Deano, post: 361837, member: 6369 wrote: The testimony of the neighbor saying the tree grew around the fence seems to contradict the other testimony, so it is difficult to say when the wood/wire fence was installed.
Could you elaborate on the tree? This is the first mention I see on it.
I agree with paden cash. Just the other day I was reading a court case that had a fence problem and the surveyor was showing all the improvement locations on his plat. The plaintiffs surveyor did not win or get the court to agree with his surveyors work because the area that was the problem was not described in text. The surveyor just did his plat showing the fence location and boundary. The court ruled in favor of the defendant because it (the court) would not add language to properly describe it. The court had to rule on just the evidence accepted at trial.
Art S, post: 361968, member: 8983 wrote: The court ruled in favor of the defendant because it (the court) would not add language to properly describe it. The court had to rule on just the evidence accepted at trial.
Art,
I would like to study this case. Could you provide a citation?
Thanks,
DDSM:beer:
Dan
I usually pick a topic and some of these legal pages open up from other states and I read them.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In NECO 20090217206/VERMAAS LAND COMPANY, LLC v. FULTON
I hope this opens up for you and is more clear than I am. Read the last part to cut out the junk.
Art
Art S, post: 361968, member: 8983 wrote: I agree with paden cash. Just the other day I was reading a court case that had a fence problem and the surveyor was showing all the improvement locations on his plat. The plaintiffs surveyor did not win or get the court to agree with his surveyors work because the area that was the problem was not described in text. The surveyor just did his plat showing the fence location and boundary. The court ruled in favor of the defendant because it (the court) would not add language to properly describe it. The court had to rule on just the evidence accepted at trial.
That's an interesting case. The Court reversed on the ground that the description was not sufficient to describe the fence (there being no dispute that claimant had adversely possessed the strip). Most courts I am familiar with would've reversed and remanded to the trial court to receive more evidence on the location of the fence but Nebraska simply told the claimant they lost, no second chances.
Dan B. Robison, post: 361880, member: 34 wrote: ...and I'll raise...
When the boundary lines between two estates is indefinite or unascertained, the owners may, by parol agreement, establish a division line, as the effect of such agreement is not to pass real estate from one party to another, but to define ht boundary line to which their respective deeds extend. Sherman v. King, 71 Ark. 248, 72 S.W. 571.
Persons owning adjacent lands may by agreement establish the boundaries between their lands, regardless of the lines of the Government survey. Cox v. Daugherty, 75 Ark. 395, 36 Ark. 184.
The owners of adjoining tracts of land may by parol agreement settle and establish a permanent boundary line between their lands, which, when followed by possession according to the lines so agreed upon, is binding and conclusive, not only upon them, but upon their grantees. Miller v. FarmersÛª Bank & Trust Co., 104 Ark. 99, 148 S.W. 513.
Where there is a doubt, dispute or uncertainty as to the true location of a boundary line, the parties may by parol fix a line which will, at least when followed by possession with reference to the boundary so fixed, be conclusive upon them, although the possession is not for the full statutory period. Malone v. Mobbs, 102 Ark. 542, 145 S.W. 193; Diedrich v. Simmons, 75 Ark. 400, 87 S.W. 649; Payne v. McBride, 96 Ark. 168, 131 S.W. 462.
It is the policy of the law to encourage agreements between adjacent landowners as to their boundaries, and to give effect thereto when shown to exist. Miller v. FarmersÛª Bank & Trust Co., 104 Ark. 99, 148 S.W. 513.
DDSM:good:
my goodness, I hope you got a book your looking at. because if all that case law is floating around in your noggin your either a super genius or one step away from crazy. great to see it either way thanks for taking the time to post it. I enjoy reading the case law stuff.
smitty, post: 362039, member: 11387 wrote: my goodness, I hope you got a book your looking at.
I've been collecting Arkansas quotes into a word document for a number of years.
The crypto quotes put me one step from crazy;-)
DDSM:beer:
Dave Karoly, post: 362035, member: 94 wrote: That's an interesting case. The Court reversed on the ground that the description was not sufficient to describe the fence (there being no dispute that claimant had adversely possessed the strip). Most courts I am familiar with would've reversed and remanded to the trial court to receive more evidence on the location of the fence but Nebraska simply told the claimant they lost, no second chances.
Very interesting. I've seen Arkansas Courts remand with instructions to clarify the description. Sometimes the description is "fence as shown per survey book/page".
"As the parties do not dispute the accuracy of the Witulski survey conducted pursuant to the legal description of the property and it is the only survey in evidence addressing the boundary of Vermaas' property as platted, this survey marks the boundary between the two tracts at issue and shall provide the basis for the relief upon remand."
I wonder what the court would have decided if the "only" survey was challenged by another survey showing the 1950 fence as the established boundary between tracts one and two?
DDSM:beer:
Dan B. Robison, post: 362050, member: 34 wrote: Very interesting. I've seen Arkansas Courts remand with instructions to clarify the description. Sometimes the description is "fence as shown per survey book/page".
"As the parties do not dispute the accuracy of the Witulski survey conducted pursuant to the legal description of the property and it is the only survey in evidence addressing the boundary of Vermaas' property as platted, this survey marks the boundary between the two tracts at issue and shall provide the basis for the relief upon remand."
I wonder what the court would have decided if the "only" survey was challenged by another survey showing the 1950 fence as the established boundary between tracts one and two?
DDSM:beer:
Apparently both Surveyors showed the same "true" line.
Dave Karoly, post: 362051, member: 94 wrote: Apparently both Surveyors showed the same "true" line.
Oops...missed the other surveyor named W...
Still wonder what would have happened IF...
What the hell does "DDSM" stand for, anyways.
... and another Thanks to all y'all and da'board. A great way to wind down from a full day.
Good weekend, everybody.
They are letters that follow my name...
Dan B. Robison, RLS, PLS, PS, CFM, DDSM
Doctor of Divinity, Surveying, Mapping???
Naw...
Dan Dan the Survey Man
DDSM:beer:
10 4. You aren't friends with Chuck Barris, are you? :plumbbob:
So, does the elusive boundary only follow the fence or does it extend across the entirety of both lots with the line being wherever the extension of the easternmost section of the fence would indicate?
Holy Cow, post: 362063, member: 50 wrote: So, does the elusive boundary only follow the fence or does it extend across the entirety of both lots with the line being wherever the extension of the easternmost section of the fence would indicate?
Me thinks that is a very good question, and I would figure the answer is not a or b, but cB-)
