AI Assistant

Notifications

Clear all

Answers to Q # 1 & Q # 2...

jbstahl · 2011-05-05T09:07:39Z

I thought that I was asking a couple of pretty harmless questions, but it sure stirred up a lot of unintended speculation, fear and loathing. >What is a [real property] boundary?Sounds simple enough. Shouldn't be a big deal to define. Rob E. said, "The Limits" Jared M. said, "That Line between contiguous pieces of property." Frank S. said, "a place/point/line/whatever that separates the interests of the parties involved" Holy Cow really waxed eloquent, "In real property matters, a boundary is where the portion of the bundle of rights held by a specific party begins and ends. ... [msg=68881]Link[/msg] These definitions focus on the concept that a boundary is the "separation between two contiguous properties." I had, for years, thought of a boundary in a "conceptual" sense, defined by it's mathematical properties of location and orientation. I thought of a boundary as an invisible, dimensionless, theoretical concept defining the limit of an estate, whether it was a fee title ownership, an easement right, or a regulatory interest.But, then, there are other parts of the definition of a boundary which also made sense. Paul P. said, "Fences, row of trees, mow lines, plow furrows anything that qualifies as a limit line." Paul PA said, "In Colonial States we have Bounds and Boundaries." Richard S. said, "Within the context of real property ownership; any physical evidence recognized and accepted by the affected land owners that marks the limits of their occupation and control." Azcliltx pls said, "The limits of the parcel as described within the deed, which actually conveys the real property ownership in fee. The physical limits may or may not have been conveyed." and, Dave K. said, "A natural or artificial separation that delineates the confines of real property." He augmented his first description as, "A boundary is the physical implementation of the words of the Deed description." This group of definitions focus more on the physical properties of a boundary. This definition didn't really conflict with my understanding of the "invisible" boundary, other than determining precisely where an invisible, meandering point-to-point connecting line would fall.Linebender posted the "legal" definition:>Natural or artificial separations or divisions between adjoining properties that show their limits.>A boundary is every separation, natural or artificial (man-made), which marks the confines or line of division of two contiguous estatesAt first glance (which is all that I ever gave it), the legal definition contains both concepts: 1) A separation of two contiguous estates, and 2) natural or artificial properties. The part that I skipped over was the part "which marks the confines or line of division."According to this definition, every boundary is physically "marked" by either "natural" or "artificial" monuments. The legal definition has no reference to a theoretical, invisible, concept of an invisible line. The boundary "marks" the confines or line of division. If that is truly the case, then every boundary we survey should be "marked." Every boundary should have "physical" properties. We should be able to see it and touch it. We should be able to "discover it." But, wait a minute, right? We've all "seen" boundaries that weren't "marked." What about protracted boundaries? They've never been run out on the ground. They're not "marked." Why aren't they marked? Because the owners chose not to mark them. The feds made a conscious decision to not mark the center of the section. Developers commonly chose to mark only the block corners, not each individual lot. Grantors and grantees chose not to have a line marked prior to the conveyance and chose to describe the "boundary" by dimensions or acreage. They've chosen to "create" the boundary without "marking" its location on the ground. Does this mean that the boundary will never have any "physical" properties?So, if boundaries are "physical" objects, then how can "boundaries" be created that have no "physical" properties? That leads me to Question #2:>How are real property boundaries created?I've asked this question to rooms full of surveyors across half of the country. As simple as this question seems, I've seen a clear pattern of extreme diversity without much focus. Loyal and CV concurred, "Generally by the actions (and sometimes INaction) of two or more parties." Brian A. said, "By the actions and intentions of the landowner(s)." Carl Z said, "By the consent of the owners, or, a court, in a judicial sense, on sale or execution of or by eminent domain or exercise of the police power, can establish a new boundary without the consent of either or both of the adjoining landowners." Joe Surveyor said, "When determining boundary line in deed, if the description in deed is clear and unambiguous, it must me given in effect; in such case, inquiry is not intent of parties but intent that is expressed in the deed." Paul P. said, "Through rows of red tape, held hoops and lots of...

Summarize Topic

Page 3 / 3 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by Keith 15 years ago

43 Posts

15 Users

0 Reactions

790 Views

RSS

Steve Gardner

(@steve-gardner)

Posts: 1259

Member

Translate ▼

Reality and Equity

http://beerleg.com/index.php?mode=posting&id=21838&back=thread

I don't know if that worked, but I tried to paste in one of your posts from an old Clement v. Packer thread. If it didn't work, look up at the upper right of the page. There's a little picture of a magnifying glass. Type in "Clement", hit enter, scroll past Karoly's posts about "My Darling Clementine" and you should find what you're waiting for Kent to provide.

OK, I guess that sort of worked but just hit the back button when the reply window comes up and there's your old post in all its glory.

Posted : May 8, 2011 10:26 am

dave-karoly

(@dave-karoly)

Posts: 11990

Member

Translate ▼

try this...

http://beerleg.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=21829#p21838

Posted : May 8, 2011 10:39 am

Keith

(@keith)

Posts: 2049

Member

Translate ▼

Thanks Dave

I went back and read the thread and as usual, just a bunch of nonsense and insults from Kent...

I stand by what I posted!

Keith

Posted : May 8, 2011 2:16 pm

Page 3 / 3 Prev

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
350 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Answers to Q # 1 & Q # 2...

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support