This was resolved many years ago by lawyers without a court involved, but I have always wondered:
The oldest known survey between A and B shows a crooked meander line along a fence ending with a square symbol with only a plus/minus distance. That survey is for A.?ÿ
Later a survey is done for B showing markers, bearings and distances. It's clearly not the same as the first survey.?ÿ
Then a subdivision and another subdivision by different surveyors is done of A following the line as shown on the survey of B.?ÿ
15 years later I do a further subdivision of B. I can't find evidence of a fence or the old square, so I use the markers and lines on the newer surveys.?ÿ
Next another surveyor further subdivides my work using those same lines.?ÿ
Now the owners of A realize their original survey hasn't been followed. They say they know where the fence and the old concrete used to be.?ÿ
They settle for $$ compensation. I was off the hook since my work wasn't the last and I had no E&O at the time.?ÿ
To get a survey recorded here an owner has to sign a "Request for Survey Registration" Form. Didn't the owners of A acquiese to the surveys of B when they recorded their surveys following the same lines??ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
When the subdivisions were done on A following the lines of B that was agreed and set as the new line of A, A cannot claim anything different since A's signature should be on both subdivisions. When you and others subdivided B you followed the accepted line for A. If A knows where the fence and old concrete are now, then A was negligent in not informing his subdividing surveyors of that fact then. A should have to give any settlement back.
Paul in PA
A boundary survey is only an opinion and acquiescing to an opinion doesn't seem to make sense to me.?ÿ My understanding of acquiescence is that it applies to people who are openly encroaching.?ÿ I'm probably wrong though.
Seems like an obvious case of estoppel to me. As @paul-in-pa said, once A accepted their subdivisions they cannot claim otherwise.
A Subdivision Plat is not just a boundary survey...it means that the owner signs that they have then intent of dividing the land as shown.
?ÿ
If they KNEW that the boundary didnt show everything correctly, then I would wonder if the plat was illegal, and perhaps fraudulent?
?ÿ
After years of watching subdivision after subdivision I'd think that A would be estopped from claiming knowledge of the location of a long destroyed monument. Their case seems very weak to me.?ÿ
Does seem weak.?ÿ But it's not acquiescence when the owner thinks the surveyed line is the true line, then later finds out it's not.?ÿ
Begs the question of what the heck A has been doing all these years while things have been going on next door?
How much land are we talking about, the gap between the fence survey and the more recent surveys?
How does A all of a sudden know where the line is when you couldn't find any evidence of its location?
@jph?ÿ?ÿ
The B property was undeveloped until this was all over.?ÿ I think the difference was around 1/4 acre and included the only little gravel beach along an otherwise rocky shore. A's location for the line was by testimony of A and scaled using the location of the shoreline and an old public road and so was +/- 5'-20'. The part that burns me is that the lawyers for the title co. weren't interested in hearing my opinion and the decendents of A, might still think I tried to steal their land.?ÿ
The B property was undeveloped until this was all over.
That is a very significant tidbit of information. In that circumstance A may very well have a case.?ÿ?ÿ
