ᐅ The post of our driveway gate extends about 10 cm onto the neighboring property.
Created on: 29 Jun 2020 20:33
M
Medvedev
Hello friends,
I’m new here and hope that this is the right forum area for my concern and that you can help me.
We own a two-family house in Cologne, where we live as a family. Our future neighbor has had the neighboring house demolished and is now building new on the property. We have owned our house since 1995. Our house was built in 1984. We have a driveway gate with two masonry pillars.
The architect of our future neighbor verbally informed us today that he intends to build a 1.5 m (5 feet) high wall on our property line. For this purpose, he has already had an existing wooden fence, which belonged to us, removed without our consent. When we addressed this, he said he thought the fence belonged to the client, his principal.
He now also claims that the masonry pillar of our driveway gate (seen from the street on the left) is built about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the property of our future neighbor and must therefore be cut back or removed so that a flush wall can be erected.
The same applies to three wooden posts of our carport, which also protrude about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the neighbor’s property on the side.
Both would have to be dismantled as soon as possible, at our expense, so that construction can continue.
He said he would provide us with his demands in writing, which we would then have to sign accordingly.
Until now, we have always assumed that our gate pillar fully stands within our property boundaries (40 x 40 cm (16 x 16 inches)).
As proof, the architect handed us a copy of a city-approved drawing from Cologne (stamped), which is supposed to show that the pillar and posts protrude onto the neighboring property.
However, the pillar and posts in question are not marked on the site plan.
According to what I found online, a neighbor’s right regarding dismantling or similar claims expires after three years. What do you think about this?
Hopefully, you can give us some expert advice. We are grateful for your help!
Best regards,
Medvedev
I’m new here and hope that this is the right forum area for my concern and that you can help me.
We own a two-family house in Cologne, where we live as a family. Our future neighbor has had the neighboring house demolished and is now building new on the property. We have owned our house since 1995. Our house was built in 1984. We have a driveway gate with two masonry pillars.
The architect of our future neighbor verbally informed us today that he intends to build a 1.5 m (5 feet) high wall on our property line. For this purpose, he has already had an existing wooden fence, which belonged to us, removed without our consent. When we addressed this, he said he thought the fence belonged to the client, his principal.
He now also claims that the masonry pillar of our driveway gate (seen from the street on the left) is built about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the property of our future neighbor and must therefore be cut back or removed so that a flush wall can be erected.
The same applies to three wooden posts of our carport, which also protrude about 10 cm (4 inches) onto the neighbor’s property on the side.
Both would have to be dismantled as soon as possible, at our expense, so that construction can continue.
He said he would provide us with his demands in writing, which we would then have to sign accordingly.
Until now, we have always assumed that our gate pillar fully stands within our property boundaries (40 x 40 cm (16 x 16 inches)).
As proof, the architect handed us a copy of a city-approved drawing from Cologne (stamped), which is supposed to show that the pillar and posts protrude onto the neighboring property.
However, the pillar and posts in question are not marked on the site plan.
According to what I found online, a neighbor’s right regarding dismantling or similar claims expires after three years. What do you think about this?
Hopefully, you can give us some expert advice. We are grateful for your help!
Best regards,
Medvedev
The truly unfortunate thing is that the new neighbor (represented by their architect) acted like a bull in a china shop right at the start of the new neighborly relationship – the perfect recipe for ongoing conflict. Not promising at all...
At first, I also made some mistakes regarding informing my neighbor ("including" them about planned construction work – a bit more notice would have made things much easier)... but this situation is clearly much worse.
I would be very interested to hear how this develops – please provide an update if there is any news.
At first, I also made some mistakes regarding informing my neighbor ("including" them about planned construction work – a bit more notice would have made things much easier)... but this situation is clearly much worse.
I would be very interested to hear how this develops – please provide an update if there is any news.
Escroda schrieb:
This is property damage and theft. If he causes you trouble again, consider taking legal action. I understand your position and even agree with it, but wouldn’t the fence be the neighbor’s property if it actually stands or stood on their side of the boundary line? Just hypothetically speaking...
K1300S schrieb:
But wouldn’t the fence belong to the neighbor if it actually stands or stood on their side of the boundary line? No! The landowner can at most demand its removal.
Just because I park my car illegally on your private parking spot doesn’t mean it belongs to you or falls under your authority.
The following applies here:
Civil Code (Building Code) § 1004 Claim for removal and injunction
(1) If ownership is impaired in a way other than by deprivation or withholding of possession, the owner may demand the removal of the impairment from the disturbing party. If further impairments are to be feared, the owner may file suit for an injunction.
K1300S schrieb:
But wouldn’t the fence belong to the neighbor if it actually stands or stood on their side of the boundary line?Yes, if no one remembers who originally built the fence. However, if at least one of the neighbors believes the fence belongs to them, either because they built it themselves or because the previous owner told them so, then clarification is needed.If a property owner, as @Mycraft suggests, searches for boundary markers themselves and finds objects they consider to be boundary stones, and their neighbor doesn’t care, and the owner then builds and pays for the fence, the fence does not become the neighbor’s property just because those were not the actual boundary stones, or because those boundary stones were misplaced and the fence now fully stands on the neighbor’s land.
Mycraft schrieb:
But a boundary stone is a boundary stone is a boundary stoneBut not every boundary point is marked, and certainly not always by a boundary stone. And even in cases where it is, it’s not guaranteed that the boundary stone is still where it’s supposed to be.
Escroda schrieb:
but not every boundary point is marked, and certainly not with a boundary stone. And even in cases where it is, it is not guaranteed that the boundary stone is still in its correct position.Correct. Far from every one.You don’t know the local conditions, and neither do I. For that reason -> look for the boundary stones. Then determine whether they are where they are supposed to be.
One step at a time.
Similar topics