---Surveying a creek and locating the Center line and new survey does not match the recorded deed ,
I survey the cl has its is today.
Did title change for adjoiner and owner ?
----Surveying the back of a long straight subdivision line and Surveyor break the line at every existing iron pipe along the way to the control corners .
Most of the time and I leave my self some wiggle room but I do not break the line but show station and offset to the irons along the line. Specialy subdivisions after the 60,70'S...
Did title change for adjoiner and owner ?
Title doesn't change but the boundary does.
Do you have access to aerial photos of the area?
May show change over time through succession of flights.
Boundary follows the change by slow and imperceptile means.
Yes, no and it depends. There are your choices. Pick one and run with it.
Does anyone really know where the center of a creek is---to the nearest arcsecond and one hundredth of a foot along the length you are concerned with? Does anybody really care? (What the heck is the name of that song from the sixties?)
Does anybody really no what time it is , does anybody really care
Does the deed say "to the center of the creek" or does it give distances that just happen to be near the creek? Is the creek a navigable stream?
Deeds calls for cl of creek and gives calls more less along the center .
As I understand it, under your scenario there is no Title change if the creek moves imperceptibly.
Title changes when there is a written conveyance. An exception might be adverse possession. The location of the title (boundaries) might move for other reasons but this doesn't change the title.
> ----Surveying the back of a long straight subdivision line and Surveyor break the line at every existing iron pipe along the way to the control corners .
>
> Most of the time and I leave my self some wiggle room but I do not break the line but show station and offset to the irons along the line. Specialy subdivisions after the 60,70'S...
>
> Did title change for adjoiner and owner ?
Not to hi-jack this thread, but I stumbled upon this interesting case yesterday:
"The evidence preponderates that plaintiffs did not undertake to remove the old fence and openly and adversely occupy the disputed territory until after the Saxon survey of 1971. The artificial monuments and the old fence were in existence at the times plaintiffs acquired their properties. In this connection, Pritchard, supra, observed:
The object in all boundary questions is to find, as nearly as may be, certain evidences of what particular land was meant to be included for conveyance. The natural presumption is that the conveyance is made after and with reference to an actual view of the premises by the parties to the instrument. The reason why a monument or adjacent line is ordinarily given preference over courses and distances is that the parties so presumed to have examined the property have, in viewing the premises, taken note of the monument or line. At 334-5, 186 S.W. 121.
We conclude, under these circumstances, the artificial markers control over the straight line protracted on the subdivision plat, particularly since the evidence in the record establishes the bow in the old fence line cannot be detected on a visual inspection of the premises and can only be ascertained through sophisticated surveying equipment which, the evidence infers, was not available to surveyor Graham at the time of preparation of the plat."
Hello Holy Cow,
There is a lot of water in the State of Maine and a lot of boundary disputes. We portaged canoes and walked through marsh to get to where we needed to be. Paddling along the stream taking shots at the apparent center. Also used US Soil Service aerial photos to help solve boundaries....interesting seeing and finding stone walls in the middle of the woods.
rlshound
The Surveyor Can't Change Title
The creek is an ambulatory boundary. That is, it is one that is expected to move around subject to the effect of the natural forces of the stream's flow. You should expect it to be in the same general location but should certainly not expect it to be in a location that matches the dimensions of a previous map or deed.
Since the creek is the called for monument, the location of title moves with it (excepting in cases of avulsion or artificially made course changes). If the creek moved as should be expected, but you continue to show the boundary in a location defined by the dimensions of where the creek once was many years ago when the adjacent parcel was first conveyed, you set up the circumstance where the landowners might then begin to change title prescriptively by occupying to your newly marked line rather than to the creek, which is the called for and true boundary of the property (title location).
If I were to come along a recent survey of property described as having a stream as one of its boundaries, and the recent survey showed bearings and distances exactly as recited in the older deed, I would conclude either that (1) the recent surveyor did not resurvey that boundary of the property, or (2) that rather than survey the boundary on that side of the property, the surveyor demonstrated a lack of knowledge of identifying what the boundary is and instead surveyed a set of courses that no longer have any relationship to the boundary.
"Where" the boundary is is a matter of fact. The boundary location for an existing parcel already exists before we step into the field. It is up to us to find it. This is mostly a matter of applied science and technology - our "expert measurer" role. But also a matter of recognizing and properly using evidence that leads us to the thing to be measured.
"What" the boundary is is a matter of law. It is up to us to properly recognize the "what" according to the description and how the law has instructed us to interpret it. If we are ignorant of how the courts have interpreted deed descriptions to identify the "whats" in them, how can we possibly hope to provide marked lines on the ground and drawn on maps that are any good to anyone?
The boundary surveyor needs to be able to recognize what the intent of the parties was. Was it to convey a parcel of land bordered by a creek, or was it to convey a parcel of land with one side comprised of a series of random directions and distances that just happened to coincide with the creek location at the time of first conveyance?
The surveyor has no power to change title. Only the landowners can change title. But the surveyor has the ability to set up the circumstances to cloud title and provide opportunity for one of the affected landowners to someday change title to a portion of the land through a messy and expensive suit for AP.
Puzzling why a surveyor did not have "sophistocated surveying equipment" adequate to detect a bow that the land owners are willing to fight over. A K&E should have been adequate.
> Puzzling why a surveyor did not have "sophistocated surveying equipment" adequate to detect a bow that the land owners are willing to fight over. A K&E should have been adequate.
I think what the court was saying was that the level of sophistication of the tools have nothing to do with where the boundary was established. No one can measure perfectly, and the courts recognize this fact.
The landowners were not willing to fight, and didn't know there was anything to fight over until a surveyor showed up and tried to prove he could measure better than the original surveyor who created the boundaries which were long accepted and respected by the landowners. In other words, this was a surveyor created problem, not a measurement, title, or boundary problem. One of these days, in a similiar case, the landowners are going to sue the surveyor for the damages incurred for starting a boundary dispute for no reason other than to have a measuring contest. Maybe then we will start paying attention to what we are supposed to be doing out there.
