HELP Neighbor tore down my fence

The good news is that they have put the property up for sale. Even if pyrnad gets nothing else, she gets rid of those neighbors. WOOHOO!

Well done. I'm very proud of you for doing everything right. if my arms were long enough I'd give you a big hug all the way from Dubai!

You are my heroine!

I love it! I've been following this saga in this post and your other post.

You know, I just keep thinking about how these people are ruining themselves. They buy this land and immediately start a war with their neighbor who has been long established there. They cut trees to which they are not entitled. They tear down fences. They argue about the survey line with the property owner, the sheriff's office and the surveyor. They are now in debt for the trees. They are unpopular with the local law enforcement and official agencies. They now have to try to sell the land for more than they paid - which isn't likely to happen. And they did all this in how many months?

I can't remember, did they sell the trees and pocket the money? I just don't understand how anyone can be so blind to their own best interests.

As I've mentioned previously, if there were a lien to arise out of a criminal proceeding neither the insurance company, nor pyrnad would be the lien holder.

An ex parte hearing to attach because of the sale wouldn't be hard to get at all.

What I think you mean to say is that if there were any criminal proceedings/judgments/findings which would allow summary judgment in a civil case from the findings therein, thereby acquiring a lien so quickly. You just posted it a bit jumbled... or I read it thusly anyway.

It sounded like you were saying the ins. co. or pyrnad recieved a lien directly from a criminal proceeding. The only thing that may be issues, and very rarely in these cases, is a restitution award, and the court typically takes care of that, again in the name of the 'state', not the victim. At least that's what I've seen in the NE courts.

They did admit to cutting trees. Maine Forest Service does the value. Insurance company is involved(mine) they have non. They paid cash for the property.

A lien is just a claim. It usually precedes any civil action. Admissions of any kind (or lack of them) mean nothing.

Basicly what you do is make a lien, then the person decides either to pay off the claim or face civil action.

pyrnad caught them on video taking down the trees. That counts for a lot. How could they not admit doing it when they were caught in the act? BTW, pyrnad, what DID they do with the trees?

I think WE ALL have been wondering about that aspect of this continuing saga: Are they still lying where they cut them, or did they somehow get them to a mill and pocket the money?

Still on the ground. Some stumps are 3 feet high. Caught before they could do anything with it.

Are you able to do anything with the trees? Or is it a dead loss?

In Texas and other states it is possible to quickly file legal notice that a civil lawsuit is pending and will be filed unless quick satisfaction is obtained. In my experience this is sufficent to prevent the Title Co. from insuring satisfactory title for a new buyer. No clear title policy usually means no sale...Glen

__________________
The more a man travels, acquires wisdom and learns about life, the more likely he is to marry a Country Girl.

My guess would be that she has been denied the market value of the trees once they were cut. Once cut they are not able to grow any larger, once laying on the ground without a buyer they aren't much more than firewood. This also affects the value of the land the trees were growing on. You would not expect someone to sneak off with your acerage in the night, but once the market timber is dropped the value of the land also drops, so she is out the value of it due to her neighbors action. I think what you are seeing is both civil and criminal actions.

__________________
~Only the rocks live forever~

Qwipea, I beleive many of them were maples, so there was something about sap/syrup value, in addition to the timber.

And even if it were for timber, it's still destruction of her property and she should be entitled to compensation for that destruction, no?

Maybe I can help you out. From what I read, (some of) the trees were maples. They had value as living trees. Cutting them down destroyed their value. Go back and read, and you'll see what I mean. The damages result from the cutting, not the taking possession of the trees. Thus, there is a claim for damages pending, as documented by the state forest agent, or whatever title he has.

I'm no lawyer, but the lien serves notice to the relevant authority that the owner of the property has a claim against him. The owner is not obliged to PAY the claim, but he is obliged to RESOLVE the claim before he can dispose of the property. Whatever means he uses to resolve the claim is up to him, so long as he can convince the claimant to withdraw the lien.

[QUOTE=Qwispea]
So ..what kind of lien was Pynard able to obtain? And why does Pynard still have possession of the trees? In law ..you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Which means ..you cannot charge someone for the cake ..and still keep the cake! You can either do one ..or the other ..but not both.

If it were for the value of the trees ..then the trees must be transferred to the person who supposedly has the lien attached ..should they not? Otherwise ..Pynard not only is granted the monetary value of the trees ..but also keeps possession of the trees???

I'm merely curious ..and looking for an explanation. Nothing more.[QUOTE=Qwispea]

**********************************************

Well for once Qwispea and I agree on something.......sorta......I also don't understand it, but it also doesn't seem right for the "bad neighbors" to take timber that NEVER belonged to them in the first place, to PAY OFF the lien imposed by Pynard/and/or her insurance company. THAT would seem like having their cake and eating it too!
While building our dreamhome we contracted out with a local who did a lot of septic field installations. I learned a valuable lesson from it.....one that I'd heard about, but NEVER thought that it had any bearing on my situation. Apparently this contractor had "neglected" to pay off the company supplying the peastone for the field and the son of the president of said company; a recent graduate of law school; was immediately put to work on a number of cases that "daddy" had accumulated......i.e. placing liens on the homeowners' property for the "unpaid" bills of the contractors who had defaulted with them.
Unfortunately or fortunately, the "kid" hadn't done his homework too well and my folks who had "deeded" the land to us a few months before......had received the lien notice......and were none too happy about it......but then again; neither was I. Contacted my contractor who admitted that he'd been short and that he was in the process of paying off the peastone supplier. I believed him, since I'd done business with him previously and knew he was a man of his word. I then contacted the "wet-behind-the-ears" kid attorney and tried to reason with him; stating that it wasn't right for his company to place a lien on my property when I had nothing to do with it; his beef was with my contractor ....... but his only response was, that the law gave him that "right" and tough luck to me......he could care less. I responded that whether he had the right or not....it wasn't the RIGHT thing to do......and that if he didn't want "daddy" to find out he'd screwed up on how the lien had been placed, he'd have another lawsuit that he'd have to DEFEND.....and he needed to better check his facts before filing liens willy-nilly . Never got an apology......but then the contractor paid off his debt shortly after that and the lien disappeared......

I'm no lawyer but the following facts seem straight from Common Law. Her property was clearly damaged by them. She is entitled to recover. If she receives satisfactory recovery from her insurance company, they will have grounds to recover. Who gets the downed trees will be determined in the trial. Under the circunstances, I would hire a Wolverine Lawyer and clean their clock in a jury trial. I think some sweet, Poetic Justice is about to happen...Makes me smile with satisfaction...Glen

__________________
The more a man travels, acquires wisdom and learns about life, the more likely he is to marry a Country Girl.

I thought filing a lien had nothing to do with proving guilt or innocence. It is only a civil action to stake claim to monies owed or against ownership of property. The lein will then be adjudicated in court when the people who own the property try to get the lien cancelled by proving their case.

We has a lien filed against someone. We then had to go to court to prove our case(civil).

Qwispea...When the guilty party admits to doing the damage, that fact is established. The open questions remaining are how much will be awarded and to whom, her or her insurance company if she asks them to pay off. My suggestion that she should come out ahead by filing suit herself is based on the following facts. (1) She is a woman alone who was treated badly by these rude, lawbreaking newcomers whereas she and her family are lawabiding "homefolks". (2) Her frequent attempts to settle the matter in a peaceful and reasonable way are well established (3) Sworn statments from the officer and surveyor will nail it down. A jury of her "homefolks" will almost certainly reward her well if she has a lawyer worth spit...Nuff said...Glen

__________________
The more a man travels, acquires wisdom and learns about life, the more likely he is to marry a Country Girl.

My bet is there are a couple suits filed in civil court and the attorney had the wherewithall to ask for an ex parte hearing for a real estate attachment. Would fit... as I've mentioned.

Quietstar what you are proposing is to use heresay in order to prove a case. Doesn't typically ever happen.

Qwispea, depending on the order she could very well end up with the logs. If their attorneys are any good they will request an offset in the final order or possesion of the logs. Should the insurance company pay out on a claim, they will own the logs typically, what they do with them beyond that point is irrelevant.

Copperkid, that was a mechanic's lien. It's typically used in construction and typically has a very stringent notice requirement.

A lien is typically not something extremely easy to acquire, it typically runs with the property, NOT with the debtor only as other things such as judgments do.

Additionally, any lien on real property must typically be recorded at the registry of deeds in the county (or equivelent).

I can't link you to westlaw or lexis links, but this is a decent overview:
http://www.realestatelawyers.com/Liens.cfm

Red Devil TN...Check your facts. If you read post no. 129 it will confirm that the guilty party admitted to cutting the trees. Thats a confession, where is the hearsay you speak of? Like I said before, nothing left for the court to do except determine the amount of damages...Glen

__________________
The more a man travels, acquires wisdom and learns about life, the more likely he is to marry a Country Girl.