Speculation is nice but it's not real world.
Since west 1/2 - east 1/2 is so open to interpretation, that fence is going to be way more important than if they had granted the west so-many feet. The fence very well have been what they meant as the dividing line when they split the property. It's kind of close to the half whether you split the north and south lines or divide by area. If the fence predates the conveyance, I'd bet that it's what they meant by the line between the halves. Property owners aren't as concerned about math as we are.
> Speculation is nice but it's not real world.
The black words written in the broad space of a white paper...the gray of the intent....
sometimes what we thought they intended, when reduced to writing...just doesn't match what they did or are doing...
the question is...who can define the boundary?...
I'd bet no matter what the Surveyor's opinion, the owner's, in agreement, would trump.
DDSM
(tgif)
How long is the line? How straight is the fence?
What are we looking at here a little over a degree and a half?
How much variance are you dealing with on the original 100 Acres other property lines?
How well does the fence corner that is 60 feet off fit into the original line of the 100 Acres? is the remainder of the property fenced? How well do those fences of the original 100 Acres fit? So many ways to look at this. We can't, as surveyors just blindly use numbers to encourage us to make bad decisions. Do the fences, if built entirely around both parcels match the fence dividing the 100 Acres, in age and type? Is there ANY evidence anybody meant for the corner to be 60 feet from the fence. Other than the math?
How many other fences of convenience cross through the porperties? Is there any other obvious purpose for this fence other than it being built on the property line?
How well did the original 100 Acres fit on the ground?
It would amaze me that some laymen built a fence for lets say 2000 feet and got within 60 feet of the 'by numbers' boundary line. Especially through the woods. What is the terrain like. Was is impossible to built the fence on the 'true' line as you believe to be. Was it more difficult to build this fence where it is than it would have been to build it on the 'true' line as the math places it?
So many things to look at and ask yourself.
Is the fence being that close just supposed to be called 'dumb luck'. Then a surveyor comes in, decides a judge needs to make the decision so everybody lawyers up and the battle begins.
I can't make a decison on this one as I am not there but rest assured I would and I wouldn't leave my clients hanging on 'we'll have to take it to court for a judge to decide. Better lawyer up.'
More than likely you would ask your client about the fence, but at this point there is nowhere near enough information.
I'm not pointing my comments at any individual surveyor. I'm not even questioning Franks decision what ever it may be. He is there I am not.
I'm just throwing out there what I do when faced with this type of situation.
If somebody built a fence down a rock cliff when they could have more easily built it 60 feet away up a nice slope then something in my brain tells me this fence is more important. Even if the math doesn't quite work out.
If we want to be treated as Professionals then we need to make those 'tough' Professional decisions and not lay the decision at the feet of the judge. Though a judge and lawyers may end up involved, first and foremost a Professional should attempt to solve the matter without the court system.
Agreed
Agreed. You are speculating. Do you, definitively, know what was meant by east half, west half?
How then, when there is ambiguity in the deed, do you throw out the fence which may help explain the ambiguity?
If this were in Texas (which it isn't)
> Question: Will this fence hold as an adverse possession fence? Why or why not?
>
> (Fence was in position at time of the division of the 100-acres.)
> 30-year adverse possession applies in Louisiana where this occurred.
Frank, I realize that your situation is in the State Where Everything is Different, Including the Coffee, but from a Texas perspective, one essential problem would be proving that what had been a casual fence under the facts you submitted had somehow acquired a new status since the partition. As a mere casual fence, any claim of adverse possession would, to begin with, have to rely upon some other use to put the record owner on notice of an adverse claim. Otherwise, without the record owner having notice of the claim, it would most likely fail the test of possession required by any of the Texas statutes on adverse possession.
If this were in Texas (which it isn't)
vive la différence!
If this were in Texas (which it isn't)
> vive la différence
Yes, the world chicory market is safe from any Texas buyers I know driving up the price.
It would, by the way, be interesting to know what exactly the Looziana adverse possession limitation statutes provide, though.
Another storm in a tea cup. Monument the two parcels according to the description. Show the fence on the survey. Get paid. Move on .
Monument the two parcels according to the description
Which one? Are you holding the acreage half, or the distance half? How do you know which is correct from the data provided? As posted originally, there is ambiguity in the description. So how then are you going to monument it?
> Monument the two parcels according to the description
>
> Which one? Are you holding the acreage half, or the distance half? How do you know which is correct from the data provided? As posted originally, there is ambiguity in the description. So how then are you going to monument it?
What do you mean? Which one?
The OP specifically stated....Surveyor surveys the land and has no problem delineating the east half and the west half of the original tract, and he sets corners on the divding line.
However, he finds a fence that has existed for at least 60 years that does not run down the dividing line.
So..he finds a fence not on the line he is able to monument with no difficulty..so, whats the big deal? There is no ambiguity in the retracement of the 100 acres.
> As posted originally, there is ambiguity in the description
Wrong. That was never said in the OP.
A half description presumes half of the area. The boundary does not have to be straight or a single segment but the areas have to be equal. This is why half descriptions are patently ambiguous.
A Land Surveyor walked out onto the land after 40 years and essentially proposed an implementation of a scheme to effect the two haves; that is run a line up the middle. The trouble is this is only one of an infinite number of ways to make a west half and an east half.
The fence is only a fence absent other information but it could be the established boundary between the halves.
No one on earth can perfectly split the land into two perfectly equal halves; obviously a land surveyor with modern technology should be able to get close. Property owners attempting to do it themselves would probably be a lot less accurate.
Wrong Paul
They divide the land in half--east half and west half, without a survey, giving each 50 acres, more or less.
Reading that, tell me: Is east half and west half a call for half by acreage or by distance?
Answer, you cannot tell definitively. That is the whole point. IF he found a fence within 60' of his mathematical calculation on the back and almost perfect on the front, you gotta ask what if they meant half the other way!
I understand you live in CA, where a fence will actually last 60 years without upkeep. But that ain't gonna happen in the south. If that fence is still around after 60 years, it is because someone has kept it up. We are talking humid region. Wood would decompose and wire would rust out. No, as a southern surveyor, every alarm that I know says that something is missing. What if that east west was intended to be distance and he divided by the equal area. Around here rectangular tracts are not always perfectly rectangular. Until you have evidence- which he may have and just did not want to post- to take one reading over the other, you cannot monument. And the fact that the fence is still bothering him makes me think he is worried that his interpretation was incorrect.
Wrong Paul
> They divide the land in half--east half and west half, without a survey, giving each 50 acres, more or less.
>
> Reading that, tell me: Is east half and west half a call for half by acreage or by distance?
>
Tell you? what for? It's not my survey, it's Franks. Let him deal with that.
FWIW any line that divides an area into equal areas is a half line. That was on my LSIT test.
If you want to start making up survey problems, at least make one up that is at least somewhat interesting.
Wrong Paul
Paul,
I am not making up problems. Around these parts, you have to follow how it was done. The land owners would have pulled half the distance as they knew it. Because they do not have fancy calcumalators like you do to tell them they are 0.1574 of an acre off where you are setting it. The math does not hold over the intention. They knew they should have XXXX distance and then they would have cut the distance in half and pulled a tape measure out and measured the distance themselves. Have you ever pulled a long distance in timberland? 60' off is pretty darned close!
Sorry to rock your mathemagically perfect world.
Georgia
> Paul,
>
> I am not making up problems.
>Around these parts, you have to follow how it was done.
I'm not in those parts...Thank God for that!
>The land owners would have pulled half the distance as they knew it.
Pure speculation on your part.
>Because they do not have fancy calcumalators like you do to tell them they are 0.1574 of an acre off where you are setting it.
Now where the hell did you dig that up from??
> Sorry to rock your mathemagically perfect world.
Another off the wall statement.
Wasn't Wattles a Californian?!
Funny, he does not see it the way you do! Guess he would just have had to failed the LSIT!
From Wattles Writing Legal Descriptions in conjunction with survey boundary control, page 7.24
"Private lands- there are no rules establishing the position of the line between halves if the dividing line is not delineated.
a. If the description is, "E 1/2 of Lot...." with no delineation of the position of the line between halves, the position of the line is indeterminate"
AS such, the comment that the surveyor had no problem delineating is an assumption.