How the easement is described is irrelevant. Is the easement configured in a physically linear fashion? Would you look at a map and say "that's a line" rather than "that's a blob"?
M.G.L. Ch 183 Section 58. "Every instrument passing title to real estate abutting a way, whether public or private, watercourse, wall, fence or other similar linear monument, shall be construed to include any fee interest of the grantor in such way, watercourse or monument, unless ..."
If the power line easement is significantly longer than it is wide, like a way or watercourse, then you have a similar linear monument, and the statute would control the interpretation of the parcel description. The statute anticipates monuments with relatively narrow widths, such as fences and stone walls, and also relatively greater widths, such as roads, rivers, and even airport runways, if someone should choose to use one in a parcel description as a bounding monument.
Yeah, it's a bit of a dilemma. The other distances in the deed seem to agree with the sideline. But the abutter has his well and driveway in the easement area. It's 250 wide, so 125' difference.
No plan when this parcel was cut out. Later a sketch showing further division is in one of the deeds, but it's pretty bad, not done by a surveyor, but shows the sideline of the easement, for whatever that's worth.
I appreciate your input on this, Peter. Do you know if "linear monument" is actually defined anywhere?
It just seems a little vague to use, it's "significantly longer than it is wide", as the determining factor. I don't know if I'd be comfortable using that as my justification here.
Again, thank you for your insight
I don't know of any specific definition for "linear monument". The statute gives you some examples to work from. I think maybe it's like the definition of pornography - you know it when you see it.
And if you watch enough pornography, you might even spot some "linear monuments". 😯
I may not understand, sounds like you know the centerline of the easement, and it's a wide easement, it also sounds like the description call terminates closely to the right of way line of the easement and not the centerline.
Wouldn't those facts clear up the question?
Yes, the location of the actual easement isn't a question. The question is does the call to the ROW (easement), and then along the ROW, make the boundary at the CL or the boundary of the easement.
Peter Lothian makes a good point with his legal reference, for the CL, while everything else points to the edge of the easement.
In most states a power line easement is considered a transportation ROW like a road. Instead of vehicles and pedestrians, a powerline is transporting electricity.
Most states have similar statutes or case law covering linear monuments. I have never seen a definition, but I can't think of anything more linear than a powerline easment...?ÿ
I wish more surveyors paid attention to things like this. Land owners and attorneys have trouble seeing the future, and say things like, "that strip doesn't matter, its within the highway ROW and that highway will never move," but never is a long time, and your lack of imagination is not a good excuse to cut corners (pun intended).
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Just to add a comment from a different viewpoint: in the UK I would expect any agreements to refer to the centreline of the "circuit" (same as support post/tower centre on straight sections but possibly offset at angles), with easements of whatever dimensions on either side of that line.
There is a safety logic in this; it means the utility has a control over anything happening within a given envelope measured from the conductors. In some cases an original easement might allow for deviation of the route during construction by giving a wider offset but again from the original centre of the designed circuit.
In any case, for a pole line running down the side of a street, logic would indicate that it shouldn't be the centre of the street that is the reference.
No adjoining deed, just the one for the out parcel. The rest of the parent parcel remains intact.
Smith is the owner of the entire parcel. This is the only out lot. The fence hasn't been found, nor have the stakes from 1924.
The easement does. As said, the location of the easement isn't really in question. Just the extent of the out parcel, with dimensions that seem to agree with the edge of the ROW, but the call for along, normally meaning the CL.
Dimensioning along property boundaries usually runs to and along the edge of the road ROW, but ownership is generally to the CL. But I've never seen something like this on power lines.