IMWTK
I don't know what IMWTK means and I don't care to. But just because I don't
give you my name and the judges name, the case number and the county(in Illinois)
does not make my statement any more untrue or factual. Since you are above
the most posters IQ's especially the one's that don't share the same view as you,
do the research my friend and you will find it happened more than once. I been
surveying since high school and have had a successful business for over 25 years. And I didn't appreciate the tenor of reply.:-P
> In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "title line."
Of course there's a title line. Doesn't title transfer and describe the property it is transferring? I think I know what you are saying, JB, but we always research title and try to figure out the property using the chain of title and descriptions.
Also, I think it is a fuzzy area on surveying your own boundary, in that whenever you survey your property line, you are also surveying someone else's. If you are not working with the neighbor, and if you are determining your line to your benefit, I would think you are surveying from a very biased perspective, and that you are indeed surveying someone else's property line (ie the adjoiner). We should definitely distinguish between coming to an agreement with your neighbor and "surveying your own property".
[Insert that Hagar comic here...]
Sorry to input into the tangent....just adding a little discussion. I never can argue as well as you, I know; and I do appreciate your talks and lectures (as I think you also know)
Tom
Another way to think about it is there is a deed line, which probably is not exactly the property line on the ground. The title line IS the property line as best determined - that's what you got title to and own, even though it isn't exactly what was described by the deed line.
> Another way to think about it is there is a deed line, which probably is not exactly the property line on the ground. The title line IS the property line as best determined - that's what you got title to and own, even though it isn't exactly what was described by the deed line.
I'll admit I am playing devil's advocate a bit. However, I think it is always the "intent of the deed" that we are trying to establish as surveyors. I do understand the concept that the mathematics doesn't always close within it self and, worse, it almost never matches up mathematically to an adjoiners math (at least in metes-and-bounds descriptions). But my point is that math is not the only part of a deed. The "intent of the deed" might call to monuments or adjoiners or other features. And even most "deed stakers" will agree that the deed has a priority of calls, and that called-for monuments or adjoiners take seniority over the math calls. We usually trace back the title work and try to establish which deed of a common line has seniority. That too, in my opinion, is evidence of the intent of the deed.
I have a hard time saying that the "deed line" or "title line" does not exist, when, in fact, it usually is what we survey. Making a decision as to whether a fence is an intended representation of the boundary line, is a judgment call...but if you make that judgment, you are expressing an opinion that the said fence actually represents evidence of the intended location of the infamous "deed line".
I will admit that I am having trouble exactly understanding the difference between "title line" and "deed line". If John is making a distinction between the two, I would be interested in what that is.
> Another way to think about it is there is a deed line, which probably is not exactly the property line on the ground. The title line IS the property line as best determined - that's what you got title to and own, even though it isn't exactly what was described by the deed line.
I have never read a court case that differentiates a "title line" from a "deed line" or a "survey line" or a "tax line" or a "lot line" or a "parcel line" or a "property line." The goal every time is to determine the location of the "boundary" between A and B. What we've been taught to do as a profession, is to somehow denote separate locations for an unending variety of "lines" while ultimately choosing to depict one of the lines with a heavier linetype than the rest (except in PA(?) if I remember correctly. Their board won't let their surveyors make any distinction by lineweight).
All of these supposed positions for lines which have never existed or may or may not have been relied upon to establish the boundary are simply conflicts in evidence when you boil it down. One deed (math) says it's here; another deed (math) says it's there. One survey (monument) says it's here; another says it's there. One landowner says it's here; another over there. We've been taught that it's somehow ok to draw lines anywhere the math puts it and to connect dots anywhere the monuments are recovered. We've even been apparently taught that it's ok to place multiple monuments at the same corner, each conflicting with the other. These are unresolved conflicts in evidence. We've been trained to document conflicts in evidence instead of seeking resolution for the conflicts and documenting the solutions instead. Just how many "lines" are there between A and B?
The boundary law principles are designed to guide us in the resolution of the conflicting evidence so that we may ultimately determine which evidence is more certain, which facts are proven and which rule of law governs the ultimate determination of the boundary between A and B. That boundary is the "deed line." It is the "property line." It is the furthest extent of the two contiguous properties. It is the "boundary." The surveying profession is the only profession which is licensed to make boundary determinations. We are given all the rules of law necessary to perform the task and we are expected to execute the task without bias.
> I'll admit I am playing devil's advocate a bit. However, I think it is always the "intent of the deed" that we are trying to establish as surveyors. ... The "intent of the deed" might call to monuments or adjoiners or other features. And even most "deed stakers" will agree that the deed has a priority of calls, and that called-for monuments or adjoiners take seniority over the math calls. We usually trace back the title work and try to establish which deed of a common line has seniority. That too, in my opinion, is evidence of the intent of the deed.
What you're discussing is the "rules of construction" and the "rules of priority." These rules govern how we are to construe the "intent of the parties" to the conveyance, not the "intent of the deed." The rules of construction help us to resolve patent ambiguities (obvious conflicts) found within the language of the deed. The rules of priority help us to resolve latent ambiguities (hidden conflicts) discovered outside of the deed. These rules are prime examples of the laws which govern our analysis of the written and physical evidence we recover. The "rules of evidence" is another body of law which we routinely apply when we analyze and resolve conflicting evidence in order to determine the facts.
> I will admit that I am having trouble exactly understanding the difference between "title line" and "deed line". If John is making a distinction between the two, I would be interested in what that is.
I agree that such terms as "title line" and "deed line" and "property line", etc. are common vernacular and I see them depicted in various forms on surveys all the time. It's the way that I was taught to represent the (what I now believe to be false) concept that they are somehow different "lines" to be shown on a survey map. Any distinction that I would make between the lines is that they are all the same line and they all represent the "boundary" between A and B. That's what the public and the courts expect us to determine no matter how hard we try to distance ourselves from the responsibility.
JBS
IMWTK
Thank you for the reply. My inquiring mind wanted to know your geographic location and nothing more.
Now I and others know that there was a case where a judge fined a land owner for surveying without a license in Illinois or "impersonating a surveyor"
So when some one asks me, I can reply that I read on an PLS internet forum that such an event happened.
But..I don't see how a land owner can be prevented from surveying their land. Yes, I realize the problems that can happen but that is why there are licensed land surveyors to clean up after the mess is made.
But I NEVER underestimate the intelligence of anyone including land owners..
For instance, Yswami is surveying al over his property sans boundary, Would he be in vilation of Illinois law?
(I didn't get your IQ comment and I can't what you based that on..but they did say that I was a very bright child at one time. 😛 ) I try to keep out of the fray here.
The copy/paste that you posted, I assume are standard verbiage in all of the 50 states. I hold/held licenses in 3 and the language seems to be copy/pasted to one state to the next.. These violations are usually characterized by state administrative law. I don't know of any judge ever being involved in fines, sanctions etc.
tenor of reply
I'm more of a Barry White bassy baritone.
But here is a better tenor for you. 😉
[flash width=420 height=315]//www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/SyElW_Oov5I?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0[/flash]
IMWTK
What you've quoted is the licensing statute which defines and governs the practice of surveying. That's the same statute in nearly all 50 states and was initially based upon an ACSM model law. It doesn't govern the actions of unlicensed adjoining landowners with regard to settling an uncertainty or dispute between themselves.
Here are a couple of quotations from the Illinois courts regarding landowner agreements:
>“Where a boundary line between two tracts is unascertained or in dispute, the line may be established by parol agreement and possession or by an agreement implied from the unequivocal acts and declarations of the parties and acquiescence for a considerable period of time. (McLeod v. Lambdin (1961), 22 Ill.2d 232, 174 N.E.2d 869; Ginther v. Duginger (1955), 6 Ill.2d 474, 129N.E.2d 147; Jones v. Scott (1924), 314 Ill. 118, 145 N.E. 378.) When an unascertained or disputed boundary is established by either of these methods it will be binding on the parties to the agreement and their privies in estate. (McLeod.) The boundary, once established, will control the parties' deeds notwithstanding the statute of frauds. (See Ginther.) The principle upon which this conclusion is reached is that the effect of the agreement is not to pass real estate from one party to another but simply to define the boundary line to which their respective deeds extend. (See Ginther; Jones; 11 C.J.S. Boundaries sec. 67, at 639 (1938).) The requirement that the boundary be unascertained or in dispute is therefore a necessary prerequisite to any agreement, since "f the location of the true boundary line is known to the owners they cannot transfer the land from one to the other by an agreement changing such location." See Jones v. Scott (1924), 314 Ill. 118, 121, 145 N.E. 378, 380; see also Loverkamp v. Loverkamp (1942), 381 Ill. 467, 45 N.E.2d 871.” Hartzler v. Uftring, 114 Ill. App.3d 427, 450 N.E.2d 1208 (Ill.App. Dist.1 05/09/1983)
>“The Illinois Supreme Court has enunciated rules pertaining to boundary fence disputes which we believe are controlling in the factual situation involved in this case. The central issue of this case, is, "must an established, recognized, and maintained boundary line between adjoining landowners be moved if it is discovered or alleged that said boundary line does not conform to the legal descriptions of the properties?" Two leading Illinois Supreme Court cases have dealt with this issue: "The adoption of a division line between the owners of adjoining lands may be implied from their acts and declarations and by acquiescence in respect thereto. After the recognition of such division line as the true boundary for the statutory period of limitation the parties and their privies are estopped from asserting that it is not the true line." (Kandlik v. Hudek (1936), 365 Ill. 292, 299, 6N.E.2d 196, 199.) This rule is also followed in McLeod v. Lambdin (1961), 22 Ill.2d 232, 174 N.E.2d 869. In each of the two cases, some form of division fence had been erected by adjoining land owners along a line which they believed to be the boundary of their properties, and recognized as such by themselves and their successors in interest. Also, in each case the division fence was erected some distance from the true government survey line. It was not until after these fences had been in existence for 22 years, and recognized as the boundary, that any question arose.” Runge v. Dekeyrel, 101 Ill. App.3d 997, 428 N.E.2d 1121 (Ill.App. Dist.1 11/17/1981)
Landowners are encouraged to settle controversies with their neighbors with or without intervention by a surveyor. I would hope they would involve a surveyor in the documentation of their final agreement at the very least. Unfortunately (or fortunately for them) it's not a requirement of law.
JBS
tenor and bass - Hijack
Speaking of tenors; I recently found out that Vivaldi wrote for female tenor and bass parts.
[flash width=420 height=315]//www.youtube.com/v/YZaJth1WxGQ?hl=en_US&version=3[/flash]
> I have never read a court case that differentiates a "title line" from a "deed line" or a "survey line" or a "tax line" or a "lot line" or a "parcel line" or a "property line." The goal every time is to determine the location of the "boundary" between A and B. What we've been taught to do as a profession, is to somehow denote separate locations for an unending variety of "lines" while ultimately choosing to depict one of the lines with a heavier linetype than the rest (except in PA(?) if I remember correctly. Their board won't let their surveyors make any distinction by lineweight).
>
> All of these supposed positions for lines which have never existed or may or may not have been relied upon to establish the boundary are simply conflicts in evidence when you boil it down. One deed (math) says it's here; another deed (math) says it's there. One survey (monument) says it's here; another says it's there. One landowner says it's here; another over there. We've been taught that it's somehow ok to draw lines anywhere the math puts it and to connect dots anywhere the monuments are recovered. We've even been apparently taught that it's ok to place multiple monuments at the same corner, each conflicting with the other. These are unresolved conflicts in evidence. We've been trained to document conflicts in evidence instead of seeking resolution for the conflicts and documenting the solutions instead. Just how many "lines" are there between A and B?
>
> The boundary law principles are designed to guide us in the resolution of the conflicting evidence so that we may ultimately determine which evidence is more certain, which facts are proven and which rule of law governs the ultimate determination of the boundary between A and B. That boundary is the "deed line." It is the "property line." It is the furthest extent of the two contiguous properties. It is the "boundary." The surveying profession is the only profession which is licensed to make boundary determinations. We are given all the rules of law necessary to perform the task and we are expected to execute the task without bias.
:good:
I agree. When a landowner pays a surveyor to come establish his property line, he doesn't want to hear "well, it might be this here line, or it might be that line over there, or maybe even this other line". That is not what he hired you to do. He wants to know where he needs to measure his setback line from, or where he should install his fence, or simply what it is that he owns. We are providing him our expert opinion as to what he owns to. He wants to be able to rely on that opinion without going to courts, or trying to come up with which of five different lines his neighbor might agree with him on.
When a landowner pays a surveyor to come establish his property line
I think I understand what you are saying but technically I disagree.
A surveyor can't establish a property line even though that is probably what a landowner wants from them. Only the landowners can establish a boundary line. What the surveyor does is either retrace the already established boundary line or the surveyor gives a line to the landowners that they can accept and thereby establish the boundary line. To immediately establish a non established boundary line there needs to be an agreement by the landowners. Other wise time, acceptance and treatment of the line as the boundary by the landowners is required to establish the boundary.
If surveyors could establish boundary lines they would have judicial authority.
Maybe the meaning of the word establish is different to many. I use it in the context of the common law. Surveying on the ground, setting markers, staking deeds and all that is not establishing boundaries from my view. Surveyors do this, and from this landowners actions establish boundaries. Only the landowners can establish their boundaries. A surveyor is a great tool to use to do this. I wish most landowners would use surveyors (or would have in the past) to assist in the establishment of their boundaries, but unfortunately they don't or didn't. So now we have all these title records that don't precisely line up with the established locations on the ground and continual chaos as all the math is applied mostly by folks without a clue about the law.
Leon,
I think I meant "establish" in a different context than you do. I meant it more in the context of establishing his expert opinion where his (the client's) property is on the ground. (I did later say "We are providing him our expert opinion as to what he owns to.") When he orders a survey, he is typically not bringing you in to tell you where he owns to, but asking you to show him. Whether or not he accepts your findings, works out a different boundary line with his neighbor, takes it to court and asks the court to decide, is another matter altogether. I think it would be a "cop-out" to tell him that you are giving him possibilities as to the interpretation of his deed but that you can't actually show him his property line. (Also) He acquired a piece of property according to a contract and a deed, and he has every right to expect that deed to describe exactly what he was purchasing.
tenor of reply
And we wonder why other Professionals think we are D$#BAs$es. You prove their point.
IMWTK
> What you've quoted is the licensing statute which defines and governs the practice of surveying. That's the same statute in nearly all 50 states and was initially based upon an ACSM model law. It doesn't govern the actions of unlicensed adjoining landowners with regard to settling an uncertainty or dispute between themselves.
>
> Here are a couple of quotations from the Illinois courts regarding landowner agreements:
>
> >“Where a boundary line between two tracts is unascertained or in dispute, the line may be established by parol agreement and possession or by an agreement implied from the unequivocal acts and declarations of the parties and acquiescence for a considerable period of time.
Mr. Stahl thank you for time in this matter, is the wording "may be established" to be interpreted as shall establish, or will establish, may be suggest that this is not the way the court looks upon this topic.
Again thanks.
yikes
Getting a little hot under the collar and personal for this site don't you think?:'(
IMWTK
>> Landowners are encouraged to settle controversies with their neighbors with or without intervention by a surveyor. I would hope they would involve a surveyor in the documentation of their final agreement at the very least. Unfortunately (or fortunately for them) it's not a requirement of law.
>
> JBS
Again this is a problem, I had several cases where the judge did not use either the possession line or the survey line but split the difference to be fair to both parties. And no documentation was recorded in the recorder of deeds. The only place you could find it was in his judgment in the case file. No drawings, no description, no marker described, just his words. And yet you feel that this the best course of action for boundary disputes and resolution. Also I thought it was kind of funny the example that you used in the seminar with the lots. They could not pay for a "survey" (probably $300 in the late 80's)to determine line but spent thousands of dollars on fencing and landscaping. But ended up costing how much to others in the end.
Again thanks for your time.
yikes
> Getting a little hot under the collar and personal for this site don't you think?:'(
If you went to the seminar Mr. Stahl had quotations what the court feels about
surveyors and my comment was not far from what they concluded.:-D
yikes
I just think that disagreeing with someone is expected, but calling them a "dumbass" is a little rude. This site used to get personal like that, but it often got out of hand. I'm only suggesting that you might consider using your wit over name-calling a little more.
In the overall context of this thread and what to do when a conflict is discovered I'm not sure that the cop out is all that bad an idea. John advocates resolution of the conflict via a landowners agreement if possible. The surveyor can do this and charge a fee for doing so. Yes, the surveyor can issue an opinion, show various lines, decide on one, whatever. BUT, the issuance of an opinion when there is a conflict must carry some liability. Some party is going to rely on it, litigate over it, charge his neighbor with trespassing, etc. So why do surveyors take on such liability. Maybe it's because few ever get sued and so the danger maybe quite low. Some do get sued, lose and pay. At the very least surveyors get a bad reputation with landowners and this hurts the profession.
When first hearing John's way of handling a conflict apparently some surveyors think it came from Mars, it's that far different from what they practice. Dealing with adjoiners, mediating the conflict, having the owners jointly on the ground picking where to locate the boundary line, walking back and forth to place the stake, and having the owners “survey” with a cloth tape. Well that is just out there. I do not think so! This is resolving the conflict with the folks that actually have the authority to resolve the conflict if you can just get them to do it. When you are done you finish the survey, get the agreement docs recorded, collect your fee (larger than the opinion fee) and especially you have not taken on any liability for a opinion of where out of the many possibilities you could come up with as to where the boundary is. Also, maybe all the landowners are not completely satisfied but their conflict is resolved and that's worth a lot (an opinion may have negative value to a landowner). You have indeed provided a valuable service.
Maybe I'm different than most but I don't think I have any obligation to issue an opinion when the boundary isn't established. I refuse to take on such liability. I'm glad to assist in working things out but I don't adjudicate boundary lines. I'll admit when I can't locate a boundary.
I can understand that a buyer expects to get exactly what is described in his deed. I've heard this many times from landowners. Most times the deed is not the original contract but the last in a long line of mense transactions. Some are better than others, some are good and some are terrible. It's my duty as a surveyor to find the boundary, the established boundary, not force the earth to the shape of the description in the deed. The easy ones are when the boundary actually fits the description very well (and there are described monuments). Some boundaries are not established. Some boundaries are established in a location not exactly in line with the description but that doesn't mean there is a problem or gaps, overlaps and such. I just means the law needs to be applied by a professional that understands it.
I understand now. You're talking on the specific topic - when you encounter a conflict and how you resolve it which was the talk John gave, and I was addressing one when you go out on any boundary survey where a conflict has not been "discovered".