Parcel A senior deed has original rod-link description of 6R 8L (104.28') along frontage. Abutting Parcel B junior deed has a call of 110' more or less. In the chain of title of Parcel A call of 6R 8L changes to 100' more or less which is carried forward to current deed. No change in Parcel B description. There is a pipe at the 100' call. No other signs of possession.
Hold the frontage of 104.28' or the pipe at 100'.
I attached a sketch.
I have completed the survey just curious as to other opinions. My guess is some attorney calculated 6R 8L to be 100'. BTW there are no other conveyances between parcels.
Hack
Hold the pipe. All calls are more or less, and the current calls are in harmony. The original R-L call is somewhat inexact, you don't know what rod was used. 16.5' is standard, but not necessarily what was used.
What, if anything, is on the SW corner of W'ly parcel? (Assuming N is up on sketch)
JPH, post: 412878, member: 6636 wrote: Hold the pipe. All calls are more or less, and the current calls are in harmony. The original R-L call is somewhat inexact, you don't know what rod was used. 16.5' is standard, but not necessarily what was used.
No. The original R-L call is not more or less. There are other calls which point to the standard of 16.5' being correct.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 412880, member: 315 wrote: What, if anything, is on the SW corner of W'ly parcel? (Assuming N is up on sketch)
A fence line. 114' from IP
So, the pipe @ 100' is uncalled for, there's no occupation on the division line, and there's sufficient room to give both parcels what the originating deeds nominally called for?
I'd set my own pipe at 104.28/110 and cite the original 6R8L deed. I'd also show the found uncalled for stake.
Field pic's along the frontage would help me. Hard to believe no occupation along either line (100' or 104.28') since 1881, 82, 92.
I tend to agree with the Sarge.
Unless you have some evidence of the origin of the pipe, like an old survey.
The 100' eleven years after the original deed is slightly bothersome, though. It does say more or less indicating some scrivener was unsure of his arithmetic. New England States may be more inclined to hold uncalled for monuments, though, at least Mass appears to. I haven't fully researched that but I do have the digests for all fifty states under boundaries.
back-chain, post: 412886, member: 7900 wrote: Field pic's along the frontage would help me. Hard to believe no occupation along either line (100' or 104.28') since 1881, 82, 92.
Are you doubting my integrity good sir?
Dave Karoly, post: 412887, member: 94 wrote: I tend to agree with the Sarge.
Unless you have some evidence of the origin of the pipe, like an old survey.
The 100' eleven years after the original deed is slightly bothersome, though. It does say more or less indicating some scrivener was unsure of his arithmetic. New England States may be more inclined to hold uncalled for monuments, though, at least Mass appears to. I haven't fully researched that but I do have the digests for all fifty states under boundaries.
Yes Dave it was bothersome to me as well. I had two people independently grantor/grantee for a conveyance and found nothing.
Not sure why you say NE holds uncalled for monuments more frequently.
What do you mean by "digests"?
BTW I am a huge lurker here and I enjoy your posts. Well thought out.
Hack, post: 412889, member: 708 wrote: Are you doubting my integrity good sir?
Consider that most of us don't know each other, and that many of us have seen other surveyors who, perhaps, assume evidence to be useless that we would use as strong proof. I would think we could have differences in opinions without assuming someone is berating your integrity.
Also, I agree Dave has some of the best posts on here. Definitely someone I have learned from.
Hack, post: 412891, member: 708 wrote: Yes Dave it was bothersome to me as well. I had two people independently grantor/grantee for a conveyance and found nothing.
Not sure why you say NE holds uncalled for monuments more frequently.
What do you mean by "digests"?
BTW I am a huge lurker here and I enjoy your posts. Well thought out.
A digest is a series of case headnotes published under an outline so you can find cases that talk about similar principles, such as the monument rule. Headnotes are short statements of a rule of law by the case or how the case applied the rule to a set of facts. Reading through the Mass monument cases my impression was there were more cases than not that the Justice's opinion wasn't concerned that the monument was uncalled for than I'm used to seeing in western states which are more strict but make up for it by being looser on establishment doctrines. Northeastern states seem to treat acquiescence more as evidence of the original boundary. I think 400 years of history would tend to erase a lot of legitimate evidence and memories and you have more of a culture of having surveyed every conveyance where in the west most new conveyances were not necessarily surveyed (aliquots and the prevelance of "of" type descriptions).
Which state is this in?
Hack, post: 412889, member: 708 wrote: Are you doubting my integrity good sir?
[SARCASM]Absolutely[/SARCASM] 🙂
Seriously, though: I haven't seen where you stated that no occupation exists. I did read Sarge's statement; however, I have reread and still don't see where that comes from (but, it's been a long, 2-day week so far). Just hard for me to say without actually walking/ sighting the line.
How do the lines fall to the rear?
Tom Adams, post: 412892, member: 7285 wrote: Consider that most of us don't know each other, and that many of us have seen other surveyors who, perhaps, assume evidence to be useless that we would use as strong proof. I would think we could have differences in opinions without assuming someone is berating your integrity.
Also, I agree Dave has some of the best posts on here. Definitely someone I have learned from.
EZ Tom it was in jest.
Dave Karoly, post: 412893, member: 94 wrote: A digest is a series of case headnotes published under an outline so you can find cases that talk about similar principles, such as the monument rule. Headnotes are short statements of a rule of law by the case or how the case applied the rule to a set of facts. Reading through the Mass monument cases my impression was there were more cases than not that the Justice's opinion wasn't concerned that the monument was uncalled for than I'm used to seeing in western states which are more strict but make up for it by being looser on establishment doctrines. Northeastern states seem to treat acquiescence more as evidence of the original boundary. I think 400 years of history would tend to erase a lot of legitimate evidence and memories and you have more of a culture of having surveyed every conveyance where in the west most new conveyances were not necessarily surveyed (aliquots and the prevelance of "of" type descriptions).
Which state is this in?
Massachusetts. Are the digests readily available?
Hack, post: 412898, member: 708 wrote: EZ Tom it was in jest.
Sorry Hack. Just thought I would point that out just in case. Some people get offended if someone wants to see for themselves. I didn't think I sounded excited.
back-chain, post: 412895, member: 7900 wrote: [SARCASM]Absolutely[/SARCASM] 🙂
Seriously, though: I haven't seen where you stated that no occupation exists. I did read Sarge's statement; however, I have reread and still don't see where that comes from (but, it's been a long, 2-day week so far). Just hard for me to say without actually walking/ sighting the line.
How do the lines fall to the rear?
Good question. Both lots are long and narrow. Approximately 700' deep. On both sides of the easterly lot there are rows of cherry trees. Holding either the pipe or the 104.28' has little effect as the trees start 300' or so back.
I have to say. In the final analysis I did agree with Sarge. My client was the easterly senior parcel. I had a good survey on the easterly line. I could put my original senior description on the ground very easily. The junior parcel called for my property as a record monument. The iron pipe is an uncalled for monument. The real question to IMHO is whether there has been an unwritten conveyance over the years in that strip. Based on the lack of any concrete adverse possession such as fencing etc. I don't think so. Of course I will advise my client that that possibility is out there. As to acquiescence I don't believe the described location to be in doubt.
The more interesting question is what would we all do if there was a fence and possession. What would you show on a boundary plan? How would you answer your client's question "where is my boundary"?
I've seen cases where a scrivener tried to fix some condition (like a shortage of frontage) by merely changing the description of a subsequent deed, ignoring the fact that title to the affected area (4.28' in your case) is left uncertain. In your case there appears to be no explanation for the change, so short of finding the explanation, I'd be leaning towards the full 6 rods and 8 links. I can imagine the 8 links getting left off a description, or a deed author not being clear on the concept of links, both of which leave 99 feet, which may be the origin of the 100' more or less that you see.
It always amazes me the crappy condition that some land title is in, while owners think they own exactly what the deed numbers say.
Hack, post: 412900, member: 708 wrote: Massachusetts. Are the digests readily available?
Yes, at a Law Library.
Give me your e-mail in a private message and I'll send you what I have.
59 BOUNDARIES 591
59I Description 408
59 3 Relative Importance of Conflicting Elements 115
59 3(3) Control of natural objects and monuments over other elements in general. 55
24. Ouellette v. McInerney
Land Court of Massachusetts, Department of the Trial Court, Middlesex County. January 26, 2011 Not
Reported in N.E.2d
Headnote: Two iron bars located on a property in the vicinity of where an original conveyance described monuments were placed to indicate the corners of a plot supported the conclusion that a survey using the bars as corners was correct. Lot owner and neighbor disputed the boundaries of the lot. Original conveyance stated that one corner was marked by a stake and stone and ran 200 feet east to an iron pipe. Lot owner put forth a survey which used two iron bars as corner markers of the property which were generally consistent with the distance the original conveyance stated was between two monuments. The survey provided by the neighbor indicated a different border using the distances set forth in the conveyance. However, where the monuments and distances differed, the monuments controlled the border.
Document Summary: The parties to this case are neighbors in Pepperell who cannot agree on the boundary line between their properties. The plaintiffs are Peter and Catherine Ouellette who live at 44 Wheeler Street, and the defendant is John McInerney who lives at 46 Wheeler Street and whose land borders the Ouellettes' on two sides-roughly speaking, its east and south. A trial was held before me, jury-waived. The Ouellettes were represented by counsel. Mr. McInerney represented himself, pro se. The Ouellettes had a survey performed and their surveyor (David Aho) testified at trial. Mr. McInerney relied on an old survey and his expert witness (who neither visited nor surveyed the properties himself) simply testified to his interpretation of that older one. Both the Ouellette and McInerney properties were once part of a larger parcel owned by Duane McDuffee, from whom the critical property descriptions originated. As more fully set forth below, based on those descriptions and the markers found at the...
Seems as if the parcels would remain in harmony with either call but, I believe there would be an error in location using the modern distance (110'). Go with the original calls. Like Sarge, cite the uncalled pipe and give a good narrative on the face of the plat.