Monuments
Courses
Distances
Abutters
Areas
Or whatever derivation of the priority of calls your courts have deemed.?ÿ Trace the deed back to the division.?ÿ Determine the road layouts at the time.?ÿ Use the distances along those layouts.?ÿ Be sure to trace the abutting properties back as well.?ÿ Compare occupation to computation.?ÿ?ÿ
I retrace deeds from the 1800s with some stakes called for.?ÿ I have only found direct evidence of a handful.?ÿ The others are long gone.?ÿ
Ive just skimmed through these posts, but it sounds like a classic case to use a Boundary Line Agreement. If no evidence can be found and the boundary line cannot be determined, then an agreement between the parties is probably the best option.?ÿ
Anyone that can't determine the boundary from the information we were given doesn't need to be surveying.?ÿ?ÿ You can't "boundary line agreement" your way out of making surveying decisions.
In most States the courts hold that when all evidence of the original stakes are gone, improvements built at or near the time of first sale of the lot can be the best evidence of the true lines of the parcel. As others mentioned, accessories to the original corners (ancient walls, fences, etc.) are evidence of the original location of the original stakes.?ÿ Only after you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you can't locate the original lines should you consider an original layout using the tie to road intersection.
Having said that, Maine cases seem to treat the "rules" of construction as law rather than "guides" (as most States hold).?ÿ Be very careful departing from them in Maine (with questionable evidence).?ÿ
Appreciate all the responses guys.?ÿ
I was able to review old aerial photos (courtesy of our county registry of deeds), do a detailed search of the approximate corners and lines assuming they are perpendicular to the road, and review the research again to see if there is any other evidence as to place the boundaries. This did not turn up any useful evidence, but I did manage to find an old bed spring and the head of an axe.
You guys were right that it was a bit of a test/training for me to see what I came up with. My opinion is that since the stake (or any of the other stakes called for) was not recovered the direction of the first call from the road is ambiguous. Applying the rules of construction I think that the boundary lines should be perpendicular to the road line. This construes the lot against the grantor by maximizing the area and takes into account the rest of the calls in the deed. When put on paper this also fits the improvements with the visible septic field being 1-2' from the boundary line. The PLS is finalizing and reviewing the project, but he had pretty much the same line of reasoning.
I had considered a boundary line agreement, but with the starting point and other calls in the deed being clear I didn't think it was an good case for one.
