For JB
> The only other question is with respect to the BLA. As stated the boundary was established in 1983. So even though the establishment had occured 19 or 20 years earlier than the surveyor discovered the fact is it neccesary or just a good idea to file a BLA? Is the recording an insurance policy so to speak for both the surveyor and the owners that the 1983 agreement is still recognized?
>
As we all can attest, the passage of time always results in a fading of the evidence. That's why the 20-year implied agreement doctrine exists. After 20 years, any recollection of the oral agreement fades to the point of oblivion. The reason for the BLA document is not for the current owners to enter a new agreement, but to mutually recognize that the BLA had already occurred. The owner affidavits are a way of documenting the evidence of the agreement and perpetuating it in the title record for the sake of posterity. Any future owner reading the evidence contained in the affidavit would not only have the actual notice of the agreement on the ground in the form of the fence, they would have constructive notice of the agreement as well. The written agreement will survive the test of time where evidence of the oral agreement will fade with time. I believe you are correct that the recorded BLA will benefit both the future surveyor as well as the future owners.
> Two comments:
> 1) I thought the question about would you survey the lot line was a little misleading. I would have answered yes. The lot line and the fence line have been one line since 1983. If the lot line is not the fence it (the fence) wouldn't be the boundary would it?
>
Correct. There are a number of cases which address the disconnect between the agreement and the written deed (in this case, the plat). The agreement, in effect, reaches back in time and reforms the written document to reflect the terms of the agreement. When you survey the deed (or in this case, the lot) you are required to locate the boundaries in accordance with the expressed intent of the landowners. When that is done, their expressed agreement (even though oral) trumps the dimensions in the deed (or the plat).
> 2)I think STOPPING is the hardest part for a surveyor. We have been trained to think we have to deliver a plat and set marks after we start measuring.
Agreed. I was trained that it was my duty to document problems and disclose them in a way that "third parties would be protected." It took me a while to figure out how to STOP and to not prepare a final survey at all. Once I figured out the contract clause language and the reason why I was required to STOP, it was easy. Documenting the problem does no benefit to the owners and, most likely, will result in spawning litigation. Now, I just stay in the game all the way to the slam of the gavel if that's what it takes, then I'm there to document the solution.
JBS
For JB
How large are the files. I might could post them. Send them over.
For JB
"In Utah, the boundary agreement."
Yeah you got that right. It's not a boundary line agreement. The court calls it boundary by agreement.
So did the recorder update their maps to show the established boundary. Will a title company insure? Did you get a call - where are the quit claim deeds. I agree with the process and the work around, but is it really going to fly. How long before they try to legislate this solution out of existence? I'm saving up my ammo for this fight.
File Links Now Available
The files referenced in my original post have been hosted on a new ftp site so you can download them at the following links:
PowerPoint Viewer link to download a free viewer from the official PowerPoint website for those who may not have PowerPoint installed on their computer.
JBS