If I were trying to buy it, I would tell the seller I would proceed when they could show me a survey with stakes and title report saying I would own both driveways, and at that time I would reimburse them the $450.
Let the seller do the work and have the expense (far more than $450) that they should have required when they bought it, including a lot line adjustment if needed.
I still say make it the seller's problem.
I agree it should be the sellers problem, but they have not owned it long (3 years), I wonder if they are unaware of the problem. I guess we will find out...
Went there today, found lots of evidence that fit well (3 of the 4 corners, adjoiners north and south that fit, etc) , nothing out of wack. The cross cut is the corner. Also did a scan with the SX10 to get building ties, etc.?ÿ
Way to get after it John.?ÿ
?ÿFrom the looks of that pic, the chiseled x may indeed carry some weight, as the building to the north seems to be right on the property line..?ÿ ?ÿ Hope your field visit results in some resolution!?ÿ?ÿ
I see this all the time on older narrow lots with no survey at settlement....the buildings are offset toward one property line and the owner assumes the building is centered on the lot.
This is an interesting scenario.?ÿ?ÿ
As you?ÿmight imagine, adverse possession?ÿwithin a recorded plat?ÿpresents some unique problems.?ÿ If enough of a platted lot is adversely possessed to render the servient?ÿestate unusable (too little?ÿarea)?ÿby local code, can the dominant estate then be sued for damages??ÿ And some?ÿAP cases?ÿargue a recorded plat is prime evidence of?ÿ?ÿ"constructive notice" as to the location of the boundary.
Lots of things beyond?ÿour realm to consider.
My daughter (lawyer) researched the deeds in the courthouse, found out who owned the property during the time the driveway was built, contacted him, and found out the owner next door gave permission. So it looks like she will get an easement for this. Also, here is the research she did on the legal aspect...
When adjoining owners treat a line as being the boundary between them, though that line may be different from the boundary described in their deeds, and when those actions continue uninterrupted for twenty-one years (whether by a single owner or a succession of owners), the parties are deemed to have established the line as the boundary, through recognition and acquiescence, regardless of the boundary described in their deeds. Indeed, this is the law even if during the 21-year period one or both of the properties is conveyed by deed(s) that use(s) the ??record? boundary.?ÿZeglin?ÿv. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 326, 812 A.2d 558, 561 (2002);?ÿLilly?ÿv. Markvan, 563 Pa. 553, 566, n1, 763 A.2d 370, 371n1 (2000);?ÿCorbin v. Cowan, 716 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super.1998);?ÿMoore?ÿv. Moore, 2007 Pa. Super. 61, __, 921 A.2d 1, __ (Pa. Super. 2007);?ÿPlauchak v. Boling, 439 Pa. Super. 156, 653 A.2d 671, 675 (1995);?ÿPlott v. Cole, 377 Pa. Super. 585, 593, 547 A.2d 1216, 1221 (1988);Inn Le??Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150, 162, 360 A.2d 209, 215 (1976).
?ÿ
It is not even necessary that the parties specifically?ÿconsent?ÿto the line so defined. It is sufficient that their actions consistently honored the boundary.?ÿDimura v. Williams, 446 Pa. 316, 319, 286 A.2d 370, 371 (1972);?ÿSorg v.?ÿCunningham, 455 Pa. Super. 171, 178, 687 A.2d 846, 849 (1997).?ÿ The fact, if true, that the parties?? beliefs as to ownership were based on inadvertence, ignorance, or mistake is irrelevant.?ÿZeglin v. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 328 n.5, 812 A.2d 558, 562 n.5 (2002).?ÿ The statute of frauds does not apply. The boundary is binding even when it is not reflected in a writing. The reason for this rule is that??even though the practical effect of establishing a boundary by consent and acquiescence is to modify a boundary line (and thereby, in effect, ??convey? the land between the line established by the land records and the land recognized by consent) ?? no ??estate,? as contemplated by the statute is created.?ÿ?ÿHagey v. Detweiler, 35 Pa. 409 (1860).
?ÿ
When adjoining owners treat a line as being the boundary between them, though that line may be different from the boundary described in their deeds, and when those actions continue uninterrupted for twenty-one years (whether by a single owner or a succession of owners), the parties are deemed to have established the line as the boundary, through recognition and acquiescence, regardless of the boundary described in their deeds. Indeed, this is the law even if during the 21-year period one or both of the properties is conveyed by deed(s) that use(s) the ??record? boundary.?ÿZeglin?ÿv. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 326, 812 A.2d 558, 561 (2002);?ÿLilly?ÿv. Markvan, 563 Pa. 553, 566, n1, 763 A.2d 370, 371n1 (2000);?ÿCorbin v. Cowan, 716 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super.1998);?ÿMoore?ÿv. Moore, 2007 Pa. Super. 61, __, 921 A.2d 1, __ (Pa. Super. 2007);?ÿPlauchak v. Boling, 439 Pa. Super. 156, 653 A.2d 671, 675 (1995);?ÿPlott v. Cole, 377 Pa. Super. 585, 593, 547 A.2d 1216, 1221 (1988);Inn Le??Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150, 162, 360 A.2d 209, 215 (1976).
It is not even necessary that the parties specifically?ÿconsent?ÿto the line so defined. It is sufficient that their actions consistently honored the boundary.?ÿDimura v. Williams, 446 Pa. 316, 319, 286 A.2d 370, 371 (1972);?ÿSorg v.?ÿCunningham, 455 Pa. Super. 171, 178, 687 A.2d 846, 849 (1997).?ÿ The fact, if true, that the parties?? beliefs as to ownership were based on inadvertence, ignorance, or mistake is irrelevant.?ÿZeglin v. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 328 n.5, 812 A.2d 558, 562 n.5 (2002).?ÿ The statute of frauds does not apply. The boundary is binding even when it is not reflected in a writing. The reason for this rule is that??even though the practical effect of establishing a boundary by consent and acquiescence is to modify a boundary line (and thereby, in effect, ??convey? the land between the line established by the land records and the land recognized by consent) ?? no ??estate,? as contemplated by the statute is created.?ÿ?ÿHagey v. Detweiler, 35 Pa. 409 (1860).
?ÿ
Yes sir.?ÿ This is why we need to learn the law, how to properly gather relevant evidence, be willing to knock on doors and make phone calls, etc.
It is not acceptable to ignore evidence that isn't contained in "the record".?ÿ Anybody notice how old these legal principles are??ÿ Why has our profession ignored them for so long??ÿ How many law suits/court cases could be avoided if we properly apply these legal principles?
When adjoining owners treat a line as being the boundary between them, though that line may be different from the boundary described in their deeds, and when those actions continue uninterrupted for twenty-one years (whether by a single owner or a succession of owners), the parties are deemed to have established the line as the boundary, through recognition and acquiescence, regardless of the boundary described in their deeds. Indeed, this is the law even if during the 21-year period one or both of the properties is conveyed by deed(s) that use(s) the ??record? boundary.?ÿZeglin?ÿv. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 326, 812 A.2d 558, 561 (2002);?ÿLilly?ÿv. Markvan, 563 Pa. 553, 566, n1, 763 A.2d 370, 371n1 (2000);?ÿCorbin v. Cowan, 716 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super.1998);?ÿMoore?ÿv. Moore, 2007 Pa. Super. 61, __, 921 A.2d 1, __ (Pa. Super. 2007);?ÿPlauchak v. Boling, 439 Pa. Super. 156, 653 A.2d 671, 675 (1995);?ÿPlott v. Cole, 377 Pa. Super. 585, 593, 547 A.2d 1216, 1221 (1988);Inn Le??Daerda, Inc. v. Davis, 241 Pa. Super. 150, 162, 360 A.2d 209, 215 (1976).
It is not even necessary that the parties specifically?ÿconsent?ÿto the line so defined. It is sufficient that their actions consistently honored the boundary.?ÿDimura v. Williams, 446 Pa. 316, 319, 286 A.2d 370, 371 (1972);?ÿSorg v.?ÿCunningham, 455 Pa. Super. 171, 178, 687 A.2d 846, 849 (1997).?ÿ The fact, if true, that the parties?? beliefs as to ownership were based on inadvertence, ignorance, or mistake is irrelevant.?ÿZeglin v. Gahagen, 571 Pa. 321, 328 n.5, 812 A.2d 558, 562 n.5 (2002).?ÿ The statute of frauds does not apply. The boundary is binding even when it is not reflected in a writing. The reason for this rule is that??even though the practical effect of establishing a boundary by consent and acquiescence is to modify a boundary line (and thereby, in effect, ??convey? the land between the line established by the land records and the land recognized by consent) ?? no ??estate,? as contemplated by the statute is created.?ÿ?ÿHagey v. Detweiler, 35 Pa. 409 (1860).
?ÿ
Yes sir.?ÿ This is why we need to learn the law, how to properly gather relevant evidence, be willing to knock on doors and make phone calls, etc.
It is not acceptable to ignore evidence that isn't contained in "the record".?ÿ Anybody notice how old these legal principles are??ÿ Why has our profession ignored them for so long??ÿ How many law suits/court cases could be avoided if we properly apply these legal principles?
There are many times a surveyor can help keep issues like this one out of the court. John did everyone a service.?ÿ
I believe this issue is more common than we suspect in older established neighborhoods.?ÿ Ignorance can be bliss with owners of such property and it isn't until a requirement for a permit or the sale of the land the issue raises its ugly head.?ÿ If one doesn't protect their purchase by a comprehensive survey prior to the sale being final then they should have many thousands of dollars in reserve to defend their title if challenged in the future.?ÿ My 2 cents, Jp
"There are many times a surveyor can help keep issues like this one out of the court. John did everyone a service.?ÿ"
I agree completely.?ÿ We are professionals providing a professional service,?ÿwhich many times requires we go further than just "the record".
A little more interesting info...The day that I surveyed it (Wednesday) I went to the local PSLS chapter meeting. I talked to a surveyor who has an office near there. He set the cross cut and the back rebar (both of which I found). He also offered to email me his survey. Very nice guy (older). That line is on the opposite side of the problem but good to know he is willing to share. The other few times I have asked surveyors for info on surveys they did I was met with hostility.?ÿ?ÿ
"There are many times a surveyor can help keep issues like this one out of the court. John did everyone a service.?ÿ"
I agree completely.?ÿ We are professionals providing a professional service,?ÿwhich many times requires we go further than just "the record".
I would also like to add "no good deed goes unpunished" .
I once performed a survey of a large undeveloped rural tract.?ÿ There was about 1300' of a fenced (and well established)?ÿlane that accessed a landlocked 40 acres. Unknown to my client, the lane was on his property (he had always thought it was on the other side of a quarter line).?ÿ Neither owners wished to cause any trouble but understood the need to "get something in writing".?ÿ I suggested the family trust grant a perpetual easement to the landlocked 40 acre tract for access. I agreed to prepare the docs and include my fees as part of my original quote.?ÿ The document was prepared, signed by the trust and filed.?ÿ
About 6 months later the family's attorney called and berated me for preparing the access easement (I also carried it to the courthouse and paid for the filing).?ÿ When I asked him what was matter with that, all he could tell me was "you just can't go and?ÿdo that sort of thing".?ÿ?ÿ I humorously asked him "why not?" and he was unable to give me a solid answer.?ÿ I told him the only thing wrong with it was that he didn't get a chance to get his skinners on some lofty legal fees.?ÿ He eventually hung up on me. (paden-1, attorney-0) ?ÿ
Later the client apologized to me and agreed his attorney was only mad because he didn't get to run up a fat bill.
?ÿ
If possible I would get that area put on the deed. This kind of issue could stop a bank's title insurer from issuing a policy and mess up a sale.
John did a great job on this. I agree there is an easement. I dont agree there is a boundary by acquiescence. You have testimony that the adjacent owner let them use the land, not that they both treated the limits of the easement as the boundary.?ÿ
Looks like the deal is going to fail. The current owners refused to get the easement from the adjoiner. I prepared a plat and we wrote up an easement, and I thought that was settled.
The owners have been very difficult...I was asked to look at a bulging wall in the detached garage, when we told them I wanted to look at it they threatened us with trespass if we went over there. Then we insisted they hire an engineer to evaluate it, which they did. When they found out I talked to the engineer (his name and phone number were on the report), she apparently refused to pay him. I did finally go over and see the wall one night when she met me there.?ÿ
It wasn't easy getting that done...I left home at 4:30 AM yesterday and arrived in Argentina at midnight.?ÿ
I met the other adjoiner, real nice guy, he said he wanted to buy it, but they could not agree on price (she wouldn't come down). When he declined she got mad and told him if he goes on the property he will be charged with trespassing.?ÿ
And the local surveyor I talked to on Wednesday night told me there have been issues with the sewer line overflowing and popping manhole lids after heavy rains (we had a severe rain event this summer that caused a lot of local flooding) in that area. He wasn't real sure where but the house is near the junction with a major trunk line along a stream so I would assume it is as full as it can get in that area. But that is a relatively common problem around here, it may have been fixed.?ÿ
So my daughter decided not to go through with it. Lesson learned. She is out some money for appraisal and home inspection, but not a large amount. I did not want to influence her decision, she decided on her own this afternoon to cancel the deal after hearing that the sellers wanted no part of this solution. Actually, I was a bit surprised that the lawyers wrote it up as between the sellers and the adjoiner and not her, but I guess you cannot get an easement for something you don't own yet, and the lender wanted it done before closing.?ÿ
It wasn't easy getting that done...I did the survey on Wednesday afternoon, then left the next morning at 4:30 AM and arrived in Argentina near midnight after a very long 2 stop flight.?ÿ
Congratulations dad! ?ÿAnother deal killed. ?ÿSurveyors rule.
Deal was done! We changed the easement to be between her (my daughter) and the adjoiner, and it was signed 30 minutes before closing with a "mobile notary" who came to the neighbor's house. The only thing the neightbor asked for (very nice older woman) was that she change the fence.?ÿ?ÿ
It turns out she didn't like them either. Last year she on a snow day she pulled in to that drive (that is on her property) and the guy came out an told her to get off of his property!
The sellers were very hostile, we were in separate rooms at closing and never saw them (at their request)
How strange, being nasty to the people buying the house you have up for sale.?ÿ
Takes all kinds I guess.?ÿ
