Or distance is just a number?
What say you given what's below?
The irons along the south line are 50 feet onto what the adjoiner occupies. Owners north and south used the fence since 1985. Parcel B has owned since 2000.
2007 survey
2000 Warranty Deed Description and 2007 survey description are identical. 
I'd show it the way it is, and notify the client of my findings.
I wouldn't be declaring the fence the boundary line.
I think that I would label the fence.
Also, is it 537.01' or 537.10'?
I'm going to assume the surveyor meant to follow the deed 537.10. But I don't know. What's an 0.09 mistake when you put irons 50 ft out into the neighbors land?
The law for this survey says "The surveyor shall analyze the data and make a careful determination of the position of the boundaries of the parcel or tract of land being surveyed." So the surveyor is to determine where the boundary is. The surveyor is not given the option of determinig the deed line or the occupation line by law.
Second thence - Description says 537.10' and Plat says 537.01'
A property I am currently surveying has a fence off by 1 chain (66.0ft) into the adjoining property.
😉
What does the south adjoiners deed say? Which one has senior rights?
I hear what you're saying. But me calling the line between the irons as the boundary line doesn't do anything to prevent the abutter from asserting his belief that he's acquired that land, because of the fence.
It's still just my opinion on where the boundary line is located.
The adjoiner description begins at a point 768.075 feet south of the point of commencement for the subject survey, thence east 305.25. So the north-south dimension agrees within 0.025 and the east west within 0.05. The property south of has a 2004 deed.
I can't identify a fence on that drawing...
The line with cross hatches just inside the south or left parcel line.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Filed December 2009
appeal the district court’s ruling finding the Plaintiffs had established a boundary by acquiescence AFFIRMED
The fence line consists of old fence posts, some fence wire, which is mostly covered by a mound of dirt and weeds, and several mature trees. The Plaintiffs have always farmed up to the fence line, as did their predecessors on the land. The Plaintiffs believed the fence line was the northern boundary of their land. Defendant testified that when he bought his land, he thought the fence line was the southern boundary of his land.
The record shows that the owners of these two tracts of land had acknowledged the fence as the boundary for decades. Acquiescence exists when both parties acknowledge and treat the line as the boundary. To prove knowledge, it is sufficient to prove that both parties knew of the boundary and treated it as a boundary for the required period. The Defendant did not believe they owned the land south of the fence at the time of purchase. He testified that he believed the fence was the boundary line when he bought the land.
Is there any evidence the court heard that a surveyor should not be obligated to discover and consider as part of the data when making a boundary determination?
"Retractment" sounds like an interesting activity. I wish I knew more about it.
Cheers,
Henry
Okay - so the owner to the south wants to claim to the fence? A court would have to determine that, but you can't...
Moving on to deed correction
This is about the time our old friend Richard would be clambering for a corrective deed. Is this a proper time for a corrective deed now that the court has ruled Richard correct about the boundary location?
So the landowner who has been subjected to the calamity of the visitation of the surveyor now needs a survey of the legal boundary. Here it is. I suppose there is $$ to be made when you get paid twice. Note the new description. Comments?
Okay - so the owner to the south wants to claim to the fence? A court would have to determine that, but you can't...
It doesn't matter what the owner or the surveyor wants. Neither one can claim or survey anything other than the existing boundary. Acquiescence exists when both parties acknowledge and treat the line as the boundary
Moving on to deed correction
No
WOW, linebender,
That is something to study and study some more.
Are there eyes out there looking like deer eyes in the light??
Keith
Moving on to deed correction
Question:
Putting the issue of the 2007 survey aside, did the most recent survey and new description clean up the title as per the court decision or might there be a potential problem?
> Acquiescence exists when both parties acknowledge and treat the line as the boundary
Maybe yes, maybe no; it depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. Check out Martin v. Van Bergen, which was published this month.
Moving on to deed correction
> This is about the time our old friend Richard would be clambering for a corrective deed.>
No need for a "corrective deed". (may be different for your state)
"Once there is an agreed upon boundary, the parties to the agreement are no longer entitled to the amount of property provided for in their deeds and must absorb the effect of any increase or decrease in the amount of their property as a result of the new boundary" Stafford v Weaver 31 P.3d 245 (2001)
"When such an agreement is executed and actual possession is taken under it, the parties and those claiming under them are bound thereby. In such circumstances, an agreement fixing the boundary line is not regarded as a conveyance of any land from one to the other, but merely the location of the respective existing estates and the common boundary of each of the parties. Kunkle v. Clinkingbeard, 66 Idaho 493, 162 P.2d 892; Balmer v. Pollak, 67 Idaho 494, 186 P.2d 217; Clapp v. Churchill, 164 Cal. 741, 130 P. 1061; Tripp v. Bagley, 74 Utah. 57, 276 P. 912, 69 A.L.R. 1417 and Annotation 1433; Fallert v. Hamilton, 109 Cal.App.2d 399, 240 P.2d 1007; Tillinger v. Frisbie, 132 Mont. 583, 318 P.2d 1079; Annotation 113 A.L.R. 425; 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 77; 8 Am.Jur., Boundaries, § 88." Downing v Boehringer 349 P.2d 306 (1960) bold added