Currently working on a large boundary survey. The project is comprised of several (approx 50) tracts. A co-worker and I are debating a point, which follows:
One adjoiner's deed calls for an agreed line with one of our predecessors in title. Our deeds never mention it. Is that call for an agreed line a call for a monument?
I am of the opinion that the call for an agreed line is the same as a call for a monument. He says it isn't.
What say you?
Requires two for an agreement, just calling for an agreed line in one deed description without supporting evidence that such an agreement ever existed should be approached with caution. Supporting evidence could be the occupation, ignorance of where the line is or adverse. If the described line could have been located on the ground without undue effort, there is the possibility that an agreement without exchanging deed documents might not be a legal contract if one exists. Agreements without writings for anything is poor practice. CYA
jud
I agree that it's poor practice, but it does happen.
We're not debating what to do next, as we haven't recovered enough evidence to go forward with resolution yet. We are just discussing the weight to be afforded a mention of an agreed line.
Is the agreed line recorded in a separate instrument? I don't know what state you're in, and your state may be different as far as legal notice goes, but if it's not recorded or in the public record, then the successor in title had no constructive notice of it (nor actual notice unless you're leaving out some details). Therefore, the agreed line is not binding on your client.
That being said, as with all surveys, there are other circumstances, evidence, etc., at play here and I don't know all the details.
Frist thing I would do is research your predecessor's deeds to see if it was ever mentioned. If it was then it could be a monument if not I would keep it in mind along with other evidence I find
> Currently working on a large boundary survey. The project is comprised of several (approx 50) tracts. A co-worker and I are debating a point, which follows:
>
> One adjoiner's deed calls for an agreed line with one of our predecessors in title. Our deeds never mention it. Is that call for an agreed line a call for a monument?
>
> I am of the opinion that the call for an agreed line is the same as a call for a monument. He says it isn't.
>
> What say you?
The call is for a line, therefore it is calling for a "monument", something that has presumably been established on the ground. I would treat it (as most evidence is) as being better evidence than mere bearings and/or distances. Does the document mention anything that marks the agreed line, such as a fence, a creek, a line running from uncle Herberts barn to crazy Joe's outhouse, or any such locatable items?
Further, the call for the "agreed line" is evidence of either an express or implied agreement depending on what further evidence you can develop.
Keep digging.
Don't see how this would differ from an easement that was created and continuously mentioned in deeds for one tract, but, never mentioned again in deeds for the related tract. If it was created and never extinquished, it still exists. Use it.
Adjoiner Cannot Call For Agreed Line With The Agreement
Having both signatures. Whether or not it was filed it could be legal at it's creation.
Then it depends if you are a race or notice state if it is not carried forward in both deeds.
Recalling that a transfer of land must be in writing, all that hoopla about an oral agreement is for naught.
If it is in fact an agreed line AP cannot occur.
The lawyers are the only ones who win.
Paul in PA
Adjoiner Cannot Call For Agreed Line Without The Agreement
Sorry for the misspelling above.
Paul in PA
If you trace it back, which deed is senior, i.e. which deed created the line in the first place?
I'm not sure I understand the importance of the question you ask - the call for an "agreed line", if in the senior deed, however described, is the best you have. If no evidence of the agreement can be resurrected, and no evidence otherwise supports establishment, then you've got a difficult task on your hands.
IF it was created is the question,
isn't it? An agreement must, by implication, be between at least two different entities. I would not ever call for an "agreed line" until I have proven there was an agreement between at least two people and that they or some witnesses, still alive, can make a deposition to that fact.
Just off the top o me haid
It could be evidence of the agreement. How big of a difference does it make? Is there OTHER evidence of this agreement on the ground, ie monuments etc?
When I comes right down to it, you MIGHT acquiesce, to the adjoiner's deed, and stipulate on your plat as to WHY you did it, and what your client thinks of it. That is, if he is in agreement with it.
What I'm saying is MORE RESEARCH.
Unless your client just WANTS to acquiesce. Then you could say that is why you did it. But, still a QC to the adjoiner could be in order.
N
A new description on a senior tract, calls to a junior line. I would think about that. Where is the Junior line? It is junior, and therefore is subject to the original senior tract's original line.
It seems to me that it is a sloppy way to reference back to the original deed that created the senior tract.
When a seller wants to sell a non-surveyed portion of a tract and keep his seniority intact, I will write a description using the original undivided tract description and add a description describing what is being retained as an exception, otherwise the buyer has seniority with all of the advantages of that position.
jud
