using "GPS locating devices or other appropriate and ....".

Some people will never be happy. Mr. Turner appears to fit that category. He also appears to have more dollars than sense.

Turner's problem was he agreed to accept a described line rather than insist on preserving the legal established physical line.

It is possible to give up 'your own' rights but it is not acceptable for anyone else but you to refuse to allow you to preserve your established rights.

'Boundary by agreement' is a dangerous concept unless you clearly understand how it affects your rights.

Turner's lawyer may have had the wrong argument but this case does not prevent other land owners from insisting on preserving their established physical boundaries.

Richard Schaut

Richard, I have to agree with you on this one. Seems that the Judge would have allowed the two parties to any agreement they wanted in orig case. They should have had it surveyed right then and their or prior to the OG case but it appears they simply guessed at an agreeable solution and that's what they are held too. right, wrong, or indifferent.

> 'Boundary by agreement' is a dangerous concept unless you clearly understand how it affects your rights.
>

The doctrine of boundary by agreement (like any other legal concept, doctrine, or contract) IS dangerous only if the parties and/or the professionals representing and/or working for the parties do not understand the doctrines, concepts, and/or contracts.

When the boundary doctrines are fully understood and properly used, they are great tools available to landowners, their attorneys and surveyors by which complex and expensive "problems" may be (or in many cases have already been) solved.