Layman's Question - I have?ÿ somewhat unusual case of a boundary that came in a straight line to a first fixed point on a contour line with elevation of 127 ft. MSL, and then followed the meanders of that line for an unspecified distance to a second fixed point located on that same contour line.?ÿ Over time, there has been a natural accretion of soil from higher elevations, mainly around the first fixed point, that has pushed the current actual contour line around 15-50 feet outward in that area, depending on which direction you proceed from that first fixed point.?ÿ Meanwhile, the second fixed point has not been affected by movements in the contour, so it is still on the 127 ft. contour line.?ÿ For an updated survey, how will the revised boundary be drawn??ÿ At present, the first fixed point does not lie on the 127 ft. contour line, so, for example, would we simply draw an additional straight line to "re-connect" the first fixed point with the contour line, using shortest distance??ÿ ?ÿThank you.?ÿ
Is this a water way or shoreline? ?????ÿ
No.?ÿ There is a lake in the vicinity, but another landowner below separates this tract from the water.
Do the deeds (or other documents that determine the boundary) on either side of the line agree with each other?
Is this a water way or shoreline? ?????ÿ
Given the situation as described, I think I would consider this to be analogous to a water way or shore line, and that the boundary would move with the slowly changing contour. It would be very interesting if the question were ever litigated in court. Extend the boundary to the 127 contour and run with it. Let us know if an interesting court case is the result.
?ÿ
Generally, you only own what your deed says you own. What does your deed say?
This is a very interesting legal dilemma to which I do not know the correct answer.?ÿ My guess is that, so long is it is a natural-only action moving the line, the ownership would move gradually as the elevation line moves.?ÿ The only local example I can think of is a lake constructed as a source for potable water for a small city.?ÿ On one side of the lake all adjoiners have deeds with the water-side defined by the spillway overflow elevation.?ÿ The other side has been platted into a subdivision, so the lot lines would not move.?ÿ The elevation-dependent side is only about three owners of large agricultural tracts that couldn't care less about a small bit of accreted land.
Yes, there is no difference or conflict between the deed language on either side.?ÿ Though not explicitly stated, I believe that at least some movement of the contour line was expected, and that led to the use of the contour line as the boundary in description.?ÿ And if the movement had happened, say, at the midpoint of the contour line portion of the boundary, away from the fixed corner points, that would be easy enough.?ÿ But here we have a fixed corner point that no longer rests on the contour line, which is a different issue.?ÿ Thx.
Without having any other information just a picture of it in my mind, I'd extend the line till it hit the 127 contour, run along that contour till it hits the other fixed point.
Barring additional evidence, the 127 contour at parcel creation was fixed as the boundary. You cannot apply riparian or littoral law. If the countour moved it is essentially a disturbed monument, no different than a called for fence that wax replaced in a new location.
Your duty here is to find any expressions of intent or location. Applying things that 'seem right' is a (civil and regulatory) liability bomb.
My. 02
