I'm writing some descriptions splitting lands along existing fences. Because of the state it's in, I'm calling to monuments at angle points and corners, then along the fences in the description. Fence laws here are pretty clear and for these parcels it is better to use along and not with.
In other parts of the country would with the fence be the usual call?
Fence Calls Wow Mike!
Now here is a subject that Kent can respond to with unerring accuracy!
I think it's to do the description that way, if it was a stone wall we would use the wall as it meanders and then monument the angle points.
I would say "to an iron pin set at a wood post, thence generally along an existing fence...." That way the pins are the actual corners and the fence just gives the general direction. If the fence has a few places that aren't exactly straight some future surveyor doesn't come in and set pins at every little bend along that fence.
Matt
I've done that before. I've gone with the "reference point" approach so then somebody can calculate area and get a closure.
Along the theme of "...thence Westerly 600 feet more or less along a 4 ft woven wire fence bearing N89....W, 600.47 ft from Reference Point A to Reference Point B; thence Northerly, 485 feet more or less along a 6 ft chain link fence bearing N00...E, 484.99 feet from said Reference Point B to Reference Point C...." bla bla bla.
Kind of like a creek, ridge line, RR tracks, whatever. Then the fence is the property line. I shows intent and you are the original surveyor and it can be re-traced.
> I'm writing some descriptions splitting lands along existing fences. Because of the state it's in, I'm calling to monuments at angle points and corners, then along the fences in the description. Fence laws here are pretty clear and for these parcels it is better to use along and not with.
> In other parts of the country would with the fence be the usual call?
I was planning to post an example of one particular deed description that involved fence calls and all of the ensuing mess that has followed it as a result. My opinion is that the superior practice is to simply mention the fact that the monuments defining the boundary fall, for example, "approximately on the line of an East-West Wire Fence" or "approximately 0.4 ft. Northwest of the center of the base of an 8-inch Pole Post at Angle in Wire Fence".
What does the fact that the boundary described approximately follows the average line of the fence contribute to the description in the age of geodetic coordinates and georeferenced aerial imagery?
Fence Calls 'R Us
> ..contribute to the description in the age of geodetic coordinates and georeferenced aerial imagery?
What, no reference to legal precedent and the fact we have laws to follow to protect the public? All that googleized geosillyness does is confuse people so they have to hire us just before an attorney who knows even less than them, except to tell them to get it surveyed.
Didn't really know we were in a "new age" era of taking written text and doing our best to place it on the ground. But I may be missing something there, all the while I thought the "old age" of just doing our best and getting it right worked ok.
Ok, I'll retire soon and find my fence in the sky. 😉
Fences here are important, however, I want the monuments to control, hence using along and not with.
I would not call a distance to a fence corner, they change to often; within 25-30 years there will probably be a new brace panel built and often shifted a bit.
> Fences here are important, however, I want the monuments to control, hence using along and not with.
Well, the question really is how to make the mention of the fence clearly only informative and not locative, right? I think that is best accomplished by not using any form of call that could be confused for a locative call, as would a call that depends entirely upon the meaning of "along" as distinguished from "with".
I assume that you've produced a map indicating some wire fence plotted somewhere near the boundary, so why wouldn't a prospective buyer rely upon that to inform them of the fact that there is a pasture fence in place in the vicinity of the boundary?
Fence Calls 'R Us
> > ..contribute to the description in the age of geodetic coordinates and georeferenced aerial imagery?
>
> What, no reference to legal precedent and the fact we have laws to follow to protect the public?
Well, the question is strictly one of how to identify the monuments that define the boundary. Putting accurate geodetic coordinate on them means the monuments will be a snap to find and to replace if needed in the future. All a merely informative call for a fence amounts to is a submeter call that will only introduces some confusion if the fence is rebuilt in some slightly offset position in the future, as often happens.
What has always bothered me about descriptions that follow fences is that the description lacks any information about the date and time frame of the fence to follow.
That same lack of date and time frame exists in many deeds because the maker translates the text and fails to include that information within the content of the deed as compared to the surveyors report complete text.
I believe that an original surveyor's report should be inserted into every deed to assure the whole story is told of the survey.
When describing the fence, include details of what type of fence and the kind of post used and be sure to set a monument that exceeds the depth of the post. My favorite monument to set along a fence is a 6ft tpost driven to refusal. Most fence repairs and rebuilds will not bother something that is 5+ft in the ground.
Many a client has insisted that the newest fence that gives them extra land is the boundary of a description that follows a fence that is now completely grown over and sometimes mostly in the ground and well within the confines of the new fence.
IMVHO, revealing the intent of the grantor in your description is just as or more important than following legal guidelines for grammar.
:gammon:
> Along the theme of "...thence Westerly 600 feet more or less along a 4 ft woven wire fence bearing N89....W, 600.47 ft from Reference Point A to Reference Point B;
>
> Kind of like a creek, ridge line, RR tracks, whatever. Then the fence is the property line. I shows intent and you are the original surveyor and it can be re-traced.
Except the use of the word "along" doesn't tie the boundary to the fence in the way that the word "with" does or a phrase like "with the meanders of a fence" would.
In my experience, calls for the meanders of fences are expensive messes in the making to be avoided whenever possible. They don't actually maintain the supposed certainty of boundary location as fences get rebuilt over time.
> I'm writing some descriptions splitting lands along existing fences. Because of the state it's in, I'm calling to monuments at angle points and corners, then along the fences in the description. Fence laws here are pretty clear and for these parcels it is better to use along and not with.
>
> In other parts of the country would with the fence be the usual call?
Nothing can change the deed to property, accept another deed. But a lot of things can muck it up; depending on the interpretation.
Calls to natural monuments can't be avoided in certain cases; these lines are dynamic and will change over time.
Why would you make a deed call to something that will change over time, when you don't have to?
> What has always bothered me about descriptions that follow fences is that the description lacks any information about the date and time frame of the fence to follow.
Yes, until you trace the chain of title back and discover that the fence meanders defining the boundary were those of some fence that existed in 1938 and that has been rebuilt twice since then.
> That same lack of date and time frame exists in many deeds because the maker translates the text and fails to include that information within the content of the deed as compared to the surveyors report complete text.
> I believe that an original surveyor's report should be inserted into every deed to assure the whole story is told of the survey.
> When describing the fence, include details of what type of fence and the kind of post used and be sure to set a monument that exceeds the depth of the post.
But the real problem with using a meandering fence as a boundary is how bloody time-consuming those boundaries are to resurvey. What actually happens in practice is that as the tracts on both sides of the fence are resurveyed, monuments will get set at intervals along the fence in an attempt to define the actual meanders of the fence for various good reasons. Then, as the tract on the other side of the fence is resurveyed, another surveyor finds even more angle points to monument as the land values climb and as the prospect of subdividing the tract approaches.
Then the fence gets rebuilt and the fence builders tear out most of the monuments, destroy the original fence and what you're left with is this boundary that is mostly just a waste of surveying effort to remark. It's hardly as if the new fence became the boundary automatically.
> Calls to natural monuments can't be avoided in certain cases; these lines are dynamic and will change over time.
Can you cite any case in which a call for a boundary to be a fence that existed in 1938 was held to mean other than that the boundary was fixed in the position of the fence as it existed at the time of the original grant?
Fence Calls 'R Us
Let's make that:
> Well, the question is strictly one of how to identify the monuments that define the boundary. Putting accurate geodetic coordinate on them means the monuments will be a snap to find and to replace if needed in the future. All a call for a fence amounts to is a submeter call that will only introduces some confusion if the fence is rebuilt in some slightly offset position in the future, as often happens.
That is, rural fences tend to be so irregular that defining the actual lines of the fence more closely than a foot or two for alignment requires more time and attentino than the exercise is usually worth for land in agricultural use. I've found that surveyors tend to position fence posts by just holding the rod as close as possible to the post and not to bother with offsets to the center of the post. This seems to be particularly true of the RTK folks who are hitting it all on the run.
I wouldn't mention the fence unless it was intended to be the boundary. And I would be careful making any such distinction of "along" v "with" no matter what State it's in. These kind of distinctions can flop, or disappear due to the least change in circumstances or judges.
Fact is, if the boundary is not the fence then mentioning it is near does not help indicate intent of the parties, nor help find the true line. If the client is insisting on mentioning the fence, what they really want/need are some monuments along the line.
Attorneys have been sanctioned for using verbose language that adds no certainty and rather creates ambiguity in contracts. Deeds are contracts. I would counsel the client that I can't add that language but can set line markers at a certain fee and put passing calls in the description.
> Can you cite any case in which a call for a boundary to be a fence that existed in 1938 was held to mean other than that the boundary was fixed in the position of the fence as it existed at the time of the original grant?
No
But that is my point: how can anyone expect to replicate something that is over 76 years old; has probably been replaced at least once and thousands of varas long?
Merry Christmas,
Douglas Casement, PLS
I'd argue that the fence is supporting evidence of the true location of a line, and that not mentioning it is doing a dis-service to the public. An example of wording I would choose is below. Note intentional vagueness of the actual control of the fence; leaving no question that the monuments control.
Beginning at a 4" x 4" concrete highway monument found 0.2' below grade on the northerly bounds of Jane Lane at the southeasterly base of a 6" cedar fence post;
Thence following the bounds of Smith and generally along the trend of a three row barbed wire fence N 23 W a distance of 234.5' to an axle found with a 2.0' reveal on the northwesterly side of a 6" diameter cedar fence post on the bounds of lands now or formerly of Doe;
In my opinion a map should be a visual representation of current conditions on the ground as observed by the surveyor, and the description should put those same visual observations into words. For what its worth, I'm on the east coast, and I understand that national practices vary.
Between you, me, and the fence post; I don't really have any problem with that description. Unfortunately, the reality I have seen in all parts of the country, is that extraneous, unnecessary descriptive items are only fuel for argument and lawsuit.
Clear as it may seem to you and I, an attorney's dream is a description such as that. 20 years from now when things have changed there is one more element in the deed to argue about. Is the fence the same one, in the same location? The monuments are gone, should we replace them by ties to other monuments or by using the fence? An owner on one side or the other reads the deed and, not being a surveyor or having great skills at reading comprehension, they take it to mean the fence is the boundary and use it as such; is the line still between the monuments or is it the fence? Have you given them color of title? What does it mean to the people (the dis-served public) who may read it, rather than to a professional?
All of the above are problems introduced by the language. What is the benefit? I don't see how that language can be used in any meaningful or useful way myself.
I agree with Matt. I have seen deeds that said "With a fence". 10 yrs later, after dozer had pushed out fence, metal detector showed wire all over. And, there were small un documented kinks in said fence, the old line was forever lost. It created an ambiguity, where there were remains of 2 fences, several feet apart.
N
