Trying to figure out the puzzle. Turns out the full description of a 16 acre parcel was conveyed by Warranty Deed without any exceptions for two 5 acre parcels that had been split away. I wouldn't convey by warranty deed what I didn't own but it didn't seem to bother this title company and landowner.
Also the parcel is a cardinal metes without bounds where the north sides add up to 14.91 chains and the south side is 14.91 chains. But in 1992 they deeded it with the south side 14.75 chains. So the two 5 acre parcels split away in the south and middle of the parcel where deeded as being 14.75 chains east/west. I had to go to the original parcel creation deed in 1948 to figure out the problem.
Turns out the improvements (fences) verify the 1948 deed on the north side (14.91 chains spot on). But the line is not at right angles (call is north/south). So when the line was reviewed in a land use application and the non cardinal angle was reported the reviewer wanted a boundary line agreement. I've been there on the ground and reviewed 120 years of deed records and the line marked on the ground is the original line from all the evidence I gathered including testimony from a 80 year old resident that stills owns nearby land and who's father and grandfather owned all at one time before it got split up several times as the old ones died off and left it to the kids.
So there you have it, the record isn't mathematically perfect but provides enough evidence for a surveyor to figure it out based upon the ancient actions of the landowners. Since the real world doesn't match the record mathematically (imagine that) boundary line agreements or quit claim conveyances are required to make another attempt to get it right which we probably never will at ever increasing precision. The Utah Legislature made this a statute this year at the request of the title industry (boundary line agreements must be quit claim conveyances).
There are two worlds with land boundaries and descriptions. The real (measured) and fictional (record). When push comes to shove in the title world the fictional record will rule. So we get boundary line agreements and require quit claim deeds to make the actual try to mimic the fictional. As soon as you report the Measured and the Record for things to go forth we have to convey to the measured line to make the original where it is and always has been. Nice, eh?
I suppose it's just,
Another Day, Another Dollar.
> Since the real world doesn't match the record mathematically (imagine that) boundary line agreements or quit claim conveyances are required to make another attempt to get it right which we probably never will at ever increasing precision.
So, uh, why wouldn't a boundary agreement using a description prepared by a professional surveyor from a survey on the ground definitely fix the location of the line in question? I'm thinking it would just about always accomplish that as long as the parties were competent to make the agreement and their lands actually had a common boundary.
The line is already fixed, right where it was on day one, established from the day the first conveyance was made. It's just the description isn't exactly precise. So why would there need to be a boundary agreement and conveyance to make the description OK. The description is OK as long as one doesn't require that the math be exact and consider all the evidence.
In reality there would be a conveyance that didn't transfer any land, just fussed with the description. It's like using a 10 pound sledge hammer to set a finishing nail not even required to hold the molding.
This all relates to whether the original intent of the conveyance or the math in the deed controls. If the math is controlling then it likely will never be stable as every time it's measured they will need to convey to the new math. This is more complicated where I live because we have mostly metes without bounds descriptions and few calls to monuments. They didn't call for monuments even when there where original markers. Just a weird cultural thing, maybe they didn't know any better. They certainly didn't hire qualified surveyors all these decades (or couldn't/wouldn't pay them - still don't for the most part).
Actually, you indicated that you thought a boundary agreement prepared from a modern survey wouldn't somehow fix the position of the boundary on the ground with no need for hunting down Uncle Jeb or hiring a psychic to track down the ghost of Uncle Jeb's Grandpappy.
As for why a written memorial of this agreement that you say you believe exists would be necessary: are you really saying that you don't think the present day landowners would be willing to execute one? What does that tell you about the "established" state of the boundary, if so? Not so recognized and fixed, is it?
I was alluding to the fact that the line in subject is the original line on the ground. It's never moved, never needed to be established by landowner agreement, its never been uncertain. The only uncertainty comes from trying to make the description which is somewhat lacking if you're expecting perfection but the landowners are fine, no dispute (unless a surveyor starts one). The suggestion or requirement for the boundary line agreement come from public officials reviewing a land use application that noted that the math wasn't perfect so there must be a need to convey some property to fix it (this is a very common misconception through out Utah).
OK, so it would be a legitimate way to resolve a problem if one existed but there isn't a problem other than some math that isn't perfect. Taking this theory that boundary line agreements are conveyances and need to be done to fix what really isn't a problem if the situation is understood, then in the PLSS once one original section monument was lost, every conveyance and survey thereafter would require a boundary line agreement with conveyance language (all the original lines are in question). Every situation requires a new and improved description, the chaos isn't put to sleep but multiplied exponentially. So our precision technology is causing problems instead of resolving them. What we need is an understanding of boundary law not some more precise survey methods.
> OK, so it would be a legitimate way to resolve a problem if one existed but there isn't a problem other than some math that isn't perfect.
I thought that the problem was that you couldn't locate the boundary without talking to 80-year old Great-uncle Jed and hearing what he thought he remembered about what his Pappy had told him. Fifty years from now, someone is going to be thankful that there is a correction of the public records. I don't get why there is the huge resistance to such a sound practice unless one of the adjoining owners disagrees that the common line follows the fence.
Do you make all your clients execute boundary line agreements/quit claim deeds for all the original lines you retrace?
I know you rewrite all the descriptions and are very proud of them. So the proper way to enter a new description into the public records is to have the adjoiners agree to them via boundary line agreements which I'm assuming you do.
How many boundary line agreements do you average per survey and annually?
Do you ever interview the adjoiners and previous landowners for supporting evidence?
From what I've read you don't consider landowners knowledge evidence. You might be surprised at what you can find out about the history of their area and how willing they are to tell you. Sure you need to filter it just like a judge would to get the truth but not all are directly interested and have no reason to lie.
Pretty much all the boundary work I do involves going for extrinsic evidence because once I hit the ground the latent ambiguities in the deeds reveal themselves. Must be simple not to have to deal with this in Texas.
But here is another reason not to do unnecessary boundary line agreements. A legislator this year that runs a title company ran a bill that passed which makes all boundary line agreements take the form of a quit claim deed. This kicks a boundary line agreement into the lot line adjustment category (conveyance of land required). Being a lot line adjustment requires that a land use application be made to planning and zoning. This causes delays and fees. On top of that the reviewer is going to get what they want whether they are qualified of even know anything about boundaries (many rural counties don't even have county surveyors). So YUP, we are definitely going backward instead of forward. Monster math is taking total control. Ultimately the GIS drawn from the record and areal maps is going to control. There won't be any need for pesky land surveyors or common law. A new state statute will take care of it all.
Kent you should move to Utah, it's a perfect place for your style of surveying. You'd fit right in with our title industry and their legislation. You wouldn't need to know much boundary law as nobody pays any attention to it anyway. You could Texicanize us, make us pure and perfect. We would be the Utah Zone of the Texas SPC system.
> Do you make all your clients execute boundary line agreements/quit claim deeds for all the original lines you retrace?
No, of course not. However, I typically don't deal with the grossly faulty descriptions that were/are evidently the standard in Utah. In Texas, we are usually either retracing some surveyors footsteps or are dealing with a description that was drawn up in reference to some surveyed tract.
If I dealt with the mess that you describe in Utah, I wouldn't write about "retracing" anything. The object in your situation is to:
(a) identify the actual situation of the land in relation to the original government subdivision upon which the record title is founded and to
(b) correct the public record when necessary to give the various parcels some definite position that may be reproduced with certainty without having to endlessly go chasing after the oldest grandson of Uncle Jed who may have heard him speak about what his Grandpappy told him about some fence that has now been rebuilt three or four times. If it takes an exchange of QC deeds to make that happen, it takes an exchange of QC deeds.
There is usually no "EASY" button to press to straighten out a mess that has been years in the making.
(a) identify the actual situation of the land in relation to the original government subdivision upon which the record title is founded
So your solution is the RESURVEY the areas that are seriously obliterated or lost? Would you give any weight to what landowners have established for decades as their boundaries or just blow it in by proportion? I don't really believe you know what kind of mess you are advocating in some areas. Other places have the original PLSS in place and are not a problem.
There is usually no "EASY" button to press to straighten out a mess that has been years in the making.
You are admitting that maybe I have a complex problem to deal with. It's not my birthday so what gives?
Kind of interesting that no other posters dare touch this thread with a ten foot pole. Ain't going into the ring with them two, no, nope, nopie! Might end up as collateral damage.
Its a dead thread, might as well let it die, ain't goin nowhere.
> There is usually no "EASY" button to press to straighten out a mess that has been years in the making.
>
> You are admitting that maybe I have a complex problem to deal with.
No, I'm merely observing that surveys usually require effort. I don't see the problems you describe as being particularly complex, just a mess from the standpoint of the non-identity of record title and occupation. Too many simpletons and too few surveyors.
Some record of the observed evidence and current measurements is needed. But your state association should be working to get the legislature straightened out as to what form of documentation is appropriate. Quit claim is for who owns a parcel. BLA (if even needed) is for where the limits of that parcel are. Recorded survey is a record of a non-disputed situation.
Bill93 (non-LS opinion)
That's how I think it should be done. Leave the title records alone. In Utah a record of survey is required to be filed. So the survey can show the Record and Measured and explain all the evidence leading up to the location of the boundaries. Future retracements would have the survey record to assist then in the location of the boundary.
The title record shows the ownership and the survey will show the location of the boundaries. Don't foul up the title records with new descriptions every time a parcel is surveyed.
Might no work so well in states where there is no public record of survey plats.
The legal system relies on 'presumptions' for starting points. Established physical boundary evidence is presumed to mark the original boundary unless 'proved' false, and the reasonable interpretation of a record description is NOT PROOF.
Recheck your state law, it cannot require an exchange of deeds unless there has been an exchange of property.
When there is no evidence that there was an exchange of property, the correction is a surveyors professional work product, not a lawyers.
Check your state laws regarding Alternate Dispute Regulation. The federal gov't passed their version @ 1974 and each state has since passed their unique set of statutes. There you will find guidance along with a mediation handbook that shows different types of documentation.
A competent surveyor's affidavit with map may be all that is necessary.
Richard Schaut
> Some record of the observed evidence and current measurements is needed. But your state association should be working to get the legislature straightened out as to what form of documentation is appropriate. Quit claim is for who owns a parcel. BLA (if even needed) is for where the limits of that parcel are.
The quitclaim is simply against the prospect of some later claim that the agreement was an attempt at conveyance because the parties agreed to a line that they knew or had the means of knowing wasn't the true line.
