Acquiescence...WHAT?

Unless you've interviewed the people in possession, you still can't decide whether or not a fence is just a fence or whether it's by acquiescence. Don't hate on the guy. I spent about three years fighting the agree team on the old board and reading up on why they were wrong. Turns out, I was wrong. Unwritten rights are, without a doubt, the single hardest concept to understand in the world of surveying, chiefly due to the fact that it's hard to quantify and requires qualification. Couple that with your states brand on dealing with unwritten rights, and the surveyor may, or may not, have the ability to decide these things.

My take, in Texas, we can decide, after rigorous research, practical location, acquiescence, and sometimes long standing recognition. We cannot decide adverse possession. That is wholly within the purview of the District Courts in Texas, regardless what that guy from Michigan, or anyone else said.

Actually Kris,

I think he was from Wisconsin and has recently passed away.

But, I agree with you, we as surveyors need to study and have a good understanding of these things, but that understanding does not qualify us to be either a judge or jury.

Just an expert witness that might be called upon.

Randy

Acquiescence is an act by a land owner. It can affect the legal location of title.

Sometimes RECORD title is ambiguous!

N

In some areas I survey, if a surveyor couldn't use some of these tools, they wouldn't be able to determine where a boundary is located.

Randy

I was talking about the original document that spawned the whole agree team, Justice Cooley, who I thought, was from Michigan. RS and I went back and forth on this, and I for one, admit, that he pissed me off enough, that I actually read the stuff to be able to argue intelligently with the man. He was not stupid, but I do not think he applied the doctrines properly, but I will not trounce on the man's grave. He's stubbornness ultimately lead to knowledge for me. That is a small part of the man's legacy.

Acquiescence and Adverse Possession are not the same thing.

Acquiescence is not adverse.

I think it is simply a doctrine allows the long standing physical boundary (not necessarily a fence) to be recognized by the law without involvement of the Courts. Often in boundary cases evidence fades and the original parties are long dead. The common law boundary doctrines simply allow boundaries to remain where they have been for a long time although the Deed math may not agree.

Land Surveyors are generally technically oriented, introverted people in a PEOPLE business. Boundaries are 100% man-made entities. Boundary law has developed over the past 1000 years and is mostly oriented towards solving problems not creating problems based on who can measure best.

Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence.

> Unwritten rights are, without a doubt, the single hardest concept to understand in the world of surveying, chiefly due to the fact that it's hard to quantify and requires qualification.
You and the majority of the profession have been fed a line of complete BS. That statement is so common, yet so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start. I guess the simplest answer would be, There is no such thing as Unwritten Rights when it comes to determining land boundary locations. That's why surveyors who try to understand it are so confused. There's no such thing under the law, so the profession is making it up as they go along.

On the other hand, the doctrines which establish boundaries are all legal doctrines which the land surveyor should know in depth. They are very simple, and we apply most of them on a daily basis without even knowing it. We need to have a working knowledge of each doctrine in order to determine any boundary line. We do it every time we locate a boundary. That's what we are licensed to do. That's what makes our profession so unique.

> My take, in Texas, we can decide, after rigorous research, practical location, acquiescence, and sometimes long standing recognition. We cannot decide adverse possession. That is wholly within the purview of the District Courts in Texas, regardless what that guy from Michigan, or anyone else said.

Boundary agreements are the way that all boundaries are established. They include written, oral and implied agreements, estoppel and practical location. Acquiescence is merely one element of an implied agreement. Long-standing is the second element, and mutual recognition is the third. The three elements combined give you evidence of an implied agreement (commonly referred to as acquiescence). You must have all three, or the establishment fails. So, yes, surveyors use the best available evidence gathered during the survey to determine boundary locations because the law of implied agreements sometimes defines their location.

Practical location is the result of actions taken by landowners at or near the time of the boundary creation when the intended location of the boundary would have been most likely known. This doctrine is also commonly referred to as practical construction. Technically, there is a slight difference, but I won't go into it here. The parties determined their boundary location with the best "practical" means available. Surveyors use this as the best available evidence of the intent of the landowners in describing and locating their boundary. Practical location is the ultimate expression of the described boundary location.

Adverse Possession is a title doctrine that has little to nothing to do with boundary location (depending on the facts and the jurisdiction). That's why it has little (if anything) to do with surveyors or surveying. It's also a statutory limitations provision that attorneys love to misuse and abuse.

JBS

John Esq.

Just because it seems easy to you, doesn't mean that it seems easy to the rest of the populace, and while you are not an arrogant man, your presumption that we've been fed a line of BS and that it's so easy, is, well arrogant to say the least.

While I didn't think this thread was a in-depth look at unwritten rights (that's what they are called in many places), feel free to jump in and educate the masses.

The hat trick, that you and the rest of the agree team fail to note, is that, after a certain time, determining whether or not there was an agreement, is nearly impossible, and to stand on the "implied agreement" is without a doubt wholly within the purview of the courts and not of the surveyor. Under Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Part 29, Chapter 663, Subchapter B, the following rules are to be aheared to during boundary construction "(a) When delineating a property or boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall respect junior/senior property rights, footsteps of the original land surveyor, the record, the intent as evidenced by the record, the proper application of the rules of dignity or the priority of calls, and applicable statutory and case law of Texas." No where within that section or any other, are there provisions for implied agreements. While agreed lines do totally control the location of a boundary, much like a contract, you need, IMHO, to have the original parties, otherwise, the intent of the agreement can only be gleaned, as mentioned in the subchapter, from the record.

Feel free to blast away, I've got my FR's on today. While I very much respect your opinion, I totally disagree with your statement and stance as it is counter to the manner in which you've indicated it previously.

I had this problem on a dispute. The property was bought in 1860 without structures. During the 1860's the owner sold off 5 lots with a dwelling and out buildings.

The deed dimensions don't match the ground. about 6' extra frontage, and about 20' less in the rear. That is by adding the frontage dimensions we end up with 6' extra over the original deed. The opposite for the rear.

However, each of the lots (these are small lots, about 40' wide and 100' deep) have a small block wall about 6" to 12" high running done the side lines and continuing across the front of three of them. it is obvious which lot the wall is serving. Not that the little walls have any structural significance. One line was a large hedge that was removed and replaced with a stockade fence.

The neighbor filed suit to force removal of the fence.

See this thread for the judges comment regarding Acquience

[msg=153951]Acquiesece gone bad[/msg]

I believe that the decision is wrong and hope that it is overturned on appeal.. There were several issues, adverse possession since the hedge was in place since 1950 (two witnesses unrelated to the owner), and I tried to explain "practical location" in my surveyors report but the attorney failed to get the judge to acknowledge the concept.

Sounds like a surveyor with a good sense of humor and a plan to keep it that way.

But the other edge of the sword would be arguing that if one has enough knowledge and skill in retracement surveying they shouldn't really need to know much about acquiescence.

Akwe... achwhee... what's the essence of that?

Um, yeah the spellin of it?

Um, no we are just always right, and there is never a problem!

N

> Sounds like a surveyor with a good sense of humor and a plan to keep it that way.

He wasn't joking. I know it sounds bad, but well, nevermind, I'll keep my mouth shut.

With every property, there are 2 lines; the line of occupation and the deed line. In a perfect world, these lines are the same. The occupation line is, or should be, always abutting the adjoiner; why shouldn't the deed line?

When the deeds are not in harmony; when the occupation is not the same as the deed; that is when we earn our money.....B-)
If we don't know what we are doing, it will surely get taken away.:-(

Have a great day, I know I will.

Radar

> If we don't know what we are doing, it will surely get taken away.:-(

We can hope, huh?

The Deed line is not necessarily exactly perfectly where the Deed suggests it is located.

Boundary doctrines help us to resolve the conflicts and once we are done doing so then the Deed line is the exact same as the boundary line.

The occupation line may or may not be the boundary line.

> The Deed line is not necessarily exactly perfectly where the Deed suggests it is located.

That is a good thing; now we can put it where ever we want....:snarky:

I agree with Kris

I do not know about Texas or Utah but acquiescence is sometimes known as
the Statute of Limitations or Limitation Title. I know KY, IL, and TN
have a Statute of Limitations of anywhere from 7 to 20 years. If the fence
or improvement has not moved for 20 years, the surveyor cannot come out to
a property and say, "The fence does not agree with my title line that I
surveyed, so move your fence."

The Statute of Limitations generally deals with unwritten title. Sometimes
what is not recorded in the courthouse, can rule.

Kris, you need to go on the seminar trail. If your dad was a surveyor, I
am sure he was a good one.

John Esq.

"and case law of Texas"

So what is the case law of Texas with regards to implied agreements?

As far as unwritten rights the term is a very poor description for the subject. Even the things that it might refer to are written in case law. The idea that there is something called unwritten rights that a surveyor can't deal with or can ignore is where the BS comes in. What there is is boundary law including agreement doctrines that do establish boundaries. Unwritten rights and unwritten transfer of title (that moves boundary lines) are under the law fictional. The use of these terms in surveyor speak does make it harder to understand the law. One must unlearn this BS before they can understand the reality. Why do I say this, it's because I've been down that road.

What makes it so difficult for surveyors to come to grips with the law is the BS they need to dump before they can get it right, reload the truck with good material.