Hello All,
I'm surveying a parcel that was acquired by the US government through condemnation. Condemnation was chosen rather than direct purchase because of uncertainties in the boundaries rather than acquiring the property from an unwilling seller.
The condemnation order has a description and plat that calls for a bearing and distance along the west side. A stone wall is also called for and can be found along most of the line. On the south end I found a called for concrete post but on the north end, a called for witness corner is gone. There is a rebar in the stone wall from a more recent subdivision though. If I hold the rebar and concrete post then I miss a stone wall intersection part way up the line by 12 feet. That intersection contains a painted stone with 2 witness trees but isn't called for. I'd like to put an angle point in the line but it's my understanding that the straight line in the condemnation order should be held.
I have very limited knowledge of condemnation and I haven't found much online that relates to this. Does anyone have any suggestions on where to do research on this subject or even direct experience with this?
Here in the remnants of the Indian Territory things are probably vastly different than your location. Down here federal lands are not (usually) subject to prescriptive rights or adverse possession by others. BUT the courts have ruled lands that have been in public hands and THEN become federal property are still subject to all the idiosyncrasies affecting boundaries and claims that occurred prior to the lands passing into federal ownership.
What that means to me (down here anyway) is that boundary reconstruction should be dealt with in the manner a civil boundary is determined. The boundary existed (and may indeed be contrary to the condemnation description) PRIOR to the conveyance. This insures equity with all adjoiner's.
Your best bet is to research case law in your state. Lord knows there are probably plenty of examples of property that went through a lengthy condemnation project BEFORE anybody ever decided to compare the deed with the physical boundary.
my $0.02
@ GMPLS
is this condemnation parcl a "part" of the entire parcel? If it is the "entire" parcel then I figure you can go back to the vesting deed and kinda "ignore" their weird/vague description.
Just curious, but what year was the condemnation completed?
With condemnations, it has been my habit to make sure the description/confirming report and plat agree with each other. Check the closure too. Sometimes there are surprises...
kjypls, post: 432322, member: 9749 wrote: Just curious, but what year was the condemnation completed?
With condemnations, it has been my habit to make sure the description/confirming report and plat agree with each other. Check the closure too. Sometimes there are surprises...
The condemnation occured in the 1930's. The plat and description match but have an error of closure of 22'. The EOC isn't too bad for the time and terrain based on my other work in the area.
I'm kind of leaning on holding the stonewall intersection with the painted stone (for line) and disregarding the northerly 400' of the wall with the rebar at the end. The witness corner, which was set online, mentions being set in a mound of stones. No mention of the wall. The problems with this solution are 1. it shorts the parcel by about 20' of road frontage and 2. it leaves a triangular 20' x 400' gap between the line and the stonewall with rebar. The remaining 1500' of wall fit great with this solution.
Gregg
Peter Ehlert, post: 432321, member: 60 wrote: @ GMPLS
is this condemnation parcl a "part" of the entire parcel? If it is the "entire" parcel then I figure you can go back to the vesting deed and kinda "ignore" their weird/vague description.
The entire parcel predates the condemnation. I agree with you on this....
If the wall is called for, then it controls, along with whatever angle points are required to remain on the wall, over the description dimensions.
The boundary being a straight line is a presumption that can be overcome with valid physical evidence that the line actually bends in order to remain consistent with a controlling monument like a creek, a road, or a wall.
Especially if the wall is called for in the description of the parent parcel, bend that line!
You know we love walls for boundaries in NE!
Is the wall a "real" wall, or just a few stones?
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
It's a fantastic New England wall, Paul. It also has scattered sections of page wire and barb wire in some big maples. A typical local boundary.
If I understand a condemnation correctly (in this case), once it takes effect the previous descriptions basically go away. After all, the condemnation process (in this case as well as many others) was used because the boudaries were uncertain. The new description fixes the boundaries. This leads me to believe I have to follow the wall because of the condemnation (because the wall is called for).
Gregg
Not being from back east, but my first inclination is to advise:
A boundary is a boundary is a boundary is a boundary. Find the danged boundary.
Most found boundaries are not perfectly straight, nor do they often match 80 year old measurement calls.
