...I have an old land court plan as an abutter. Circa 1930. The common line between parcels is a stone wall, represented as a straight line on the plan with no bearing called out, only a distance.
The wall exists undisturbed, and is not really straight. No monuments called for at either end, and none were found.
My opinion is to hold the wall (as it is the only monument), this will break the distance up into 4 seperate bearings. Would any of you guys make a best fit using a straight line? I ask because I'm sure the intention on the original registration was for it to be straight.
Thanks.
-V
I would hold the wall, and break it up as necessary.
I had this same conversation with one of the engineers of the court and they will break it up since wall is the monument. He brought up a case where the wall bowed about 50' during the course along the line between the ends of the wall.
I don't think that we can say that the intent was to run a straight line since the line was labelled with bearing and distances, clearly to me the intent was to hold the wall..
Dtp
If a road were shown on an old plat around here as the common boundary line, and it was shown straight, but in reality, was not, I would use the road, as it exists, as the monumented line between the parcels and not look back.
Excellent. Thanks Don.
The bearing changes are all pretty minor, but the line would definitely come off the wall at points if I held a straight shot end to end.
-V
The engineering department has once again changed it's policy from holding record math to holding monuments. They will continue to do so until sued or a changing of the employees who hold a different opinion. I took the WIT class with Vannozzi the first year he ran it. He ranted over the LC Engineering department for two classes. I guess he did not agree with their style.
You can always add information to the plan. Show the LC line and show the wall. If you hold the wall state that you presume the LC line to be a tie.
Did you contact the LC for any information?
I would say you should hold the wall, especially considering the lack of a bearing on the plan. Like a deed that says "Thence running along a stonewall..." type of thing. Sounds like the wall is the controlling monument, if you are comfortable calling it undisturbed.
For all you other guys...
The Torrens system is a real funny thing. A Judge decrees the plan. It is set in stone and after one year there is no going back.
Of course, Land Court Plans contain numerous mathematical flaws, especially the older ones. Even if the wall should hold, the Court can state it no longer matters. If the decree was to a line, albeit a poorly defined line, it could hold. In all likelihood, the wall should and will hold, but there is no real guarantee that the Engineering Department or a Judge will agree.
This is where Vannozzi had serious issues with the court. They would often hold the decree, the record math, when the monuments clearly depicted a different boundary. Again, the cast and crew have changed a bit recently and they are relying on monumentation more often, but without filing a petition with the court you may not obtain the answer.
For all you other guys...
I don't know Thadd, I've gotten along with the court just fine over the last 30 years. They aren't that hard to predict, and they are easy to talk to about issues.
Ask Rich about the time he removed a stone and replaced with a Concrete Bound and the judge told him he could no longer consider it an original monument.
I have almost always been able to hold monuments over distances, with an s-petition...
For all you other guys...
I have not chatted with Vannozzi in quite a while and I see no need in bringing up some case where I know nothing.
I agree, the court staff is great to work with. There have been times I have wondered about their rationale, but then I consider the fact that I don't have to worry about it as they take the responsibility. Can't argue with that ever.
Oh and as far as the example in this thread, you can't really talk without a petition and why would a neighbor file a petition?
Connecticut!!!
We are gooder than MASS!! 😉
Connecticut!!!
all your walls run straight? and not through the briars???
Connecticut!!!
lol...Oh how I wish that was the case.
Hey I might be heading to the cape soon, I'll pop in and buy you your favorite adult beverage.
Connecticut!!!>Joe
If you get down to the lower Cape swing on in! Main Street in Brewster...
Do you have any idea when you may be around?
Not a Mass-guy here, and I see you got your answer....but I can't imagine how a call along a wall in anyone's world wouldn't be along the wall. Even if it had a bearing and some other kind of monuments at each end of the wall. Giving a bearing on a wall helps you know you are on the right wall, perhaps, but the intent of the the language of the deed seems clear to me when a wall is called to.
In the old days it would be the B-D no matter what, even if you found a part of the wall that was off the line.
Since there aren't any B-D shown on the plan, if my memory serves me correctly, then the line wasn't decreed by the Court (so you aren't held to their line).
I believe that the correct method (which is also the tendency of the Court today), is to hold the wall, as you think that it's in the undisturbed, and original location.
When I was in Mass, 20 something years ago, I remember 2 problems in Land Court.
In one, in Hull, the older 1900+/- survey called for a granite bound (probably just a square on the plan). A newer 1930's plan called for a pipe, which I found, but a few feet away, I calc'd and dug up the bound, but they wouldn't accept it.
In another one in Duxbury, the new plan divided a line, but the distances didn't add up to the old line by exactly 10 feet. And the old monuments I found agreed with the old plan. Very clearly a Land Court drafting error. They finally did change that one after too much discussion, if I remember correctly.
Paul Gay PLS wrote a discussion of the Land Court and Registered Land in Massachusetts in POB about 10 years ago, below is an excerpt which refers to a situation similar to the one VH descrbed in the OP.
"It was previously noted that in Massachusetts, in addition to certifying title, the state also establishes the actual boundaries of the property. Once established by the Land Court, the boundaries are not subject to relocation without a court order. A land surveyor surveying property abutting registered land has no authority to “interpret” the locations of boundaries previously established by the court. The boundaries are fixed. Even if the surveyor were to uncover evidence strongly suggesting that the boundaries of the registered parcel were incorrectly determined, the surveyor would have no authority to relocate those boundaries without first obtaining judicial consent. This situation can create some interesting problems for the surveyor, as illustrated in the following example.
A recent perimeter survey of a parcel of (unregistered) land disclosed that one boundary, over 2,000 feet in length ran along abutting property that had been registered some 70 years prior. The Land Court plan for this property showed precise dimensions along the line. The plan also showed that the line ran along a meandering stone wall, causing the boundary to consist of a number of different courses and distances. Some of the angles in the wall were marked with drill holes. It was clearly the intent of the original surveyor and the Land Court that the middle of the stone wall be the boundary. It should be noted here that prior to filing a complaint with the Land Court to register a parcel of land, the owner must hire a professional land surveyor to survey the property and prepare a plan suitable for presentation to the Court. The Land Court doesn’t do the survey. In Massachusetts, any registered professional land surveyor is presumed competent to perform land surveys for presentation to the Court.
The original drill holes were recovered and a substantial number of locations were made fixing the actual location of the wall center line. Using the drill holes it was possible to reproduce the locations of the boundary established by the Court within the precision requirements prescribed by the Land Court rules. The problem became apparent when it was discovered that the actual wall locations differed substantially from those shown on the Land Court plan. Holding the boundary as established by bearings and distances shown on the Land Court plan would place much of the stone wall off the registered land and onto the abutting unregistered property. Evidence pointed to the fact that the wall was in its original location and had not been moved since the Land Court survey had been made. Clearly, the original surveyor did not take as many wall locations as he should have.
The surveyor was required by the client to prepare a plan suitable for recording and the line under consideration had to be shown on the plan. The stone wall at issue was called for in his client’s deed as a bound. The same wall was also called for on the Land Court plan, and arguably, by incorporation of the plan into the certificate of title. There was ample case law holding that physical evidence called for in a description should take precedence over dimensions. If physical evidence of the boundary should be controlling, how could the wall locations be reconciled with the dimensioned lines as they had been fixed by the Court?
After consultation with the Land Court, the surveyor was advised that the dimensions as shown on the Land Court plan were inviolate and must be held as the boundaries defining the perimeter of the registered land. However, where it was clear that the boundaries of the registered parcel did not comport with actual ownership, the wall center line should control the extent of ownership. The end result was that the owner of the registered parcel owned some of his land as registered land and some of it as unregistered land. Where the stone wall deviated from the registered boundary toward the abutting property by a few feet, the narrow strip of land lying between the registered boundary and the wall was still owned by the registered land owner with the difference that the land so owned was not subject to registration of title. In this case, the certificate of title did not specifically call for the stone wall; only the Land Court plan called for the wall (although it would seem arguable that the plan was incorporated into the certificate of title by reference). It was implied that had the certificate of title specifically called for the wall, the result may have been different. In that case, the registered land may have run to the center of the wall, wherever the wall happened to be. In a case like this it would be in the surveyor’s best interest to show both lines on the plan and clearly label them as to what they represent.
This example is not an exception to the rule that a surveyor may not alter the boundaries of registered land. In this case the registered boundaries remained unchanged. If the wall had meandered so that the boundary of the registered land extended beyond the wall toward the abutting property, the surveyor’s client would have had to resort to litigation in Land Court in order to claim ownership to the wall, thereby claiming an interest in the abutter’s registered land. As this situation is precisely what land registration seeks to avoid, barring exceptional circumstances, the claimant would probably not be successful. The previous example is somewhat of an interesting aberration. In most cases when surveying registered land or property abutting registered land, the surveyor need only tie into or re-establish the line as it was defined by the Court."
I think that recently the Court has changed its view on these matters and allows the updating of the plans.
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I've had very different answers come out of land court on seemingly simple issues in the past. Certainly, if it was recorded land, I would have held the wall without a second thought, but since it is registered, that always adds another element. Seeing that the "current" position of the court is to hold the monuments, that's the way to go.
-V
LC positions have changed over the years in my time, Haven't had to deal with them in some time, I still like holding the wall. if their line differs show it, after all at the end of the day LC rules.
Show both lines. Get the legal opinion. Can an abutter file an S petition? Your client must decide if that is in his best interest to pursue the additional land.
In the 70's a company that did most of the work on the lower Cape prepared a Registered Plan. In the 80's my father correctly placed the land. The property owner had sold off all the registered land which was not really his to begin with. He didn't double the size of his property, but he did get more land than originally acquired.
