I don't follow the 1892 deed call of out 100'? Was it not passing full title to said lot?
You do not state which state you are in. You could be in a race notice state meaning the deed dates of 1881 and 1882 could be overcome by deed filing dates.
Paul in PA
Senior description is going to hold for distance, only questions is where does it fall.
Is the pipe of the same age/character as other pipes in the vicinity indicating they may have been set by the original surveyor?
my quick impression is to work the 104.28 from the pipe you found and see what turns up. Also possible the pipe and the corner you created are both wrong, original corner was probably a wood stake and the pipe followed later, need to check it's pedigree.
Jim
Hack, post: 412875, member: 708 wrote: 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
Does B have 110 more or less if you hold the pipe? I would go with the pipe depending on seeing it and other circumstances. But definitely lean toward the pipe with given information. Most of New England it's a legal presumption the property was surveyed and people took title with a view of the premises. Nothing in your post is evidence against the presumption, but rather supports it.
Duane Frymire, post: 412927, member: 110 wrote: I would go with the pipe
So, given that holding the (uncalled for) pipe would short the senior original conveyance by 4'+, and enlarge the junior conveyance by 4'å±, even though there's adequate frontage for everybody to get what was originally called for, you'd hold the uncalled-for pipe? Really?
Also, not sure if the presumption of survey holds in NY, but if it does, all those parcels I absolutely know (from first hand knowledge) were laid out by a farmer and his bro-in-law with a rag tape on Sunday afternoon, didn't get the memo.
I agree with Sarge also.
Just wondering why the West boundary is at the exact distance.
Hack, post: 412875, member: 708 wrote: 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.
You have a current vesting deed which agrees with found monumentation. If I were presented with this survey I'm not sure why I would be running a chain of title. So I'd likely be ignorant of the earlier 6R 8L call and hold the 100'.
Also, it is possible that there may have been some property line adjustment deed that has been lost. But that is speculation.
Mark Mayer, post: 412955, member: 424 wrote: You have a current vesting deed which agrees with found monumentation. If I were presented with this survey I'm not sure why I would be running a chain of title. So I'd likely be ignorant of the earlier 6R 8L call and hold the 100'.
I can't speak for New York or Massachusetts; but in Maryland if you make a habit of holding the description in the current vesting deed over the original description from when the parcel was created you'd better invest in a nice collection of suits, because you're going to be spending a lot more time in court than in the field.
In ruling that the 1809 deed had priority over all subsequent deeds, including the Jay & Silver railroad deeds of 1883 that had recognized the boundary line to be the center of the lane, the trial judge found:
[INDENT]The 1809 deed clearly calls for a 72 perch line. Since the second stone cannot be found, the next strongest measurement for a surveyor to use is the distance line. As a result, it is almost irrelevant whether or not the second stone can be found or for that matter, when the road first appeared, because 72 perches equals 1,188 feet. Therefore, the Plaintiff's easterly boundary line ends on the west side of the farm lane.
Appellant Barchowsky takes issue with the court's premise of using the distance line as the strongest measurement because of the inability of surveyors to locate the second boundary stone. She asseverates that the trial judge should have first conducted an analysis of existing evidence to determine whether the position of the monument could be located with reasonable certainty before relying on a distance call.[/INDENT]
The Coateses argue, on the other hand, that, since the original deed of 1809 clearly stated the course and distance (72 perches) from the still existing stone as the easterly boundary of the Jay tract, there is no need to refer to subsequent instruments in the chain of title of either parcel. While recognizing that the railroad right-of-way recorded subsequent to the original deed described the boundary of each parcel as being the center of the lane, they argue that such deeds executed subsequent to the 1809 deed could not establish or alter the location of the easterly boundary lane of the Jay-Barchowsky parcel.
In Ski Roundtop v. Wagerman, 79 Md. App. 357, 556 A.2d 1144 (1989), we held that subsequent deeds do not control the location of a boundary, and stated that a mistake in later instruments will not change the true boundary established by the earlier instrument in the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel. Writing on our behalf, Judge Alpert looked to the original land patent to determine the location of the disputed boundary and observed:
[INDENT]Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining landowner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Id. at 365, 556 A.2d 1144.[/INDENT]
As subsequent deeds may incorrectly reflect the intent of the original parties, we adhere to the longstanding rule that, in the absence of estoppel, a prior deed takes precedence over a subsequent deed in a dispute arising as to the boundary lines between adjoining tracts. Bryan's Lessee v. Harvey, 18 Md. 113 (1861).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893724945475427658&q=Barchowsky+vs.+Silver+Farms&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21
Paul in PA, post: 412920, member: 236 wrote: I don't follow the 1892 deed call of out 100'? Was it not passing full title to said lot?
You do not state which state you are in. You could be in a race notice state meaning the deed dates of 1881 and 1882 could be overcome by deed filing dates.
Paul in PA
Those are recording dates paul.
Duane Frymire, post: 412927, member: 110 wrote: Does B have 110 more or less if you hold the pipe? I would go with the pipe depending on seeing it and other circumstances. But definitely lean toward the pipe with given information. Most of New England it's a legal presumption the property was surveyed and people took title with a view of the premises. Nothing in your post is evidence against the presumption, but rather supports it.
Sorry Duane I don't agree with your legal presumption.
Mark Mayer, post: 412955, member: 424 wrote: You have a current vesting deed which agrees with found monumentation. If I were presented with this survey I'm not sure why I would be running a chain of title. So I'd likely be ignorant of the earlier 6R 8L call and hold the 100'.
Also, it is possible that there may have been some property line adjustment deed that has been lost. But that is speculation.
Mark
We always try to get our title back to the original description of the boundary. Often in New England we'll find someone got lazy, dropped metes and bounds and simply called for abutters.
James Fleming, post: 412999, member: 136 wrote: I can't speak for New York or Massachusetts; but in Maryland if you make a habit of holding the description in the current vesting deed over the original description from when the parcel was created you'd better invest in a nice collection of suits, because you're going to be spending a lot more time in court than in the field.
In ruling that the 1809 deed had priority over all subsequent deeds, including the Jay & Silver railroad deeds of 1883 that had recognized the boundary line to be the center of the lane, the trial judge found:
[INDENT]The 1809 deed clearly calls for a 72 perch line. Since the second stone cannot be found, the next strongest measurement for a surveyor to use is the distance line. As a result, it is almost irrelevant whether or not the second stone can be found or for that matter, when the road first appeared, because 72 perches equals 1,188 feet. Therefore, the Plaintiff's easterly boundary line ends on the west side of the farm lane.
Appellant Barchowsky takes issue with the court's premise of using the distance line as the strongest measurement because of the inability of surveyors to locate the second boundary stone. She asseverates that the trial judge should have first conducted an analysis of existing evidence to determine whether the position of the monument could be located with reasonable certainty before relying on a distance call.[/INDENT]
The Coateses argue, on the other hand, that, since the original deed of 1809 clearly stated the course and distance (72 perches) from the still existing stone as the easterly boundary of the Jay tract, there is no need to refer to subsequent instruments in the chain of title of either parcel. While recognizing that the railroad right-of-way recorded subsequent to the original deed described the boundary of each parcel as being the center of the lane, they argue that such deeds executed subsequent to the 1809 deed could not establish or alter the location of the easterly boundary lane of the Jay-Barchowsky parcel.In Ski Roundtop v. Wagerman, 79 Md. App. 357, 556 A.2d 1144 (1989), we held that subsequent deeds do not control the location of a boundary, and stated that a mistake in later instruments will not change the true boundary established by the earlier instrument in the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel. Writing on our behalf, Judge Alpert looked to the original land patent to determine the location of the disputed boundary and observed:
[INDENT]Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining landowner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Id. at 365, 556 A.2d 1144.[/INDENT]As subsequent deeds may incorrectly reflect the intent of the original parties, we adhere to the longstanding rule that, in the absence of estoppel, a prior deed takes precedence over a subsequent deed in a dispute arising as to the boundary lines between adjoining tracts. Bryan's Lessee v. Harvey, 18 Md. 113 (1861).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893724945475427658&q=Barchowsky+vs.+Silver+Farms&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21
Perfect case James. I couldn't agree more.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 412932, member: 315 wrote: So, given that holding the (uncalled for) pipe would short the senior original conveyance by 4'+, and enlarge the junior conveyance by 4'å±, even though there's adequate frontage for everybody to get what was originally called for, you'd hold the uncalled-for pipe? Really?
Also, not sure if the presumption of survey holds in NY, but if it does, all those parcels I absolutely know (from first hand knowledge) were laid out by a farmer and his bro-in-law with a rag tape on Sunday afternoon, didn't get the memo.
As far as I can tell from the post, this is a retracement survey rather than an original. The exercise is in determining where the boundaries were marked, by rag tape or otherwise. Show me evidence that the boundary was marked somewhere else, or not marked and relied on, then I'm with you. But the fact is the original description is in chains and links. Heck, I routinely follow a surveyor whose work with tape and transit in the 1970's has pipes that are out 1-5 feet with an occasional outlier of 10 feet. There are surveyors who will reject all these and set new ones. I can't find anything in legal decisions to support that practice. It is suspicious that the description changed and a pipe is found at the new description location, but I would want more information before I rejected it.
Hack, post: 413005, member: 708 wrote: Sorry Duane I don't agree with your legal presumption.
Not my legal presumption, the courts come up with these things. I could be your jurisdiction doesn't have that presumption, but that would surprise me as it would go against the general history of land development in the NE.
James Fleming, post: 412999, member: 136 wrote: I can't speak for New York or Massachusetts; but in Maryland if you make a habit of holding the description in the current vesting deed over the original description from when the parcel was created you'd better invest in a nice collection of suits, because you're going to be spending a lot more time in court than in the field.
In ruling that the 1809 deed had priority over all subsequent deeds, including the Jay & Silver railroad deeds of 1883 that had recognized the boundary line to be the center of the lane, the trial judge found:
[INDENT]The 1809 deed clearly calls for a 72 perch line. Since the second stone cannot be found, the next strongest measurement for a surveyor to use is the distance line. As a result, it is almost irrelevant whether or not the second stone can be found or for that matter, when the road first appeared, because 72 perches equals 1,188 feet. Therefore, the Plaintiff's easterly boundary line ends on the west side of the farm lane.
Appellant Barchowsky takes issue with the court's premise of using the distance line as the strongest measurement because of the inability of surveyors to locate the second boundary stone. She asseverates that the trial judge should have first conducted an analysis of existing evidence to determine whether the position of the monument could be located with reasonable certainty before relying on a distance call.[/INDENT]
The Coateses argue, on the other hand, that, since the original deed of 1809 clearly stated the course and distance (72 perches) from the still existing stone as the easterly boundary of the Jay tract, there is no need to refer to subsequent instruments in the chain of title of either parcel. While recognizing that the railroad right-of-way recorded subsequent to the original deed described the boundary of each parcel as being the center of the lane, they argue that such deeds executed subsequent to the 1809 deed could not establish or alter the location of the easterly boundary lane of the Jay-Barchowsky parcel.In Ski Roundtop v. Wagerman, 79 Md. App. 357, 556 A.2d 1144 (1989), we held that subsequent deeds do not control the location of a boundary, and stated that a mistake in later instruments will not change the true boundary established by the earlier instrument in the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel. Writing on our behalf, Judge Alpert looked to the original land patent to determine the location of the disputed boundary and observed:
[INDENT]Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining landowner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Id. at 365, 556 A.2d 1144.[/INDENT]As subsequent deeds may incorrectly reflect the intent of the original parties, we adhere to the longstanding rule that, in the absence of estoppel, a prior deed takes precedence over a subsequent deed in a dispute arising as to the boundary lines between adjoining tracts. Bryan's Lessee v. Harvey, 18 Md. 113 (1861).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893724945475427658&q=Barchowsky+vs.+Silver+Farms&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21
Yes, I think that would be true in most jurisdictions, certainly in NY.
Hack, post: 413006, member: 708 wrote: ....We always try to get our title back to the original description of the boundary.
James Fleming, post: 412999, member: 136 wrote: ...in Maryland if you make a habit of holding the description in the current vesting deed over the original description from when the parcel was created you'd better invest in a nice collection of suits...
I think that it is great that you always run a chain of title. I'm just saying that it's not a common practice in my area. And the NSPS Model Standards of Practice for Property Surveys seems to support that:
[INDENT]"The Surveyor in conducting a property survey shall:
1. Execute a survey based on the legal description of the parcel or tract taken from the last deed of record as provided by the client. ..."[/INDENT]
Duane Frymire, post: 413013, member: 110 wrote: Not my legal presumption, the courts come up with these things. I could be your jurisdiction doesn't have that presumption, but that would surprise me as it would go against the general history of land development in the NE.
I guess I'm confused by your statement. Seems to me that you are saying that the pipe should be held.
Mark Mayer, post: 413018, member: 424 wrote: I think that it is great that you always run a chain of title. I'm just saying that it's not a common practice in my area. And the NSPS Model Standards of Practice for Property Surveys seems to support that:
[INDENT]"The Surveyor in conducting a property survey shall:
1. Execute a survey based on the legal description of the parcel or tract taken from the last deed of record as provided by the client. ..."[/INDENT]
I would hazard to guess that the current deed description is different than the original in the majority of cases here. It is seldom we are not back into the 1800s. I look at the current deed as a starting point. I think if you polled the Mass and NH guys here most would agree.
If you hold a current description that does not match the original, aren't you "creating" a gap?
Duane Frymire, post: 413012, member: 110 wrote: I would want more information before I rejected it.
Much like the questions in the exam I took to become licensed, I made a decision based on the information provided. I stand by it.
I really don't follow your reasoning in holding an uncalled-for monument that gives a junior parcel 4'+ of the adjoining senior parcel........
[SARCASM]Ich weiÌÙ nichts[/SARCASM]
James Fleming, post: 412999, member: 136 wrote: I can't speak for New York or Massachusetts; but in Maryland if you make a habit of holding the description in the current vesting deed over the original description from when the parcel was created you'd better invest in a nice collection of suits, because you're going to be spending a lot more time in court than in the field.
In ruling that the 1809 deed had priority over all subsequent deeds, including the Jay & Silver railroad deeds of 1883 that had recognized the boundary line to be the center of the lane, the trial judge found:
[INDENT]The 1809 deed clearly calls for a 72 perch line. Since the second stone cannot be found, the next strongest measurement for a surveyor to use is the distance line. As a result, it is almost irrelevant whether or not the second stone can be found or for that matter, when the road first appeared, because 72 perches equals 1,188 feet. Therefore, the Plaintiff's easterly boundary line ends on the west side of the farm lane.
Appellant Barchowsky takes issue with the court's premise of using the distance line as the strongest measurement because of the inability of surveyors to locate the second boundary stone. She asseverates that the trial judge should have first conducted an analysis of existing evidence to determine whether the position of the monument could be located with reasonable certainty before relying on a distance call.[/INDENT]
The Coateses argue, on the other hand, that, since the original deed of 1809 clearly stated the course and distance (72 perches) from the still existing stone as the easterly boundary of the Jay tract, there is no need to refer to subsequent instruments in the chain of title of either parcel. While recognizing that the railroad right-of-way recorded subsequent to the original deed described the boundary of each parcel as being the center of the lane, they argue that such deeds executed subsequent to the 1809 deed could not establish or alter the location of the easterly boundary lane of the Jay-Barchowsky parcel.In Ski Roundtop v. Wagerman, 79 Md. App. 357, 556 A.2d 1144 (1989), we held that subsequent deeds do not control the location of a boundary, and stated that a mistake in later instruments will not change the true boundary established by the earlier instrument in the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel. Writing on our behalf, Judge Alpert looked to the original land patent to determine the location of the disputed boundary and observed:
[INDENT]Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining landowner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Id. at 365, 556 A.2d 1144.[/INDENT]As subsequent deeds may incorrectly reflect the intent of the original parties, we adhere to the longstanding rule that, in the absence of estoppel, a prior deed takes precedence over a subsequent deed in a dispute arising as to the boundary lines between adjoining tracts. Bryan's Lessee v. Harvey, 18 Md. 113 (1861).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2893724945475427658&q=Barchowsky+vs.+Silver+Farms&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21
Distinguished by Senez v. Collins, 957 A. 2d 1057 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 2008 on other grounds having to do with the nature of possession in an Adverse Possession case.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Senez+v.+Collins&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=15271701357595304700&scilh=0
