Boundary question

Unless there's some ambiguity in the map dimensions that require extrinsic evidence to resolve, I'd hold the map monuments and  dimensions.  It's *probably* not a coincidence that the streams appear to align with the lot boundaries, but if the subdivider intended the stream locations to be paramount he would/should have stated as much on the plat.  Stay within the four corners of the plat unless conditions necessitate going outside.

Agree with Jim's opinion.

Thanks!

Does the plat have a written description and Certificate of Owners? If that description uses the same dimensions and calls it the river you have your answer. You can also go to the deed for the parcel being subdivided. If this is a riparian state then it's likely 'once riparian, always riparian'. The owner cannot separate the lands from the river without an express reservation.

I agree with the general principle of staying within a document. The coincidence of being nearly the same location is not ambiguity in and of itself. Tracing the source deed for the subdivision is not out of line, especially if the actions of the owners introduce ambiguity.

Does the plat have a written description and Certificate of Owners? If that description uses the same dimensions and calls it the river you have your answer. You can also go to the deed for the parcel being subdivided. If this is a riparian state then it's likely 'once riparian, always riparian'. The owner cannot separate the lands from the river without an express reservation.

I agree with the general principle of staying within a document. The coincidence of being nearly the same location is not ambiguity in and of itself. Tracing the source deed for the subdivision is not out of line, especially if the actions of the owners introduce ambiguity.

Need to do more work than just compare a couple documents.  Are there monuments out there?  Are people occupying to the stream?  Do the people think they own to the stream?  Is the stream even there anymore?

These are streams,  or more commonly branches in local parlance.  My guess is the North and West end are springs, or used to be.  Field work to come. 

It certainly looks like the streams influenced the lot layout, but nothing says whether they intended to split the stream or to follow a meander along the bank on one side or the other and for all or just part of the line.

That's what I saw, Bill93.  Abiguity.  What we try not to create....

I wonder what the conversation would be without the original plat ?

The subdivision plat actually does call out "branch" further down the channel, away from my area of interest.  If not for that, I probably wouldn't have asked the question....

Thanks all for the input!

The subdivision plat actually does call out "branch" further down the channel, away from my area of interest. 

Could you post a pic of that section of the plat?

That note seems to be going back to Jim's statement of

but if the subdivider intended the stream locations to be paramount he would/should have stated as much on the plat.

That note, the way the lines (Lot 3/4 and Lot 5/6) appear to run with the older map branch before becoming a straight line to the road, and what appears to be a witness pin set at the eastern end of the Lot 4/5 line all look like the intention was center of the branch to me.

Here you go.  There is no linework that looks like a stream, and no differentiation from other lot lines on the plat.  The c/l branch label is split on two line segments that are both over seventy feet in length.  Natural channels in this neck of the woods are very rarely straight for that length.

Based on the subdivision lines being monumented and defined by bearings and distances with the streamlines being totally ignored on the subdivision plan I would completely ignore them.  If the streamlines were meant to be held, they would have been shown with a notation to indicate the original intent to follow those lines as natural movements.