Another case for the Law Nerds...

I'm still reading the case, but have to mention this amusing bit:

>Dick and another witness, David Demostene, who had grown up on the Soda Rock property, testified that as children in the 1940’s they believed the cattle fence that ran along the line of oak trees marked the border between the two properties.

And Wilson only hurt himself by failing to share a copy of the map of his survey with Dick:

>The court further observed that Wilson’s failure to give Dick a copy of the Story survey reflected unfavorably on his “credibility and reliability.” There was no error in admitting any of the foregoing evidence.

But here is the crux of the matter. The two surveyors differed as to how to reestablish the location of the centerline of a public road called for in an 1870 deed.

>Convinced the centerline could not accurately be determined from other
monuments, Story chose as the starting point for his survey a pasture fence that remained standing as the only monument identified in the Wentworth deed still intact. Story believed the existing pasture fence was in the same location as it had been in 1870 because the fence appeared to be “ancient.” Measuring from the point where that fence crossed the Trimble property line, Story surveyed a distance of 1672.44 feet southwest along the Trimble property line (a number derived from the handwritten Trimble survey from 1885) to identify the northeast corner of the Soda Rock property. He surveyed the other boundaries from that point.

The long distance was definitely a problem with establishing the boundary.

Cases that discuss differences between competing surveys are relatively uncommon.

The Wilson's case was probably better than their attorney. They seem to have lost the opportunity to argue prescriptive rights on account of the way their attorney presented the case. They also seem to have hired the lesser surveyor.

> The long distance was definitely a problem with establishing the boundary.

Really, it all boiled down to the Battle of the Fences, both of which were simply assumed to perpetuate boundaries ca. 1870, one on the basis that it was "ancient" and the other on the basis of reputation from childhood memory.

The latter, however, also agreed with other evidence of the location of centerline of the former public road. The former did not.

That's one way to look at it. I think the early records, and ability to reconstruct those, of the road location played the largest part. Not 1870's but 1950's, which was taken as best evidence available of original. Some testimony (and fences) corroborated that and some didn't. And again, other physical evidence that is generally associated with a boundary (large tree row) was very influential.

If it looks like a land boundary, the surveyor is going to need strong evidence to prove it isn't one. But that doesn't mean that if you find one that looks like it, and has corroborating evidence sufficient to prove it, that you can use it to measure out the next one over.

Boundaries are dependent and independent at the same time.

>I think the early records, and ability to reconstruct those, of the road location played the largest part. Not 1870's but 1950's, which was taken as best evidence available of original. Some testimony (and fences) corroborated that and some didn't. And again, other physical evidence that is generally associated with a boundary (large tree row) was very influential.

Yes, that's the more correct summary of what would appear to be the basis upon which the case was decided.

>Brunner located the centerline of the old public highway using a 1988 survey by Neal Campbell that established the boundary between two nearby parcels, and a 1995 deed to the Pina property, which located the centerline of the road as of 1950. Brunner measured his point of beginning from an iron pipe that had been set by Campbell during his survey. Using this method, Brunner was required to survey a distance of 32.8 feet to find the centerline of the old road. Since the Campbell survey and Pina deed located the centerline of the road prior to the changes made in the 1990’s, Brunner concluded the later changes to the road were not material. Brunner located what he considered to be the centerline of the dirt road as of 1870, and he took all the rest of his measurements from that centerline (which marked the northeast corner of the Wilsons’ property).

Basically, Dick's surveyor, Brunner, re-established the centerline of the old public highway by a method that was more reliable than the one favored by Wilson's surveyor, i.e. measuring 1672 ft. cross country from a fence of indefinite identity. Viewing the argument in terms of how you'd present it to a court, Dick's side could say, in effect: "Our surveyor located the centerline by measuring 32.8 ft. from a MONUMENT and Wilson's measured 1672 ft. from a FENCE."

I think it's useful when forming an opinion about boundaries to consider how the surveyor's rationale will sound when fit into one or two sentences, or if it can be.

It's interesting to get the actual surveys and contrast them to the narrative in the opinion.

Joe Story's Record of Survey shows a 1/2" iron pipe found and measures 1672.44' from it to the centerline of the highway. The pipe was set in 1988 by a Surveyor working for the same firm. The 1988 Survey also set a pipe 32.8' north of the highway centerline which is about ten feet short of Story's distance. Joe Story says nothing about a fence corner on the survey.

Brunner finds the two 1988 pipes and holds the 32.8'. Essentially Brunner's solution shifts the Wilson rectangle 10'+/- northeasterly so that his version of the southwesterly boundary of Wilson goes through the trees.

I don't know where the reference to the fence corner came from, maybe in trial testimony. The 1988 Survey set the north pipe in a fence, not at the corner.