Lawsuit over Encroachment

Sounds like these 2 sod-heads suing you & your wife are extremely petty and Sm all-minded, especially over 3 lousy inches overhanging in the AIR--no less. Well, if it's any consolation, I already know for a fact that NO judge in Polk County is going to make you/your wife chop your roof off just to satisfy this obvious frivolous law suit.  Sounds like you are dealing w/ two people that most definitely need to get a life, hopefully one that doesn't include them going after anyone else in here just because they get a hair up their asses to do so. That's just plain stupid!

Got word from my Attorney Frd O'N eel (Attny) yesterday.....lil clayton DENIED! The court rules in J. Grants favor! More to come on the fool and his $ parting.....stay tuned.

As I read the assertion that your neighbor has "tolerated" the roof overhang for years, the first thing that came to mind was the legal principle of adverse possession. Generally, the disseisor must occupy the encroachment continuously, openly and notoriously for at least seven years in order to claim title to the property in question.

While taking a course in real estate law, we studied a case in Pennsylvania where the absentee owner of a vacant lot did nothing to maintain it. The homeowner adjacent to this vacant lot grew sick of the weeds and assorted junk that had accumulated, so he took it upon himself to clean it up, mow it and landscape it. The neighbor continued to maintain the lot for nearly 21 years. As the subdivision slowly developed, the absentee owner finally decided that the lot had increased in value enough for him to sell it at a handsome profit. The neighbor, however went to court claiming that all the years he maintained the lot gave him title to the lot by right of adverse possession. The court agreed with his claim.
The more common adverse possession cases involve the location of a fence. If a homeowner builds a fence that is encroaching on his neighbor's property but the neighbor fails to do anything about it, he may ultimately lose the area enclosed by the fence by adverse possession.

Sodheads v Grnt: Case No. 2015CA-000165

Background:

In Oct 2015, Sodheads, my adjacent neighbor, attempted to assert ownership of my tree which they mistakenly thought was on their property. According to Sodheads, the tree partially obstructed the view when exiting the driveway. When I heard about their complaint to the board requesting permission to remove the tree, I immediately contacted the Sodheads by email and informed them it was my tree. I immediately trimmed my tree.

However, Sodheads insisted the tree belonged to them and paid for a survey in an attempt to prove me wrong. The survey showed that the tree was, indeed, on my property.

Incidentally, the survey revealed an aerial encroachment of my porch’s roof eave by 3” over Sodheads’ property line. Rather than talk to me about a resolution to the minor aerial encroachment and, despite no objection by Polk County, Sodheads decided to S u e me for everything I own or will ever own including my retirement pension, relocation of my home and all that I have worked for all my life. At one point, Sodheads wanted me to pay their assessments and other costs in excess of $10,000 in exchange for settling the complaint. I refused.

The course of the lawsuit came to a standstill during revitalization because the Covenants and Rules, upon which Sodheads’ based their complaint, were non-existent.

Upon DEO approval of the Covenants (only), the Sodheads’ renewed their pursuit of me.

There was nothing I could do about my roof eave because it preceeded my arrival in S-bag, as well as Sodheads' arrival. To alter it would be unsightly and possibly result in consequential damage to the structure. The porch and roof was never county-permitted by the previous owner and the Sodheads had lived with the unrecognized encroachment for almost 7 years before suddenly deciding that they should S u e me over it.

In addition to suing me to move house/porch, the Sodheads’ also sued for return of their legal costs based upon the following covenants and regulation:


Ruling:

 Judge said Covenants & Restrictions are a contract and made no reference to Rules/Regs adopted by the Association after the contract is made. Rules and Regs are not part of the contract between owners and HOA unless the CCR’s expressly incorporate future rules. In other words, the rationale the judge used to rule against Sodheads ie that the rules and regulations the Association makes are not part of the "contract" lot owners obligate themselves to when buying in S-bag. In a future dispute, SLohA will be pushing uphill in any legal actions against owners who purchased their property and agreed to the CCR’s-- but not to any rules adopted thereafter.

The Sodheads’ lost. S-bag lost its hopes of getting its legal costs back in lawsuits involving rules now and in the future.

The Judge awarded $1300 in costs of bringing the documentation into court such as the court cost, sheriff’s service fee and the survey. However, the Sodheads’ did not recover their lawyer’s fees of $7500 to which they claimed to be entitled under the Covenants.

Sodheads’ spent $8800 to get a judicial declaration that my porch roofline is 3” over their property line. I do not need to move my home or alter my porch roof. Sodheads’ has the right to put a lien on my house which cannot be executed while it is homesteaded.I have no plans to sell my house or relinquish my homestead status.

I want to give a shout-out to SNAP which assisted with the lawsuit. As many of you know, my lawyer is a board director for SNAP and will assist Baggers with HOA problems. While this was not a direct dispute with the HOA, the defense has implications to ALL Saddlebaggers!