https://casetext.com/case/roecker-v-nelson
Crawford opined, "the boundary line [between the Roecker and Nelson properties] is where that fence was located for more than 100 years and not where the line should theoretically be based on a breakdown of the section." Among the factors considered by Crawford were the Fence Agreement, and the fact that it references a fence that has been in place for over 100 years so it is not prospective in nature, it simply recognizes that the existing fence marks the boundary and divides the responsibility and cost of its maintenance into the future.
He also noted the importance of taking physical evidenceÛÓsuch as an existing fenceÛÓinto consideration when surveying land, and the fact that "the fence is obvious from all of the old aerial photographs of this area and it is apparent that the land has been used and farmed by the respective landowners recognizing it as the boundary line."
That makes sense.
Ya just gotta love the nerve of some litigants:
"Seldom, if ever, has the court seen evidence so overwhelming by title of acquiescence when it is supplemented or supported by a fence agreement, particularly, when the fence agreement is drafted by a current party in their capacity as a lawyer."
Don't they have better things to do with their time and money.......
"Title by acquiescence"
This is a very frustrating case to see........
acquiescence, fence agreements, yada, yada, yada,,,,,,,,
I sounds like all that never needed to happen,,,,,
What should have happened was for a surveyor who could see that a fence a "few feet" from the math breakdown that has been in place for over 100 years undisturbed IS the deed, 1/16th, section breakdown line and set his monuments and give his reasons for accepting the line AS the line.
Then all would have followed his work.
I don't see any drawings but from the court but it sounds like it's one of "those" surveys, an old, old fence just "off" a section breakdown and a surveyor putting in the "correct' corners.......
It's like surveyors are arrogant math nerds causing havoc to prove something, or they just can't let go of little numbers.........
MightyMoe, post: 349645, member: 700 wrote: "Title by acquiescence"
This is a very frustrating case to see........
acquiescence, fence agreements, yada, yada, yada,,,,,,,,
I sounds like all that never needed to happen,,,,,
What should have happened was for a surveyor who could see that a fence a "few feet" from the math breakdown that has been in place for over 100 years undisturbed IS the deed, 1/16th, section breakdown line and set his monuments and give his reasons for accepting the line AS the line.
Then all would have followed his work.
I don't see any drawings but from the court but it sounds like it's one of "those" surveys, an old, old fence just "off" a section breakdown and a surveyor putting in the "correct' corners.......
It's like surveyors are arrogant math nerds causing havoc to prove something, or they just can't let go of little numbers.........
Well, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We all know how pervasive the purveyors of "those surveys" are. They are everywhere - at the highest levels in our profession - the state societies, the licensing boards, college classrooms teaching so-called "boundary law" classes, etc., and anyone who dare challenge them is immediately shouted down and scorned (or will have complaints filed against them). This was on display last night at our society chapter meeting.
I can't pull this case up in my browser. You have the official citation or what state is it in?
I know, but just think how silly this is,,,,,,,,
dragging people into court,,,,,for what?
It's just awful, and you can't blame the court, what else should they do?
Agreed....and the argument being that the fence is field evidence and probably the best available evidence as to the original location of the 1/16th corners. The fence is a monument and it has been built and maintained for 100 years.
I found it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=roecker+v.+nelson&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&case=3962499317191610138&scilh=0
Looks like to me the Walmart Surveyors missed the fence line agreement and thats what started this whole fiasco along with some attorneys on the losing who had to know better.
"A fence line presently exists on the boundary line between the parcels described above."
There is hope:
"In addition to the Fence Agreement, the Roeckers included the affidavit of Terence Crawford, a Professional Land Surveyor, to support their summary judgment motion. Crawford opined, "the boundary line [between the Roecker and Nelson properties] is where that fence was located for more than 100 years and not where the line should theoretically be based on a breakdown of the section." Among the factors considered by Crawford were the Fence Agreement, and the fact that it
references a fence that has been in place for over 100 years so it is not prospective in nature, it simply recognizes that the existing fence marks the boundary and divides the responsibility and cost of its maintenance into the future.
He also noted the importance of taking physical evidenceÛÓsuch as an existing fenceÛÓinto consideration when surveying land, and the fact that "the fence is obvious from all of the old aerial photographs of this area and it is apparent that the land has been used and farmed by the respective landowners recognizing it as the boundary line."
makerofmaps, post: 349657, member: 9079 wrote: I found it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=roecker+v.+nelson&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&case=3962499317191610138&scilh=0
Looks like to me the Walmart Surveyors missed the fence line agreement and thats what started this whole fiasco along with some attorneys on the losing who had to know better.
When I first read that I thought Walmart was offering surveys now. The agreement shouldn't have been missed, written or unwritten.
"It's like surveyors are arrogant math nerds causing havoc to prove something, or they just can't let go of little numbers........."
That's exactly what my State gets for giving licenses away to incapable people...
MightyMoe, post: 349645, member: 700 wrote: "Title by acquiescence"
This is a very frustrating case to see........
acquiescence, fence agreements, yada, yada, yada,,,,,,,,
I sounds like all that never needed to happen,,,,,
What should have happened was for a surveyor who could see that a fence a "few feet" from the math breakdown that has been in place for over 100 years undisturbed IS the deed, 1/16th, section breakdown line and set his monuments and give his reasons for accepting the line AS the line.
Then all would have followed his work.
I don't see any drawings but from the court but it sounds like it's one of "those" surveys, an old, old fence just "off" a section breakdown and a surveyor putting in the "correct' corners.......
It's like surveyors are arrogant math nerds causing havoc to prove something, or they just can't let go of little numbers.........
To be fair, I am a math nerd. And I have been called arrogant many times before. But my inner math nerd seldom gets to tell the surveyor part of me what to do. Part of the fun is seeing how the "math" works out and then how the REAL WORLD compares to that math.
