> The whole purpose of the record is to present the most important evidence from which the surveyor reached a conclusion and to do it in a way that some future surveyor will be able to follow the logic and either agree or disagree with those facts in view.
That's a pretty good rule of thumb. :good:
What am I missing?
I would think, though, that if you had a deed that said [fenced etc] and you found a fence there, you'd at least locate it and show it. What some guys'll do is turn the locations into corners and literally follow the fence zig zagging a line that should be straight.
How would you even fix something like that?
There is more than the record to consider. Each state has a long history of boundary law. Although an original survey line can't be altered, the boundary line between to parties can be changed via landowner actions and how the law in the state treats these actions. In Utah a boundary can be established between adjoining landowners by treating some physical feature (like a fence) as the boundary for 20 or more years (with a few other requirements). So the boundary location is just not only what may be found in the original record. The common (and statutory) law needs to be understood and applied by the surveyor to come up to where the boundary line is, which in some situations is not where the original survey line is.
So I wouldn't use the statement "as fenced and used upon the ground" as the basis of where the boundary line is, but 20 years of treating a fence as the boundary by landowners (in Utah) can establish a boundary between the parties. Since these establishments via the common law are not part of the record, then once this is discovered by a surveyor, I'd say the job becomes one of getting it into the record. The only way to enter a line between landowners into the record that is not from the previous record, and make it stick, is for both landowners to execute a boundary line agreement or boundary line adjustment. Once this is done the surveyor is not playing judge in the matter and the line has been established by the landowners, those that actually have the authority to establish a land boundary.
Continually rewriting descriptions for every conveyance and adjusting the record to make if fit the ground and then inserting this into the record with just one side of the common boundary line participating, just adds more confusion and crap into the record. Instead of making things better it makes things worse.
> ........... In the area where I live, a survey in the 40's required picking up and dropping off the County Surveyor and his helper, paying him $5 per day and feeding him lunch. The adjoining land owners would be present and often "helped" with the survey. Often times, the land owners would agree that the fence, turn row, woods line, road, terrace or ditch was the property line as the tract was surveyed. Usually no written agreement was signed as "a man's word was his bond". The property owners were ok with this as sometimes the cost of putting the fence on line would cost more than the land involved. sometimes that old County Surveyor's calls are just good enough to make you crazy.
Sorry, but I got to wondering just how bad a county surveyor had to be where he had to be driven to the job and got a well-earned and hastily anticipated lunch at the nearest establishment afterwards.
I was doing a section split maybe 15 years ago, and was trying to figure out just how to find the "PK in the middle of the road" that was a particular surveyor's quarter corner when in fact the research showed that according to the 1930's county surveyor's notes was on the side of the road, complete with iron pipe and 2 matching ties from the house and chicken coop, still there and verifiable.
When I called a school buddy that worked at that firm, the first question he asked me was, "Is there a tavern near there"?
I replied that there were two in the village.
He replied, "There's your problem; he never left the bar".
Never take alcohol out of the equation.
>So, the question is this: is some variation of "as fenced and used upon the ground" common in the jurisdiction where you survey and what does it really mean there other than "I didn't really spend much time trying to figure this one out, but sure surveyed every angle point in this fence that nobody knows who built, when, or why".
I have seen the former situation when two farmers didn't have a clue where their common boundary was and couldn't be retraced due to a horrible description. After all, they did call me to help with that; if they knew they'd have saved the money. You just describe it and do a quit claim deed.
Mostly seen the latter (without the exact phrase) associated with what we call a "fenceline survey". Now, where's that liquid lunch, and who's buying?
> Probably more than 2/3 of the time they can still be located.
"Probably 2/3..." isn't 3/3, which makes all the difference, and is precisely my point. And while I am in agreement that it happens entirely too often, and I too default to "suspect" when I read that, it doesn't mean it can automatically be assumed as such.
Case in point- a recent large boundary I did bounded on one side by a very old road- monumented at either end along approximately 3000'. Deeds immemorial state (verbatim) "...with the west line of xxxxxxx road,...". The road presupposed Texas, Mexico, and any appurtenant land grants and/or dedications. County adopts the road as public right-of-way sometime within the last century with blanket language. Go to the county, dig up every last record, paving plan, as-built, utility improvement plan, etc. known to anyone at the county, pull every adjoining deed within a mile in either direction and there is no description anywhere of the road more specific than "xxxxx road." Bounded on all sides by occupation fences of varying vintage, in the case of the subject property at least several decades old. Consult with county right-of-way people, land owners, county engineer, nobody wants to say where the right-of-way is or can point me to a document (recorded or not- in a manila folder in a basement or not) that delineates a right-of-way or states either a uniform width or otherwise. I shot the fence, shot pavement, shot adjoiner fences, fences across the right-of-way. I looked at power pole placement, utility line markers, their recorded dedications: every single entity involved with something relating to that line had punted responsibility for either establishing or determining that line location, other than apparently holding that fence as both possession and fee ownership. So I held and monumented along the fence. Not every last post, but every last post that represented an obvious PI. Holding every post would have resulted in upwards of over 100 calls along that line- I ended up with about 15. And I said "... generally with a fence as used and occupied along the ground..."
Please enlighten all of us as to the problem here.
And I said "... generally with a fence as used and occupied along the ground..."
>
> Please enlighten all of us as to the problem here.
Well, for starters, the phrase sounds more than awkward. How can you use and occupy a fence?
The proper call would have been "Thence with the North line of the XX ft. wide right-of-way of the Old San Antonio Road for the following courses" and at each Angle Point place a survey marker and recite ties to the center of the traveled way and right-of-way fences to show that in fact a right-of-way of that width existed upon the date of your survey.
The width of the road comes from the classification of the road by order of Commissioners' Court, so it was likely either 50 ft. or 60 ft. and the description should reference the classification and date of the order. If you want to consider some additional right-of-way to have been informally dedicated, describe those segments of the line in that way with the evidence of such dedication.
again- i only fantasize about being the ultimate authority on boundary in my capacity as a surveyor. if you feel otherwise, then more power to you.
kent: i appreciate your experience, your ethics, and your wisdom. but, really, your self righteousness is laughable most of the time. i'll stick to dealing with you in fortunate in-person encounters, this forum isn't doing you or i any favors.
signed off,
another inferior surveyor
Sorry, but I got to wondering just how bad a county surveyor had to be where he had to be driven to the job and got a well-earned and hastily anticipated lunch at the nearest establishment afterwards.
He was known to be a lousy surveyor but a really nice guy. At that point, there was not any kind of restaurant for miles, so he would eat at his client's house. I am sure he got everything from a tomato with mayo on white bread to fried chicken. All the surrounding Counties at that time were dry, so you had to go several miles to buy "legal liquor". However, the other kind was always close by. After trying to follow some of his surveys, I am glad that the County is no longer dry.
> again- i only fantasize about being the ultimate authority on boundary in my capacity as a surveyor. if you feel otherwise, then more power to you.
Well Texas roads are generally creations of law. There is an order in the Minutes of Commissioner's Court establishing and/or widening that section of the Old San Antonio Road. Just because it is hard to find doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That order is what gave the road a width. If some landowner decided to build a fence further back from the established width of the road, that fact by itself is not an informal dedication.
The Texas Veterans Land Program would not lend any money on the purchase of property that was under any possible claim or use by another.
That included any land lying outside fence and/or under county road or access easement.
That requirement really confused many a title office and bank official and started a run on land with many confusing ownership with fence location.
The news upset many a seller when finding that they would not get paid for all of their land, unless the unsuspecting Texas Veteran buyer could pay for those lands with cash.
I have instructed many a developer and property seller to simply take down all their fences before a sale if there was any suspect of a problem.
I've seen properties that had land going to the center of creeks that they wanted left out because a fence was along a bank of the creek. Most owners went out and pulled the fence down and we updated our survey.
Other areas that were suspect included fencing that would prevent cattle from entering steep drains and and marsh areas and fenced lanes used to herd cattle form ones owned pasture to some leased pasture.
During that period the agency had people that followed and early Texas tradition of walking the boundaries of property with the Texas Veteran to indicate and assure everyone where the boundaries were before signing their contracts.
> The Texas Veterans Land Program would not lend any money on the purchase of property that was under any possible claim or use by another.
>
> That included any land lying outside fence and/or under county road or access easement.
>
> That requirement really confused many a title office and bank official and started a run on land with many confusing ownership with fence location.
Yes, I think that pretty well explains how fenceline surveying spread as quickly as it did. The VLB was helping veterans buy land all over Texas and surveying to VLB "standards" had to have had a major effect on surveying practices.
I never produced a survey that went thru the VLB that stated that the boundaries were along a fence that was constructed a few feet or 50± feet from the actual boundary.
The drawing showed the property's actual boundary and gave calls along any suspect fences and noted any area of intrusion or protrusion. BTW, that is the same for all surveys.
Metes and bounds for the VLB included a clause of the amount of lands lying outside VLB accepted boundaries and a net acreage acceptable for computing their loan amount.
I will always remember the blank stare I received when asking an examining officer his opinion of who owned the land between the fence and the man's boundary.
B-)
I have never seen it used and hope I never do.
