It’s Maundy Thursday 2019. On Easter Morning, it will have been exactly 6 months since I retreated from my neighbor law practice of 10 years. It has not been a pleasant practice area.
Fortunately, I never witnessed outright violence. But, I did take on the emotional violence associated with stepping into the trenches to break up land fights between my clients and their adjoining neighbors.
Was this a bad trade? Looking at the time, emotion, and money drawn out of me as a result of the effort, I felt that I had sacrificed my life. My family painfully agrees with this assessment.
Yesterday, I sent notice to the opposing counsel’s office to allow the final recording for a matter which has been ongoing for two years – my final boundary dispute matter. Or is it?
Over the course of my six month sabbatical, I discovered something truly amazing. I had been in a very negative mindspace for years in which i indicated:
Boundary disputes are an external manifestation of an internal problem.
So, when I came to rediscover Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich and the additional teachings of Bob Proctor and his partner Sandy Gallagher of the Proctor Gallagher Institute, I knew I was on to something.
Why? Well, the work that they do is positive. Their work relates to pursefully and positively “manifesting results.”
See, when boundary disputants come to me or any other lawyer, they have a real situation. They either want to have me take it to their neighbor or are fearful that their neighbor is going to take it to them.
At best, mediating a boundary dispute becomes an exercise in helping two parties come to an agreement in which they are almost never pleased, but they find acceptable. There is a significant cost in this, but one when the parties look at it objectively can not find justification. What’s more it cuts into their subjective aims.
Those subjective aims, whether acknowledged or not, are to come out victorious vis-a-vis neighbors who threaten their boundaries.
Essentially, this means that you have two people who are negative and want to use negative means to resolve their matter, which based on their perspective is huge, and to everyone else is infinitesimal.
When these two negatives go at one another, yes in theory we are moving in a positive direction to move the disputants to a state of equality where they can again theoretically live next to each other with a line certain.
The reality is that the legal process is so negative that nobody ends up better as a result and instead the nominal winner is simply the “loser of lesser extent.” Moreover, the nominal loser will often move away!
So, what is the work around? The thought kept spinning in my mind that if one of the disputants would take a small fraction of the resources wasted on trying to change the neighbors disposition to the land (while at the same time the neighbor is seeking to do the same) and instead seek to level up …
Why then they could almost certainly buy out the neighbor, adjust the line as appropriate, and then install a neighbor of suitable liking by selling the land to someone they find agreeable.
That would actually be positive! Resultantly, unless the a client has a case which has a good chance of having the judge determine going to trial is a waste of time – i.e. summary judgment – I am not willing to engage in a boundary dispute with their neighbor.
No instead, I’m going to tell them that it simply isn’t worth it. But, now I have something to offer them which will allow them to move well beyond the pettiness of an intractable boundary dispute.
I am now in a position to help others discover the incredible benefits of the materials offered by the Proctor Gallagher Institute. This stuff is “pure magic.”
I’m sure if you make the decision to buy in as well, you will wholeheartedly agree. Cheers!