As we all love these conversations so much:
There's a common boundary. I the original deeds, there boundary is along a ditch. In the later deeds, the common and uncommon boundaries are defined by math on a plan that show monuments at the corners. THe plans were created more than 20 years ago and the area is heavily overgrown with wild vegetation.
The ditch is 10' off the monuments. How does everybody feel about that? I know I am laughing about it and will bring it up to my client.
Where do we start?
Center of a narrow ditch?
One side of a broad swale?
Who made up the math descriptions? Surveyor? Owner? County personnel?
Why does anyone care?
Did the ditch move?
> Where do we start?
>
> Center of a narrow ditch?
> One side of a broad swale?
> Who made up the math descriptions? Surveyor? Owner? County personnel?
> Why does anyone care?
> Did the ditch move?
The typical ancient ditch in these parts is a narrow ditch. This one is at the limits of a wetland that was probably used as a cranberry bog back in the day. The bog was abandoned and there are large trees growing in it. The ditch did not move.
Who know who made up the original descriptions. The 20 year old plans were created by surveyors and surround the subject property that was only surveyed as an abutter. They are all dead.
We have many threads of surveyors arguing over holding the monument over the evidence and vice versa. Would you hold the plan and monuments or would you hold the original ditch?
You can call me a ditchline surveryor and it won't hurt my feelings any.
> We have many threads of surveyors arguing over holding the monument over the evidence and vice versa. Would you hold the plan and monuments or would you hold the original ditch?
This doesn't seem like a case of "monuments over evidence", rather an original called for monument (the ditch) over later incorrectly placed soi-disant "monuments". Unless the actions of the owner shorted the 10' preclude his/her now claiming to the ditch, I'm holding the ditch
Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining landowner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Ski Roundtop v. Wagerman, 79 Md. App. 357, 556 A.2d 1144 (1989)
the intent was the ditch. case closed.
I concur. I think. Unless the PREPONDERANCE of evidence points elsewhere. I suspect that the Ditch Trumps the Math.
N