IMWTK
> 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.
You're quite welcome.
The wording "may be established" is clearly speaking of the landowners' ability to establish their boundary location. It is neither "shall" (implying a duty to establish) nor "will" (implying the only way to establish); it is "may" as in, the owner's have the right to establish their boundary and "may" use the following principles of law to do so. "May" also implies that it's not "illegal" for the landowners to do so.
When you really look at the principles, they're simply contract law. The courts will uphold written contracts, oral contracts and implied contracts. The establishment of the boundary between contiguous owners is simply a contractual agreement between them that is upheld by the court.
JBS
IMWTK
> 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.
I remember hearing an old saying that trial courts deal in equity and appeals courts deal in law. I always advise people that if they're willing to take a boundary issue to court, they need to be willing to take it to appeals.