If it is proven that the grantor told the grantee that the fence is to be the line, then the fence is the line.
It's a shame that people will cost themselves thousands and thousands of dollars trying to save the cost of a survey.
> > As a practical matter, I'd think it would be much cheaper for Mr. Grantor to just move the fence than it would be to pursue a lawsuit he's unlikely to win.
>
> If only people were that rational.
Usually, in these sorts of situations, one of the parties is mostly concerned about the hassle of moving the fence. The land involved looks as if it amounts to about 0.12 acres, which at $4,000 per acre (top dollar for anything in Oklahoma, I'm sure) would be worth less than $500. The cost of building 660 ft. of new fence would probably run at least $2.00/l.f. or more than $1320.
I agree with what Kent said. It seems the burden would be on the grantor, since he should know what it fact he is granting. With lack of any evidence indicating both parties knew and/or meant the fence to be the boundary line I would think the grantee would be in a better legal position than the grantor.
But ya never know.
Current land values in "Stanky Creek, Oklahoma"..
> ...which at $4,000 per acre (top dollar for anything in Oklahoma, I'm sure) would be worth less than $500.
Documents indicate that the 2 acres sold for a little less than $30,000. Almost $15K per "lot", or acre...more than what I would've given for it, for sure.
Current land values in "Stanky Creek, Oklahoma"..
Is the north fence off a similar amount?
I can't quite tell in the aerial photo.
Current land values in "Stanky Creek, Oklahoma"..
> > ...which at $4,000 per acre (top dollar for anything in Oklahoma, I'm sure) would be worth less than $500.
>
> Documents indicate that the 2 acres sold for a little less than $30,000. Almost $15K per "lot", or acre...more than what I would've given for it, for sure.
That probably included the shack on it, though, didn't it? :>
Current land values in "Stanky Creek, Oklahoma"..
I was expecting you to use your P.T. Barnum reference.
Dave
There is actually no fence to speak of on the north. There is a pull post with a fence extending west from the NW corner of the 2 acre tract (where I also found a #5 rebar with rotted flagging) and on the east end of the north line (through the brush) exists what is left of a barb wire fence.
The E/4 cor. (NE cor of the 2 acre tract) is a perpetuated pin in the road with lots of corner records. Everything falls in a predictable line with a mushroomed-top pipe at the NW cor of the SE/4 (C/4), at the base of a pull post for fences N-S-E-W.
The center of section DOES NOT occupy a point on line with the east and west 1/4 corners. The pipe falls about 6' north and 3' west of a point of intersection from all the 1/4 corners.
Nice try, though. It is kind of humorous that you weren't the first person to try and make the 2 acres fit the fence by pushing the north line further north. Two surveyors in my office had the same thought. I dismissed that scenario because the 1/4 line is so well documented, monumented and occupied.
Hey, we have to look at ALL possibilities! 😉
Dave
I was thinking more along the lines of what Grandpa might've measured from.
I guess Grandpa's measurement of the 132' was plus or minus 15' ha ha.
'Proven' never happens...
I agree from a practical standpoint. And I would have given it no chance for the same reasons you put forth. Except, there is this trend to always allow extrinsic evidence in these matters.
I note with dismay the Supreme court of the U.S. has recently accepted a case with a similar issue, wherein there is no uncertainty but regardless, they will hear testimony and look at other extrinsic evidence. I won't mention the case so as to avoid any P&R, but the trend has made it to our highest court.