Closing comment in the above case:
"This is a typical case of a neighborhood quarrel over boundary in which counsel for the plaintiffs has displayed a degree of ability and ingenuity worthy of a better case."
He must have found a loop hole no one else noticed
Me. "What's the difference?"
T.C. Carroll "It's the difference between right and wrong!"
"This is a typical case ....."
Typical. Maybe, but the property in dispute has more importance than most garden variety boundary cases. One party needs the 20 ft wide strip for access to a highway. For the other party, the strip divides their land holdings into separate tracks. Rather than a direct access from one track to the other across the 20 ft strip, access can only be had by first going to the highway then reentering the other track.
counsel for the plaintiffs has displayed a degree of ability and ingenuity worthy of a better case."
I don't recall ever seeing an appeal court making a personal comment on an attorney's performance. I think that's inappropriate.
This case highlights two things that should be of interest to surveyors. First, proper form can be very important to a legal proceeding. Although the plaintiffs' brief contained many “propositions of law" that might support their claim, only one identified a possible error of the trial court. Thus, most of the information in the brief was not considered by the court.
Second, the final decision of the Court was based on the intent of the grantor over standard construction of the deeds.
The case linked in the opening of this discussion contains a link to similar cases. Some of which would be interesting to surveyors.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4079419/buell-et-ux-v-mathes-et-ux/related-cases/
I don't recall ever seeing an appeal court making a personal comment on an attorney's performance. I think that's inappropriate.
I've never seen a written decision that had more than half devoted to asking just what was the basis of the appeal.
Lawyers make very little money on boundary cases, so they aren't going to spend a lot of time studying the case law. Most will avoid boundary cases if they can. Firms with multiple attorneys assign the case to the newest most inexperienced attorney. And judges are just lawyers in a robe. Is it any surprise that the results can sometimes be bizarre?
What would help would be a competent surveyor who could guide the attorneys and Court to a reasonable solution. Unfortunately, surveyors are not required to have a formal education in law and most will avoid courts and litigation if they can.
What could go wrong? How bad can it get? One of the similar cases linked above illustrates a disaster at the appeals court level. See Beams v. Werth.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1207387/beams-v-werth/
CliffsNotes - Part One - Beams v. Werth
This case began with two owners who derived their title from a common grantor. Both claimed ownership to a strip along a curved boundary. The first track carved from the original is that now owned by Werth. The Werth track has always been described as follows:
“Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Thirteen (13) south, Range Eighteen (18), west of the 6th P. M., thence east Four Hundred Twenty-six (426) feet along the section line between Sections Twenty-seven (27) and Thirty-four (34), Township Thirteen (13), Range Eighteen (18), thence southwesterly Six Hundred Twenty-four (624) feet along a curve with a radius of Four Hundred Twenty-six (426) feet to intersect the section line between sections Thirty-three (33) and Thirty-four (34), in township Thirteen (13), Range Eighteen (18), four Hundred Twenty-six (426) feet south of the Northwest corner of said Section Thirty-four (34), thence North Four Hundred Twenty-six (426) feet along the line between said Sections Thirty-three (33) and Thirty-four (34) in township thirteen (13) south, Range Eighteen (18) west of the 6fh P. M., to the place of beginning.” (Emphasis added.)
The trial court ruled against Werth's claim of adverse possession and limited the ownership to record title. Seen in the sketch below as the arc B-X-D. The contested land is shown in yellow.
The appeals court agreed no adverse possession had occurred, but then went on to rule the Werth deed included the land bordered in purple.
What evidence is available to show what error the appeals court made? (you might want to look at the case linked in my previous post.)
Beams v. Werth
What we have here is the majority of the empaneled judges criticizing the legal profession as a whole, while two of the judges criticize the majority. I think for good reason. Good times.
Years ago my wife said to me "You spend so much time reading law why didn't you go to law school?"
I answered "I never did any of my homework when I was in high school and a lawyer's job is doing paperwork like homework with a deadline. Ain't no way I'd be a lawyer."
There is a reason that a lot of trial court opinions are messed up in Arkansas. In Arkansas, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts and the judge does not draft the opinion. At the end of a trial, the judge picks the prevailing party and outlines to that attorney what the decision should be. It is the attorney that then drafts the opinion for the judge to sign. The judge and opposing attorney can review and object, but seldom do. Remember, boundary cases are often handled by inexperienced attorneys. What could go wrong?
There is a reason that a lot of trial court opinions are messed up in Arkansas.
In a footnote to the Oklahoma case of Threet v. Polk the judge writes:
"During the 1960's the supreme court, in an effort to reduce its five year backlog, assigned cases out for opinions to three lawyer panels consisting, however, only of attorneys recommended by the Oklahoma Bar Association. The result was that the opinions sometimes reflected the desires of the authors rather than the law."
There is a reason that a lot of trial court opinions are messed up in Arkansas.
In a footnote to the Oklahoma case of Threet v. Polk the judge writes:
"During the 1960's the supreme court, in an effort to reduce its five year backlog, assigned cases out for opinions to three lawyer panels consisting, however, only of attorneys recommended by the Oklahoma Bar Association. The result was that the opinions sometimes reflected the desires of the authors rather than the law."
So, what roll, if any, did the Oklahoma Supreme Court play in these farmed out opinions? At least in Arkansas from the appeals court up, the judges wrote their opinions.
Judges never mention these behind-scene-operations when they are running for office.