Can I cut down a neighbor&#39;s tilted fence that overhangs my yard? I have a hypothetical question about property rights and structures overhanging the property. In New York state, let's say I have a neighbor with a wooden fence built slightly back from the border between our two properties. The base of the fence and the posts are on his side. The many years old fence is now leaning over at an angle, and leaning into my property. Let's assume that of a six foot fence, about four feet or so overhangs my property. My understanding is that I have the right to trim a tree or bush or similar up to the property line. Does the same hold true with fences? If so, could I just cut it down, or would I need to give notice so he has a chance to fix it first?
Under current New York law, small (&quot;de minimis&quot;) encroachments are not considered to infringe on your property rights, therefore, legally there is nothing you can do. A fence, even leaning over, is considered a de minimis encroachment. If you damage the fence, you could face criminal charges for criminal mischief in the 4th Degree which is a class A misdemeanor. Theoretically, you could be charged with 3rd degree criminal mischief, which is felony, but in this case I would be surprised if they did that (usually that only is applied only to actual &quot;criminals&quot;). Your best option is to politely incentivize your neighbor give him a positive reason to work with you on improving the fence.
You inspected the property online and based on that inspection you signed the lease. You have a legally binding contract. Now, it is not at all like the pictures How? I mean, are these pictures of a different house? If that is so then your contract is void for fraud. However, if the pictures are of the actual house and you just imagined from them that the house would be other than it is then tough luck for you. the stairwell in the house is a huge safety hazard for children OK. Does it comply with relevant building codes? If not then the landlord needs to bring it up to standard: you cannot walk away from the contract. Is it in need of repair? If so, the landlord needs to repair it: you cannot walk away from the contract. If it is compliant and in good repair and you think it is a hazard notwithstanding then you need to manage that hazard: this is not the landlords problem. I refused to move into the house That's fine: so long as you keep paying the rent there is no obligation on you to move in. If you stop paying the rent then it would appear that you have repudiated the contract and the landlord can sue you for damages - probably the costs of finding a new tenant and the rent up until that tenant takes over.
No A tenant cannot acquire adverse possession. As describe in the LII Article on &quot;Adverse Possesion&quot;, one of the requirements for establishing adverse possession is that possession must be: Hostile--In this context, &quot;hostile&quot; does not mean &quot;unfriendly.&quot; Rather, it means that the possession infringes on the rights of the true owner. If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile and it is not really adverse possession. Renters cannot be adverse possessors of the rented property, regardless of how long they possess it. (My emphasis) This is the classic common law rule. The Justia article on the topic says: The occupation must be hostile and adverse to the interests of the true owner. If a landowner has given a person permission to use the property, the possession is not considered hostile. However, a landowner is not required to have actual knowledge of the occupation, so long as the occupation is adverse to the owner's property interests. For example, a landowner may be unaware that his neighbor's fence extends several feet over his property line. The occupation is sufficiently hostile, however, because the landowner has not given his neighbor permission to encroach upon his property in this manner. The Nolo article on this topic says: Adverse Possession Requires a Hostile Claim The word &quot;hostile&quot; doesn't mean that the trespasser rides in on a horse with six-shooters blazing. Instead, courts follow one of three legal definitions of &quot;hostile&quot; when it comes to adverse possession. Simple occupation. This rule (followed by most states today) defines &quot;hostile&quot; as the mere occupation of the land. The trespasser doesn't have to know that the land belongs to someone else. Awareness of trespassing. This rule requires that the trespasser be cognizant that his or her use of the property amounts to trespassing (meaning the trespasser has no legal right to be on the property). Good faith mistake. A few states follow this rule, which requires the trespasser to have made an innocent good faith mistake in occupying the property in the first place, such as by relying on an invalid or incorrect deed. The Wikipedia article says: In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property's owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property &quot;springs up&quot; in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property's new owner. .... Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period .... Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not taking possession that is hostile to the title owner's rights.
Unfortunately, there is the law answer, and there is the family answer. The law answer is fairly straightforward - she deeds the land to you, and you leave it your husband if you precede him in death. The family answer is different. Many families have been torn asunder by inheritance issues. Your siblings seem to think they deserve a share, which is problematic if you are building there. Your choices are to split the land but buy your siblings out, establish a long-term structure lease on the land, or take the land and deal with sibling fallout. There may be other options an estate lawyer can recommend. Note that if your siblings are co-owners, then soon there will be many more as their children inherit. You need a local lawyer to do any of the above.
If it doesn’t cause substantial interference to the easement rights You need to look at the specific terms of the easement i.e. what right it gives to your neighbour. If you can build your chicken coop in such a way that it doesn’t materially affect those rights, then that’s ok However, for this type of easement, any ground level structure is likely to interfere with the use of the easement.
While the elements of criminal trespass vary from one U.S. state to another, the majority rule is that a good faith belief that you have a claim of a legal right to be present on property (even if you are ultimately found to be incorrect on the merits) prevents you from having the intent necessary to commit criminal trespass. The majority rule is that there is strict civil liability for trespass without regard to intent, but the minority rule that civil trespass is an intentional tort isn't terribly uncommon either, in which case criminal and civil liability for trespass would often be the same. Given the legitimate possibility on reasonable grounds that someone inside some given building is not actually supposed to be there, how might this apply to the law about it being mandatory to leave? What if you claimed you either did not think they were really in charge, or that you simply had no way of verifying? This is irrelevant. The burden is on you not to go into property where you are not allowed to be, and not on someone else to tell you to leave. If you know you have no right to be on the property, the fact that you believe someone else may also not have the authority to control who is on the property is not a defense to criminal trespass. You can be guilty of criminal trespass in most jurisdictions even if no one asks you to leave, if you know that you do not have permission to be on the property. Lack of permission is the default in the absence of someone with apparent authority to do so telling you otherwise.
user662852 has a good point -- whoever own the property has the right to make the rules. Is the property, land+construction in fact your's or does it belong to the HOA who just grant you access as a lease holder? Different states has different rules, but in my state it is illegal to maroon a property and there must be a access to public streets even when this necessitate passing over somebody else land. However that is irrelevant if the HOA owns the land your house is build on. I think you will have to look at your HOA agreement and see what it says.
Can someone be compelled to prove they are complying with a contract? In this context, yes, since its apparent breach is evident. The other answer rightly explains the notion of preponderance of evidence, which pertains to the procedural aspect. Here, I will mainly address the substantive standpoint as per the situation you describe. The HOA rule most likely is intended to serve one or more purposes, such as preserving the prestige of the neighborhood, and to avoid safety hazards. The prolonged presence of an abandoned vehicle --just like any piece of junk--- tends to contravene those purposes. Regardless of the vehicle's true state, the effect of its apparent abandonment is visibly detrimental to the neighborhood, and it frustrates the ultimate purposes of the HOA rule: to preserve safety conditions in the neighborhood as well as the value of the properties. Also, the presumption that an abandoned vehicle is inoperable seems reasonable. The most straight-forward way to disprove the board's allegations of inoperability is to actually move the vehicle at least once in a while. Accordingly, the owner's inexplicable reluctance to take that simple step reinforces the supported suspicion that the vehicle is indeed inoperable, and thus in breach of the HOA rule.