes are a shakedown scam against citizens, the crooks do the same thing to people's income.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.