Claims Alleged: Property Dispute
Injury Alleged: Improper Property Boundary Line
Smith Freed Eberhard recently succeeded at trial on a case involving a property boundary dispute between two neighbors.
Smith Freed Eberhard’s clients stood to lose a significant amount of property because of confusion regarding where their property began and where the plaintiffs’ property ended. Plaintiffs claimed that their property line ended only mere feet from the house of the clients. If this was true, the clients’ quality of life and their ability to resell the house/property would be significantly affected. If a future buyer could be found, the price that buyer would pay would be hundreds of thousands less than what the clients paid for the property.
This case had gone on for many years and the relationship between the two parties grew more and more contentious. The two parties were unable to settle this dispute outside the courtroom, so the case went to a five day bench trial. Due to the many contracts, deeds, titles and other documentation involved, the plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court’s permission to submit written closing arguments so that the plaintiffs’ counsel could be sure that they covered all their bases. The court agreed and also requested that each side give an oral argument covering the key points of each side’s brief. When the day came for oral closing arguments, the court announced that there was no need for each side to speak, as the judge sided entirely with the points that were set forth in the defendant’s brief.
Through meticulous research and thorough study of the law, Smith Freed Eberhard demonstrated that its clients’ property line did, in fact, fall where initially thought. Such a well written brief led to a short, speedy trial.
Tell us about your legal challenge.
Then we’ll tell you how we can help.