Encroachment after lot split? What are the real issues?

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma

Here's a convoluted one. I don't know what the core issues are or what facts I should care about the most (besides the encroachment itself).

This is a residential property in a large city. Some years ago (date unknown, but guessed to be 20-30 years), the owner did a lot split. There was the piece of property which had the house itself, and then they created a new piece of property with the unimproved land just east of the house. They owned both pieces.

As of 2001, but apparently going back far before that (just by the age of the materials), there is a 4' section of the driveway for the house, part or most of the sidewalk between the house and the empty lot, and 4' or so of shed are over the property line created by the lot split. My stairs going up to a balcony are likely just at the property line. The roof over the balcony (add-on) is probably also right at the property line. Unclear when all of the existing items were added, but they definately have quite a lot of age to them. (Again, guessing, 20-30 years.)

In Nov 2001, they sold the lot to a builder. In Dev 2001, they sold the house to me. The builder wasn't a pleasant fellow but pointed out the lot line issue. Early on in the process, I gave him the option to move the shed if it was a problem, but he never took that option. Later, as things got more nasty, his demands escalated all the way up to giving me 30 days to tear down the balcony (he quickly backed off of that after I asked him to put that in writing).

It seems that there may be something more to this issue, because the city required him to build his house further away than the minimum requirements for a side yard (5' on one side, 10' on the other). There is 11' distance between the sidewalk around my house to their brick wall. Exception: There is a minor section of sidewalk just around the shed that the distance between my sidewalk and their brick wall of their house is 9'. He was not pleased about the house itself was oriented horizontally so it directly affected the size of the house (their garage holds 1 1/2 cars, their master bedroom area is small). The other side of their house has an extreme grade and has 10' of space to the property line. (So really, they were only required to have a 5' space between their house and the property line.) The distance between the my closest structure that is part of the house (stairs and balcony, not shed or sidewalk) is exactly 15' away from their house.

They ended up (illegally) running their business from that location. I tried to get this matter permanently resolved with them a few times, but I mostly got brush-off. At once time he did commit to permanently resolving this with an easement, but I know he is not likely to hold up to a verbal committment, now that the situation has changed. (And I recognized that while he had his business there was THE perfect time to resolve it.)

Now, finally, they sold it to what appears to be a real residential neighbor. They're taking posession of the home next month. They've brought up the issue of the fence. (They also brought up that they're not commercial.) I wasn't home, rather, this was the message relayed to me.

1] So, what are the issues that matter here? Now, I'd like to work out something friendly with my neighbor. Heck, I might even pay them something for a permanent easement. But I'd like to know how weak or strong my position is.

2] When it comes to negotiating a fence, should we deal with a straight line, or something contorted to match the bent nature of the driveway and sidewalk?

3] How do we tell if ownership does not match the property line, and if so, where the actual ownership of one property begins and ends? It is apparent that other factors came into play somehow.

4] Would an actual property line end up being 5' away from the closest part of my house's structure, the side stairs and balcony?

I think I found part of this...

URL: http://www.cityoftulsa.org/general+information/ordinances/title42-2.htm

Scroll down to section 211. It talks about how new construction must deal with a situation which an existing construction has an encroachment.

My particular RS-2 zoning requirement say that on side of my house must be 5' or more from the property line, and the other must be 10' or more. The side the is away from this neighbor is 8' from the property line, therefore requiring the side with the lot-split neighbor to be 10'.

My building setback (from the property line) would appear to be (under part D) 10' from my balcony. That seems to say that I own 10' from my balcony, but it is hard to be sure?

Or is it that we each own half (the average) which is 7.5' apiece? Either way works for me. I know I want to be *fair* and for whatever person to pay whom *if* there still ends up being encroachment.

At 7'6" from the balcony (I don't think the extra 4" or so of the roof counts), I'm not encroaching by anymeans. At 10' from the roofline, the neighbor is slightly encroaching on their air conditioner. Even if I am right at 10', I'm really willing to compromise at 7'6".

Section 403 is where they list the RS-2 side yard setbacks.
URL: http://www.incog.org/city%20of%20tulsa%20zoning%20code/ch%5F04.htm

Its just funny that the section of law doesn't go about stating how this new setback is to be recorded or handled, when, or by whom. (Or that the other party needs to even be informed that this has occured.)

I think I get it now. The puzzle pieces have fit together now. In order to get the easement recorded in the title, *it is up to the existing homeowner* to quiet the title. (Which means to go to court and present before the judge why the title and property lines should be modified from their existing place.)

A builder who was oddly demanding on everything else, yet "doing me a favor" on the encroachment? Demanding I tear down part of my house, backed down when asked to put it in writing? Became suddenly less of an ass the first time I used the word "easement"? Then on a subsequent conversation, when he realized that I didn't know the whole story, suddenly history changed in his favor in every conceivable way?

"I build million dollar homes! What possible reason would I have to cheat you out of such a small piece of land?"

Might it have been so you and your wife can run two businesses there without being called into the city by the neighbor? So you feel a little less cheated by the city protecting me or being hoodwinked by the previous owner? So you could put your power line and sewer connection through my property? So that I wouldn't call you in for constantly driving and parking on the lawn and through my property? So you could just keep me under control and intimidate me while you do what you please?

It explains his arguing with the city inspector and pointing to my house when they were laying out where the property was being built. (And why he was later explaining that he was arguing "for" me to not have the side of my house torn down. And then how he rexplained it later that there was no argument) And why he's got a small garage.... 1 1/2 cars? And why we were both hoodwinked by the previous owner. (Oh. That story changed. Now it was just me who was hoodwinked by the previous owner.)

And how there was a property pin below my driveway and pointed to the exact spot. Then how the next day a survey team came out and I talked to them, and they found no such pin, but placed a new one.

From the first time we talked, I knew there was much more to the situation that he was telling me. I knew I had some additional rights he was witholding. Each time we talked from there, he'd let a little bit slip. And a little bit more. And a little bit more. Bits and pieces that create the full picture.

I understand the game now. My mistake was in not getting a lawyer right away to take care of him. He has caused me misery for two and a half years. I'll be glad to see him gone.

Thanks for your 3 posts and good luck.