- Thread starter
- #211
Smart Red
Garden Master
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 11,303
- Reaction score
- 7,405
- Points
- 417
- Location
- South-est, central-est Wisconsin
In their suit they asked for attorney fees and money for undetermined losses. I didn't ask for anything other than a fence on the line that would keep their dog from using my land as its bathroom. Since I started out intending to be my own spokesperson, I didn't ask for attorney fees. It is possible that they will have to build the fence, although, I expect the fencing costs will be shared.
The Judge addressed the credibility of both parties in his decision. He didn't accuse them of lying, but did say he recognized there were a lot of inconsistencies, mis-statements, or possibly untruths in their testimony while I was a totally credible witness with the first neighbor to corroborate much of what I said. That is why the ruling favored our side.
I also believe that the Judge wanted to award the whole of the property to us, but couldn't because of a mis-step by my attorney. During the decision phase, it sounded like the Judge gently chastised my attorney for not questioning the only real testimony that indicated we didn't get the whole area. He said he did not feel that Mr. P was very credible, and was very vague in his answers.
The Judge indicated that he would have discounted Mr. P's testimony but no attorney (meaning mine) questioned any of his answers. I could have told my attorney that the man has an IQ no higher than the low 80's at best and might have been reciting by rote what he was told to say, but during court I wasn't allowed to talk at all.
I also know -- and had told my attorney before -- that until I had a line drawn in 1996 there was no way to visually tell where one field started and another stopped. It was not until the line was drawn that a grassy median grew between the fields. When Mr. P stated that he worked the land up to the grassy median from the late 1980's on he should have been questioned about it. There was not 20 years of grassy median to define any field.
Mr. P is a nice man and a hard worker, but his father told him what to do or he'd never have made it as a farmer. Now that his father passed earlier this year his brothers are becoming involved in the farm to keep it going. The Judge had wanted that testimony questioned but my attorney didn't ask any questions of Mr. P at all so the Judge had to rule according to the testimony given.
The Judge said it was up to the attorney(s) to press their case and if they didn't, "Well, we have to live with the results of our decisions". The Judge did give us the whole of the grassy strip even though it should have been divided in half with 2 feet to us and 2 feet to the neighbors AND he overestimated the width of the grassy strip from what it is (about 2.5'-3' wide) and called it 4 feet.
No matter, it is all under the bridge now. We are happy with the results and can hardly wait for the surveyor to do his work and make misunderstandings a thing of the past.
We'll have that celebration right in the no longer disputed 16.3 feet. Just name the day and I'll get the party started.
The Judge addressed the credibility of both parties in his decision. He didn't accuse them of lying, but did say he recognized there were a lot of inconsistencies, mis-statements, or possibly untruths in their testimony while I was a totally credible witness with the first neighbor to corroborate much of what I said. That is why the ruling favored our side.
I also believe that the Judge wanted to award the whole of the property to us, but couldn't because of a mis-step by my attorney. During the decision phase, it sounded like the Judge gently chastised my attorney for not questioning the only real testimony that indicated we didn't get the whole area. He said he did not feel that Mr. P was very credible, and was very vague in his answers.
The Judge indicated that he would have discounted Mr. P's testimony but no attorney (meaning mine) questioned any of his answers. I could have told my attorney that the man has an IQ no higher than the low 80's at best and might have been reciting by rote what he was told to say, but during court I wasn't allowed to talk at all.
I also know -- and had told my attorney before -- that until I had a line drawn in 1996 there was no way to visually tell where one field started and another stopped. It was not until the line was drawn that a grassy median grew between the fields. When Mr. P stated that he worked the land up to the grassy median from the late 1980's on he should have been questioned about it. There was not 20 years of grassy median to define any field.
Mr. P is a nice man and a hard worker, but his father told him what to do or he'd never have made it as a farmer. Now that his father passed earlier this year his brothers are becoming involved in the farm to keep it going. The Judge had wanted that testimony questioned but my attorney didn't ask any questions of Mr. P at all so the Judge had to rule according to the testimony given.
The Judge said it was up to the attorney(s) to press their case and if they didn't, "Well, we have to live with the results of our decisions". The Judge did give us the whole of the grassy strip even though it should have been divided in half with 2 feet to us and 2 feet to the neighbors AND he overestimated the width of the grassy strip from what it is (about 2.5'-3' wide) and called it 4 feet.
No matter, it is all under the bridge now. We are happy with the results and can hardly wait for the surveyor to do his work and make misunderstandings a thing of the past.
We'll have that celebration right in the no longer disputed 16.3 feet. Just name the day and I'll get the party started.
