greasemonkeyok
Veteran Member
Yup, equal justice under the law.
More money buys you more equal justice.
More money buys you more equal justice.
Help! I need legal advice re: easements
- Thread starter mdbarb
- Start date
yelbike
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,639
- Location
- Near Winnipeg, Mb, Canada
- Tractor
- John Deere 2305, 2320,Z465
I just read the the op's posts for the entire tread. I must say it would make for a great book. The settlement just knocked me out of my chair. Wow I'm still reelling it all in. I can't believe it. Just know that with your demeanor your ahead, plus he'll be 6 feet under from old age soon enough.....I guess not soon enough.
KretZ
Silver Member
Just read this whole thread, I can't believe it. I know this whole thing was over a few years ago, I hope you are doing well now. One day (maybe it has already happened) your neighbor will have to stand tall before the big chair and answer for his deeds. My best to you and your family.
Alan L.
Elite Member
Wow, I just read this whole thing and I am flabbergasted. Even if you did everything they say how is that worth $422,000? This is an example of where what is happening in this country. Juries pick a side - the poor old man and don't consider the truth. This sucks. Before I got too far at all in this thread my reaction was that you should fire YOUR attorney because I could not imagine why he had allowed to get this far. I can guarantee any RV sitting on my property after I told them to move it would end up with tire damage or worse. I just don't have the patience you showed.
Bottom line is nowadays, always sue even when you know you are wrong, because chances are good you can get a settlement or even win when ignorant jurors are brought into the picture.
Bottom line is nowadays, always sue even when you know you are wrong, because chances are good you can get a settlement or even win when ignorant jurors are brought into the picture.
greasemonkeyok
Veteran Member
Isn't that what juries are supposed to do, decide who is credible and who isn't, and pick a side?
How do you know they didn't consider the truth?
Do you have a better system in mind?
cletus99
Gold Member
No, that is not what juries are supposed to do. Juries are supposed to look at the FACTS in the case. According to the OP there were no FACTS to prove any of the old man's claims. Hours and hours and thousands of photos and there was no proof of what the old man was claiming. We're only reading one side of the story, but if what the OP wrote is true then the jury wrongfully sided with the old man.
greasemonkeyok
Veteran Member
I understand the jury was charged with looking at the evidence presented by both sides, assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and deciding what the facts were. The FACTS are based on the evidence presented at trial.
The parties don't get to decide what the facts were because the facts were disputed. If there was, in fact, no proof of what the old man was claiming, the OP would have a good case for an appeal.
The system may not be perfect, but its the best we've got.
What this case teaches is that a poor settlement up front is better than a good lawsuit.
tractchores
Veteran Member
This thread got me curious, so I went and found the court case and read up on it. I won't post the link to the case to maintain the OP's privacy, but very interesting case and I think it emphasises that there are definitely 2 sides to every story and usually there is more than meets the eye. I also checked out the area in question and it amazed me that alternate access wasn't agreeable given the minimal distance to roads and the small area involved. This thread serves as a good warning in general for these types of arrangements, it might work great with your current neighbor, but then a new person moves in and is lawsuit happy and/or crazy and you've got a big mess on your hands. It looks lie this case is used in a number of lawschools when discussing property law. Interesting stuff!
I personally have an easement to access my property and have to cross 6 other properties in the process (shared common driveway). We all pay to maintain it, which helps ensure access and luckily the easement was written pretty well and people are reasonable. I personally am not a fan of easements on any of my properties and attempt to avoid them (I don't even have one for the power company)
I personally have an easement to access my property and have to cross 6 other properties in the process (shared common driveway). We all pay to maintain it, which helps ensure access and luckily the easement was written pretty well and people are reasonable. I personally am not a fan of easements on any of my properties and attempt to avoid them (I don't even have one for the power company)
Alan L.
Elite Member
In fact I believe we have an extremely poor system of settling civil disputes. Anybody can sue anybody with virtually no downside. What is really ridiculous is "pain and suffering" when there is no true pain or suffering. As ridiculous as a lawsuit may be, the one being sued will automatically incur thousands of dollars of legal fees because without a a proper answer a court will issue a default judgment. In other words, if you don't play the game which is to line the pockets of the legal profession......you lose.
I am a CPA. Our firm was sued by a bonding insurance company because their customer went broke and didn't finish a construction project. The customer had presented to them audited financials on our letterhead. Only problem is, we didn't do the audit, we didn't prepare the financials, in fact we had never even heard of the company. They even spelled our name wrong, and the company was in San Antonio - we are in Dallas. $20,000 of legal fees later the bonding company finally released us from liability.
The system is broke. All the key posts that could fix it are populated by lawyers, and that is why it never will be fixed.