It is always nice to look at the deed for the property you are asked to survey and see that one of the boundary lines follows a cardinal direction along a survey line. Then you look at the adjoiner only to find that it has been recently surveyed and the surveyor monumented the (substantial) meanders of the fence line. :-@
Some think that is how it always should be done without researching the reason for the fence and what the owners at the time of constructed intended it to represent. Fences are not always a monument to an owners claim, especially in range land. Early farm land fences were usually intended to represent the boundary's between claims. Always and never are two words surveyors need to struck from their use.
jud
[sarcasm]I love it[/sarcasm] when after you have researched your target property and the adjoiners and during your field survey you find 50+ year old witness that lead you to a deed called monument under the leaves. Then you look at a newer fence corner 15ft away to find a newly capped set rod.
[sarcasm]It is also a pleasure[/sarcasm] to find an old abandoned wagon road down a Headright line and on each side the adjoining properties new monuments are at fence corners and the wagon spindles, stones and various axles and farm implements within the roadway were never recovered.
:-S
Once had a Texas LSLS tell me that the fence line is always the property line in Texas....go figure.
> Once had a Texas LSLS tell me that the fence line is always the property line in Texas....go figure.
Makes you wonder where he bought the LSLS.B-)
Have you checked to see if there is a Boundary Line Adjustment in the works or a recently filed Boundary Line Agreement that the recent survey may be reflecting?
This is part of the reason I prefer to work only in areas where I am familiar with the local history. There are fences and then there are boundary fences. Knowing the difference is extremely important. I can't come to your backyard and make that decision without gaining much more information than I already have in my head.
It's hard to tell it now, but, years ago there was a sixty-foot road right-of-way centered on the section line. Today there is a dandy fence centered along the stumps of a very old line of trees. About 60 feet distant there are a few posts and occasional trees that pretty much line up if you look at them closely. Livestock run up against the modern fence on both sides. As you head along the fenceline a quarter mile or so you stumble onto the remains of an ancient reinforced concrete pipe perpendicular to the fenceline, with the midpoint of the pipe being about 30 feet distant from the fence. When you reach the far end of the fenceline you discover a total of three corner posts and a fence leading away from the one in the center. There's the post for the end of the nice fence, another about 60 feet to the side that might sort of line up with those few trees and posts you passed way back there, and a third midway between the others starting a fence continuing in the direction you have been headed. Suddenly, that nice fence starts to seem very questionable as to following the true property line along the section line. But, what really happened is that you picked a point in the middle of the road in line with that fence that MUST mark the section line (determining a shiny coordinate of course), then you drove around until you were a mile distant and did the same thing in line with the fence that actually started at that corner post 30 feet offset from your PROPERTY LINE fence (again determining a shiny corrdinate), then coming back to where you started to follow a course 300 feet along the line between the shiny coordinates and setting a monument on YOUR SECTION LINE.
The biggest problem with some surveyors calling a boundary to follow a fence line because his research tells that the boundary is with or follows a fence line is that the fence line the surveyor is calling a boundary today was not in place at the time the original description was created.
It takes some extra time and effort to prove that the new fence is in the same place as the original fence.
In most cases, it is not, by a foot or several feet. Most people build a new fence before they take down the old fence to hold in stock.
Of course, that is not always the case. Evidence and correct procedures will prevent the obvious.
Mere fences are not the boundary.
Boundaries can be along and follow fences.
When the fence is gone, the boundary remains in place.
In most cases, not involving livestock, I guess, fences are built in the same location as the prior one.
Actually, I think that a fence is presumed to be in the original location unless it can be proven otherwise.
> > Once had a Texas LSLS tell me that the fence line is always the property line in Texas....go figure.
>
> Makes you wonder where he bought the LSLS.B-)
Like anything else, the LSLS opinion is just an opinion. I've known a couple of LSLSs that made you wonder where/how they bought their license.
You almost get the feeling that Richard Schaut will chime in any moment about how you are slandering the land owner's title and that you are a dippy idiot:-O , but if he does, we won't hear it.
> Actually, I think that a fence is presumed to be in the original location unless it can be proven otherwise.
:good:
Robillard, who I disagree more and more after recent seminars, says how can a fence
be evidence of the corner if the fence has bends in it. I have seen many preserved
original stakes with charcoal and cornerstones with marks next to a corner fence
post. What happens between the original monuments is a mystery to me.
I will never understand why someone chooses to accept the fence at first resort. I guess it is easier to make both landowners happy and get paid and hope that another surveyor doesn't come behind you in 10 years instead standing behind your research, field investigation, and professional decision.
"In most cases, not involving livestock, I guess, fences are built in the same location as the prior one.
Actually, I think that a fence is presumed to be in the original location unless it can be proven otherwise."
In these parts, unless a surveyor has specific knowledge that a fence was built to be the boundary, it is to be presumed a fence of convenience.
Quite often around here, the old fence is left in place and the new one built within a foot or two, mostley because no one wanted to clear out the old fence row, they just back out of the brush some.
Bruce
It depends on what the laws are in your state. It really helps to find out for sure by actually finding the statutory and/or case law and not just rely on "what is done 'round here"
Mohnke v. Greenwood 915 S.W.2d 585 (1996)
> It is always nice to look at the deed for the property you are asked to survey and see that one of the boundary lines follows a cardinal direction along a survey line. Then you look at the adjoiner only to find that it has been recently surveyed and the surveyor monumented the (substantial) meanders of the fence line.
Well a recent Texas case to keep in mind is :
Mohnke v. Greenwood 915 S.W.2d 585 (1996)
The real question is: "In what way is the situation any different from that decided by the Court of Appeals in Mohnke v. Greenwood?"
The few I have actually met, I respect. A few I have followed, not so much, though most did good work.
Mohnke v. Greenwood 915 S.W.2d 585 (1996)
It seems an adverse possession claim could have been successful if the attorneys were on their game. Could be argued the fence was intended to be a boundary fence because it began and ended at the corners(did not seem to be any dispute over that fact); and had only a slight kink only noticeable by the surveyors so that there was no evidence the landowners could notice a problem (hence no acquiesence claim allowed). This would be more than a casual fence to me and was failed to be proven as such by the claimant.
But I wouldn't set monuments at the kinks either. Surveyors job is to retrace the original line, not monument possible claims that may or may not succeed in court if they are even pressed that far.
Mohnke v. Greenwood 915 S.W.2d 585 (1996)
Thanks for posting that case.
I am sure sometimes a fence can be boundary, but it sounds like you better be careful in just randomly accepting a fence as the best available evidence as to the original propery line location.
A couple of things struck me in that case.
One is their discussion on "Dignity of Calls". So many surveyors have turned this term into meaning something like dignity or superiority of evidence. There is a difference, I think about whether the deed called for monuments or fences or if it was primarily bearings and distances. An uncalled-for monument is not higher in an order of dignity of calls since it is not a call in the deed. I would never ignore an uncalled-for fence or an uncalled for monument as evidence of the property line, but I would also consider that the bearing and distance is an actual call within the four corners of the deed.
Another thing that strikes me is that one owner owned a lot of acreage (I forgot the number) and the lesser owner owned over 5 acres. the area of the disupt was 0.016'. It amounted to a fence being 8 feet over the deeded line. If I convert the acres to square feet, I get 697ft². ÷ 8', is a length of propery of 87'. I don't know how long of a common line the two neighbors had, but 87', or 0.016 acres is minutia compared to 5.5 acre propoerty. Who fights these things so adamantly? I have a ½-acre lot and my neighbor has a ½-acre lot and we have a common fence that encroaches onto his property by up to 10'. I have pointed to the fence and told him that it is on his property and where the actual property line is. He isn't worried about it. If he wants to move it one day, I won't worry about it. Who is fighting over something so minimal? Unless it ran through my house or a major improvement, I wouldn't spend so much money taking it to court, much less carrying on to appeals court. I could buy another 5.5 acres for less than that would cost. (It probably cost the other owner more than the value of the land to build his wood fence even, not to mention the cost of taking it to court.)
