If my property is vandalized and the city cleans it up the first time, who takes ownership of it? me or city?

Question

There is a wall that is technically my property ( private property ) and it was spray painted. The city came out and cleaned it the first time. Then it was spray painted again and the sheriffs said it is my responsibility to clean it or I will get fined due to it being " my property ". I have no access to this wall because the city has a gate with a lock on it. Is there a law stating that once someone else cleans or takes care of vandalism it becomes their responsibility?

Answer 1

If you THE OWNER can't get access to it how are others getting access to it in order to spray paint it?  

Your property you clean it

Answer 2

"anyone can access this wall"

Then you access it to clean it up. Paint it with "anti-graffiti" paint. And report each incidence of vandalism to the police.

Answer 3

Get a lawyer, sue the City, the Sheriff's department and anyone else who suggests it's your responsibility or anyone who may be involved in vandalizing the property.

Here is what a lawyer told me:

If you don't know the person's name, you can always sue a party in the name of "John Doe" and then compel people to attend discoveries to find out who the unidentified individual is.

Your idea that the sheriff cleaned it once, so he now needs to clean it again is not the way it works.

If it's private property, and the sheriff stepped on the land without your permission, his deputies have trespassed on your land. They don't owe you a duty to re-trepass a second time!

In fact, if they trespass a second time, another incident of trespass accrues in your favour.

Follow? Their trespass doesn't create rights for you, other than a cause of action that you can use to sue them for damages. That's it.

Now, what those boneheads did is good for at least $1,000 in tort damages. I would start the lawsuit off with the claim for trespass therefore. Make sure you find out who the actually sheriff's deputies were by having your lawyer call them (and tape-record his call to them), so that you can sue each individual deputy and/or call them as a witness if the sheriff's department's lawyers want to fight you on this.

As well, sue the railway for negligence in not keeping a sufficient barrier between its lands and yours, which permitted this to occur in the first place. Also, sue the railway for actual damages that you've incurred as a result of this negligence. You will have to show the loss by hiring someone to clean the wall, and producing the receipt. Shoot before and after pictures.

Sue the City for negligence in not ensuring proper patrols and lighting in that laneway, so as to deter looters and vandals. Add the Sheriff's department as a co-defendant in this claim as well.

When things like this happen, sue everyone and everything that moves and squeeze whatever money you can out of all of them.

It's the American way and the only way to get ahead. And believe me, if you weren't suing them, they'd sue you at the drop of a hat the first opportunity they had. They don't give a rat's behind about you.

ADDENDUM

A lawyer whom I've consulted with says this:

The City does not take possession of the land in the manner you have described it.

a) Land titling and land registration systems do provide for a transfer of property in cases of "adverse possession". Obviously, when your property is being encroached upon for a considerable (in terms of years) period of time, the principles of adverse possession may be argued. However, this is not so in your case.

b) The City, by virtue of some head of legal "estoppel" as it were, does not now have an ongoing responsibility to clean that wall, as it would require that it be estopped from arguing otherwise due to their previous cleanup.

c) Technically, yes you could argue that the City, by virtue of a legal principle known as "waiver", has waived ITS rights to compel that YOU DO the cleaning. That would be the argument.

d) Arguing legal waiver however does not include the argument that you wish to make - vis-a-vis that the City then assumes the positive obligation ("responsibility" as you put it)to do the cleaning. That's not how waiver works.

e) Since waiver is an extremely complex argument based on English law made centuries ago (and of course gradually modified in modern jurisprudence, an/or in some jurisdictions even codified into certain types of statutes), you're barking up the wrong tree with this type of argument. Besides, the facts are weak to support the waiver. It may simply have been one mistaken, gratutitous act. If that is so, your claim for waiver falls flat.

Therefore, stick with the best legal arguments you have, and that you can prove.

You are much better off to sue the city, railway, sheriff's department and individual deputies in tort. Torts are far easier to procure settlements on, since the other side knows they can often swing against them in court. Complex arguments in arcane areas of law (like "waiver" in the sense we are using it here) usually fail, so these are cases that rarely settle out of court.

As well, even if you did successfully argue waiver, then what? So what that the City waived its rights to force you to clean?

The legal result of that is you spend all kinds of money arguing this, and in the odd event that you happen to win that argument, you end up with a dirty wall with graffitti on it forever, no order to compel the city to provide more patrols and security, and what's more, NO MONEY!