I have the following terminology in a deed I am reviewing: "butted and bounded".
The deed reads:
"A certain tract or parcel of land situated on the east side of Elbow Lake, butted and bounded as follows:
BEGINNING in the line of the heirs of Jake Smith, deceased, at the lake running Eastwardly with the said Smith line, 80 poles to the back line of the first patent and Al W. Smith; thence Southwardly with the said patent line to Haney Jone's corner: thence West with her line to the lake and along the lake to the BEGINNING; containing 50 acres, more or less."
I am going to treat this tract as having riparian rights. Is this right?
If there were bearings and distances given along the lake, and the angle points were monumented, would you still consider this tract riparian?
Yes and Yes. Given no direct evidence that a prior owner expressly intended to exclude, retain or convey the riparian ownership separately, then the presumption is that the riparian right remains with the upland.
JBS
The way I read it I say yes and yes also.
Lake is a natural monument. So yes.
Maybe not
If the lake was created and has a definitive boundary (i.e. a contour, a metes and bounds description, etc.) then "to the lake and along the lake" might not have anything to do with the water line, but to the deeded line. Research, research, and more research.
> I am going to treat this tract as having riparian rights. Is this right?
The obvious unanswered question is whether the patent out of which the tract in question comes was riparian. How is the lakeward boundary of that grant described in the patent?
...and is it navigable?
Maybe not
Agree with Mr. Ingram.
Research.
You've probably done it, you just didn't tell us about it, right?:-)
Don
and I assume you are in a state that even recognizes riparian rights, not all states do. But Kent beat me to my main question.
Thanks all for the input.
I am still digging through numerous deeds to get to the bottom of this issue. I am looking for the intent through the chain of title.
Lake is a natural, non-navigable lake.
I have been taught that "once riparian, always riparian". What does that mean to you?
If the lake is not navigable you have possibilities not yet mentioned. The answer will be very much dependent on State Law. Ownership may stop at the high water mark now, the mark at parcel creation or even the center of the lake.
As for 'once riparian always riparian'... This is a very simple way of stating most doctrines do not extinguish riparian rights. Note I say most....
The rebuttable presumption is that the parcel you're looking at would be riparian.
The courts have been very consistent in holding that a set of courses along the edge of a water body are to be considered meander lines unless a different intent is clearly expressed. They are also very consistent in that meander lines are not fixed boundary lines but merely representative of the true boundary at the edge of the water body.
There are a few specific exceptions to those rules, but they would either be clear on the face of the document, or become clear with a little title research.
An example where it may not be patently clear on the face of the deed is if there was a previous conveyance of the land between the actual statutory edge of water for title(*) and the courses recited. So do your research.
(*) The Ordinary High water Mark (OHWM) or the Low Water Mark (LWM), depending upon type of waterway and jurisdiction for navigable waters.
In the case of this parcel, it is on a non-tidal, non-navigable lake. Most jurisdictions recognize the riparian ownership to the middle of the water body. If the grantor has not exercised any rights of ownership to the lake bed portion of the riparian parcel since the conveyance, the presumption would generally be that the parcel decribed still includes the lake bed. But that title issue may need to be cleared with a QT action or a correction deed by the grantor, if the grantor is still available.