Do not impose on others what you decide for themselves "[Confucius in" The talks (XV.24)].
In its simplest form, a real estate transaction is the property which is adjacent to the land by another person in possession of the cover. For example, if someone builds on the edge of their property without being degraded, the lines of real property, it may shed on the grounds that it does not extend own.The the construction of a structure wholly or partially on the property of neighborsconstitute an intervention.
Interference may occur due to inaccurate measurements or pure stubbornness on the part of manufacturers, or both. Done with a professional studio-takers before the building near the border of the property is a good idea if survey data are available, so that any interference problems can be avoided.
If one is guilty of interference, the neighbor sued, as a rule, for legal reasons and to force the removal of buildings or damages for what he / she hasLost in space reduces the ownership and value. The best solution is, with features not commit assaults problems. Request legal confusion that can cause interference in a foreign land is always costly and time consuming, because the proceedings following the law, which ultimately ended in front of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, can attest.
The plaintiff, a woman alone, and the defendants, husband and wife who live together in aMission, BC, the defendants purchased their 5.5-acre property in 1996. The applicant has purchased 4.4 hectares of land in 1999. Everyone has bought their property under the impression that the way the defendant set up in the south-east of the property of the defendant and the northeastern border of the property of the applicant. The former owners of land the applicant was the land between his house and the road of the defendant (North-East "segment") has declared, and the actors have continued to maintainSegment of the north-east there after she moved in, including the creation of a garden.
Done in response to an informal survey by one of the defendants - the woman, to be precise - in 1997, nearly a year after moving property, concluded that some of the dependencies in the segment of the northeast were actually present in the area the defendant. She said nothing to her husband, even if previous owners have sold their property to the plaintiff. In fact, the man believes, the entrance marks theBoundary between the property and the route north-east, until it was an official survey in February 2000.
In the fall of 1999, the accused began a road branches off from the road on the back of their property to build. They needed the road for access to certain buildings that they built for their company. Following the construction of a road in the polls commissioned by both sides 2000.The first investigation indicated that some of the candidatesSegment structures in the North-East (part of his garden, using a portion of a warehouse for timber storage and a generator house, part of a fenced path connected to the warehouse, a satellite dish in a place and a underground line supply propane) invaded the land of the defendant. The surveys also showed that there was a crime by the contractor agreed in the northwestern part of the candidate country that were conducted in the bushes and trees destroyed (disturbedArea ").
The relationship between the parties was under the 'actor fierce defender contacted the compensation agreed for the area disturbed to discuss. Defendant became angry and said actor buildings move from their land. They told her that to build a chemical storage facility in the north-east. In the spring of 2001, two shrubs planted plaintiffs and defendants in the segment of the north-east called her and threatened to build a parking lot on the track. AlsoIn the spring of 2001 the applicant attended disturbed area and found that the defendant was a new road has been extended. They commissioned a poll, which found that the road and the track is actually intervened on their land at a speed of 241 square meters (about 2,500 square feet).
The relationship between the parties to deteriorate further. Defendant informed the plaintiff 'that would bring heavy equipment for the segment of North-East to fill all the trees cutin the area, doubling the size of the kennel and the marketing of a chemical warehouse within walking distance of home.
Lawyer plaintiff made a demand and a preliminary injunction sought. Was looking for one or facilitate or block period of the Northeast segment removed under s. 36 of the Law on Property of British Columbia, in general, special, aggravated and punitive damages for diminished property value, the value of timber from their property, and the costsRestoration of the area disturbed.
In its statement of defense, the defendant has admitted a "minor" offense on the grounds of the applicant. Tried a counterclaim, the plaintiff all the necessary procedures (remove from their land which is the segment north-east) and damages for trespassing.
The court also noted that the requirements of s. 36 were met by the applicant. The court ruled that the appellant had no doubt a sincere belief that their property wasNortheast segment that the construction of a permanent character and could not be easily or inexpensively installed and in the absence of any evidence regarding the value segment of the Northeast, or a decrease in the value of the property is subject to the outcome of the case that the segment of North-East of greater importance for the applicant and subsequent owners of their property, as agreed.
The court also noted that the plaintiff was in the vicinity of home ownership and managementthat the buffer segment north-east and the privacy provided by the commercial traffic on the voice of the defendant. Exclude the use of land for their gardens and outbuildings not annoy the defendant, or by extension of their road. As a result, the trial judge and that the balance of convenience was clearly in favor of the plaintiff and then a relief that not all parties and the need for purpose in the dispute. He ordered that the property241 square meters in the north-east segment jacket actor. The court also noted the defendant failed to warn women of both the former owners of applicants for real estate, or the husband or candidates for their discovery that the spread of dependence for the country of the defendant, and found that this fact l 'forfeiture segment northeast of the applicant was decisive.
Regarding the issue of damages, the trial judge also sentenced to pay the plaintiff, the defendant, theDifference between 241 square meters in the segment of the northeast and the area flooded the road that the two parties for damages for the injuries and that the penalties and exemplary damages from the defendant appellants book.
This decision has now been confirmed on appeal.
Luigi Frascati
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น