Lake Front Property

John Does deed description calls for a monument and clearly describes intent. That is the deed description I would use to survey that tract. The narrative would explain why. There might be some damages to be recovered from the ones who intentionally raised the water level, but that is a legal problem.
jud

No. Whether it's now 380' to the "edge of the lake" or 420' to it. If I understand correctly, the original deed called for a "natural boundary" which would supercede any distance calls. And the lake's edge would have to be perfectly perpendicular to to the side lines for both of those distances to be the same. Something I don't ever remember seeing. Typically you would need two or more calls along the actual edge of the lake as it now exists for a true resurvey of the lot.
imoho

Take care,
Ed

No. Navigability should have no effect here. Of course I'm applying riparian as opposed to littoral rights to this.

> The lake, being non-navigable is owned by someone else.
> The lake levels rise because someone dammed the outfall...

key statements in the hypo I think

isn't this like finding the original scribed stone, but it got moved?

"There might be some damages to be recovered from the ones who intentionally raised the water level, but that is a legal problem."

Jud brings up a good point with that statement. That would be an issue for the courts to decide. But, that process couldn't even begin until the lot was resurveyed and platted according to the "intent" of the original deed. There again, imho.

> > The lake, being non-navigable is owned by someone else.
> > The lake levels rise because someone dammed the outfall...
>
> key statements in the hypo I think
>
> isn't this like finding the original scribed stone, but it got moved?

Good point Peter, would the owner of the lake now own all of the property, if the lake rose to a level that would cover the entire lot?

Would it go back to the original owner if it fell? What if it happened 100 years later?

Would the owner own out to the edge of the lake if it dropped?

These are all things to consider, when forming your answer....;-)

Two Thoughts
(1)I think that an important consideration is that the change in the location of the edge of water was not a natural change but rather an act of man. The initial lot dimension was 400 feet and still is 400 feet.
(2) What was the intention of the change from 400 to 380 feet. Did the grantor intend to retain the now under water portion of the Lot? Or did the description change because of a assumption (Surveyor or scrivener)that the water line at the time of the conveyance was the originally described water line location?

There are a couple of issues that I see here:
>
> The lake, being non-navigable is owned by someone else.
>
Why would "someone else" own the bed of a non-navigable lake? The bed of the lake (non-navigable) is presumably owned by the upland owner whose ownership interest extends to the center or thread of the lake.
>
> The lake levels rise because someone dammed the outfall making the water rise by a couple of feet so that the north-south dimension of the tract is now only 380 feet instead of 400.
>
With my first concern in mind, the raising or lowering of the lake level should not affect the location of the boundaries. Boundary still extends to the center or thread of the lake.
>
> The owner sells the land to Bad Bob in 1950, and deed has a survey attached which shows the land to be 100 x 380 feet, and it shows the edge of the lake abutting the north boundary of the land. It does not show the missing 20 feet which is below the new water surface. There is no reservation by John Doe to keep the 20 feet out in the water, and the deed has no calls in it but simply refers to the survey which does not account for the 20 feet.
>
It wouldn't make any difference what the surveys show or what a reformed deed said, the question is simply whether the upland was sold or not. That raises the issue of the intent of the upland owner. The presumption of law is that the sale of the upland would include the appurtenant ownership of the bed of the lake. In order to overcome that presumption, there must be evidence that the upland owner intentionally subdivided the property, sold the upper portion, and intentionally withheld ownership of the new shoreline parcel. In the example above, this shoreline parcel would have been 20 feet wide and would have been under the water (part of the lake bed).

Such an interpretation of the evidence would not only be contrary to the presumption of law, but contrary to logic. If there truly was an intent by the upland owner to divide his property and to retain ownership of a 20-foot wide strip of underwater property, then there should be evidence to back up that intent (i.e. taxes continuing to be paid on the 20' parcel; occupation of the 20' parcel; later conveyance of the 20' parcel; etc.). I don't see any of that evidence above, so the presumption of law should stand.
>
> QUESTION: In your opinion does Bad Bob own the 20 feet in the lake?
>
Yes, Bad Bob owns not only the 20 feet in the lake, but, as the upland owner, presumably owns the bed of the lake to the center or thread of the lake itself.

JBS

If it's non-navigable it could be owned all by one or shared by all. I'll give Frank the benefit of the doubt and go with his original statement. The bed as it existed was owned by one entity.

That being the case, I think the question is one of whether the boundary changes because of the dam, rather than a gradual natural process. My inclination would be to leave the boundary at its original location, 20 feet under the water now.

Contrary may be shown.

> Two Thoughts
> (1)I think that an important consideration is that the change in the location of the edge of water was not a natural change but rather an act of man. The initial lot dimension was 400 feet and still is 400 feet.
> (2) What was the intention of the change from 400 to 380 feet. Did the grantor intend to retain the now under water portion of the Lot? Or did the description change because of a assumption (Surveyor or scrivener)that the water line at the time of the conveyance was the originally described water line location?

Brian, here's my thoughts;

(1) I don't think that would fall within the scope of my duties as a surveyor to try to determine whether the rise was man made or natural without doing a full blown forensic survey of the whole lake. Plus I couldn't do that without being privy to information such as original full pool elevations and the like. If I had been commissioned to only resurvey the lot itself. How big is the lake? How do I "know" the rise was an act of man? All I would know for sure is the deed's intent was to border on the "edge of the lake". Something I can locate where it is when I survey it. The 400' was just the distance at the time of the original deed. I wouldn't feel wrong for releasing the plat showing the site as it is now. I would put a notation on the plat stating the discrepancies in the distances now as opposed to some earlier distances. But, no way would I try to explain those differences by the plat.

(2) All this, I have no way of knowing:-D.

Take care,
Ed

Good points by all. A bit more:

If a lake is not navigable, and is privately owned, there is nothing I know of that would simply assume that adjacent landowners would get title to the bed of the lake without have a clear title to it.

For example, assume that a 100-acre non-navigable lake lies in the middle of a 500-acre tract of land. Jobo sells the lake to me, and I own it. Then assume Jobo sells the surrounding land to Adam. I own the lake, and Adam owns the land. I can't see where this ought to get confused.

The problem that I was attempting to state was well pointed out that it is like a natural monument where someone moved the stone--or is it.

I believe, like JB said, it is probably more a matter of intent. I would think that unless there is something to the contrary, the people simply meant to do the following to transfer all of their land, with no 20-foot strip remnant.

But, the obvious argument will be that the person who sold to Bad Bob is going to claim the 20 feet if he is posed the question.

I go with the thought that Bad Bob owns the 20 feet along with his 380. Intent is the only thing that supercedes a natural monument in Louisiana, and probably a lot of other states.

> If it's non-navigable it could be owned all by one or shared by all. I'll give Frank the benefit of the doubt and go with his original statement. The bed as it existed was owned by one entity.
>
> That being the case, I think the question is one of whether the boundary changes because of the dam, rather than a gradual natural process. My inclination would be to leave the boundary at its original location, 20 feet under the water now.
>
> Contrary may be shown.

Another good point.

If I owned a property, bound by a stream and I diverted that stream onto the adjoiners property, would that change my ownership?

> Good points by all. A bit more:
>
> If a lake is not navigable, and is privately owned, there is nothing I know of that would simply assume that adjacent landowners would get title to the bed of the lake without have a clear title to it.
>
On the contrary, it's not about "assuming" anything. It's all about the "presumption" under common law (a call to a monument is presumed to go to the center of the monument), or under a statutory law (some states have codified the common law principle). A presumption can be overcome by evidence. If the evidence is incapable, the presumption stands.
>
> For example, assume that a 100-acre non-navigable lake lies in the middle of a 500-acre tract of land. Jobo sells the lake to me, and I own it. Then assume Jobo sells the surrounding land to Adam. I own the lake, and Adam owns the land. I can't see where this ought to get confused.
>
This would be a good example of the type of evidence that could overcome the common-law presumption.
>
> The problem that I was attempting to state was well pointed out that it is like a natural monument where someone moved the stone--or is it.
>
> I believe, like JB said, it is probably more a matter of intent. I would think that unless there is something to the contrary, the people simply meant to do the following to transfer all of their land, with no 20-foot strip remnant.
>
> But, the obvious argument will be that the person who sold to Bad Bob is going to claim the 20 feet if he is posed the question.
>
The burden would fall upon the person claiming ownership of the 20' strip to overcome the presumption that they don't. Most jurisdictions would require clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.
>
> I go with the thought that Bad Bob owns the 20 feet along with his 380. Intent is the only thing that supersedes a natural monument in Louisiana, and probably a lot of other states.
>
Lake bed ownership aside (let's assume that the evidence as provided above does prove that the bed of the lake is a separate parcel from the upland)...

The location of the boundary (created by the sale of the upland "to the lake shore") would be an ambulatory boundary following the lake as it naturally raises or lowers (a littoral boundary). The man-made interference caused by construction of the dam, would be a non-natural act, thereby severing the littoral nature of the boundary and fixing it in its location immediately prior to the act. If that is the case, then the boundary likely isn't at 400' or 380', but is at the location it reached prior to the act. It would come down to the evidence of the history of the lake levels and the best available evidence of that location.

JBS

I think I'd use the KISS approach here.

What would a landowner think, if he/she read his deed, that said to the lake shore?

380 or 390 is of little consequence, the line is on the shore of the lake. Bad Bob MAY have another 20 feet (I know LA is different in most things due to it's use of Civil as opposed to common law) but I just don't think it would happen.

The kicker is PROVING where the lake was prior to inundation (like iron stakes out there 20 more feet) or something (lake datum???) or just a presumption that someone dammed something else up and the lake rose. How can you be sure it wasn't beavers?

See my point.

> I think I'd use the KISS approach here.
>
> What would a landowner think, if he/she read his deed, that said to the lake shore?
>
> 380 or 390 is of little consequence, the line is on the shore of the lake. Bad Bob MAY have another 20 feet (I know LA is different in most things due to it's use of Civil as opposed to common law) but I just don't think it would happen.
>
> The kicker is PROVING where the lake was prior to inundation (like iron stakes out there 20 more feet) or something (lake datum???) or just a presumption that someone dammed something else up and the lake rose. How can you be sure it wasn't beavers?
>
> See my point.

I do. Surveyor's have case law to use as guides, but I too adhere to the K.I.S.S. axiom when compared to the scope of the service requested of me. There is always time down the road for law to convolute the situations. Afterall, our plats are in the end mostly maps based on evidence we find that are supported by public records and then resolved based on our "best personal opinion". I'm a firm believer that if you tell the truth, based on what you know to be facts, then you should be alright when the law passes judgement on your work if that need should arise. And as someone stated above, your results may vary.

> (1) I don't think that would fall within the scope of my duties as a surveyor to try to determine whether the rise was man made or natural without doing a full blown forensic survey of the whole lake.
>
Precisely why it is important for surveyors to gather the necessary evidence to locate a boundary "during" the survey. It certainly is within the scope of a surveyor's duty to determine boundary locations. There is no other profession given the necessary skills, knowledge or expertise to determine boundary locations. The current laws give us the answers; we simply need to gather the evidence necessary to determine the facts, then apply the law like we do with any other boundary.
>
> Plus I couldn't do that without being privy to information such as original full pool elevations and the like. If I had been commissioned to only resurvey the lot itself. How big is the lake? How do I "know" the rise was an act of man? All I would know for sure is the deed's intent was to border on the "edge of the lake". Something I can locate where it is when I survey it. The 400' was just the distance at the time of the original deed.
>
The above statements and concerns are right on the money! Yes, a surveyor "can't" determine the boundary until he's researched the above evidence. Too often we will, rather than take the time necessary to gather the evidence, analyze the evidence, and determine the facts, we would rather just jump to conclusions and not put forth the effort necessary to determine the boundary.
>
> I wouldn't feel wrong for releasing the plat showing the site as it is now. I would put a notation on the plat stating the discrepancies in the distances now as opposed to some earlier distances. But, no way would I try to explain those differences by the plat.
>
That's the most-often chosen course. I assume that there are more than enough other surveys to be performed to take the time necessary to complete this survey. After all, for around $20k to $30k, the owner could get a judge to tell him where he thinks the boundary is...
>
> (2) All this, I have no way of knowing:-D.
>
Too true. I wish more surveyors would realize that's the position they're taking when they don't take the time to gather the evidence necessary to determine the boundary. Maybe we should start writing that at the end of our certification on the "final" survey. ;o)

I'm not trying to pick on whoever the person was that wrote this post (I can't see who's it was). I'm just using it to make the point that we too often give up way too easily when the easy answers don't come.

JBS

The boundary of the parcel is independent of the level of the lake.

When the lake withdraws, the boundary stays in place and the parcel does not reach the lake.

When the lake overflows onto the parcel the boundary stays in place and part of the property is in the lake. I remember a picture of Kent McMillan chin deep in a lake that would be appropriate to show this.

Also, in Texas, the parcel owner would probably gain access to use of the entire lake, but not access by the shoreline of other property affected by the lake.

A prime example of this is Lake Tapps, in Pierce County WA. Although I think it is considered a navigable lake.

It was owned by a power company and used to generate electricity. When the environmentalists started making them jump through too many hoops, they stopped using it.

The lake was was comprised of several different lakes and was filled during the summer and drained during the winter. In the summer, you had a nice water front piece of property to enjoy 😀 , in the winter it was muck and stumps.....:-P

There was a lot of controversy, when this hit the fan. The power company wanted to leave the lake drained due to costs and environmental issues. What do you think that would do to property values?

> The boundary of the parcel is independent of the level of the lake.
>
> When the lake withdraws, the boundary stays in place and the parcel does not reach the lake.
>
> When the lake overflows onto the parcel the boundary stays in place and part of the property is in the lake. I remember a picture of Kent McMillan chin deep in a lake that would be appropriate to show this.
>
> Also, in Texas, the parcel owner would probably gain access to use of the entire lake, but not access by the shoreline of other property affected by the lake.

The parameters of the original post says:

"John Doe buys the land in 1920, and his deed specifically says the north boundary is the south edge of the lake."

How could a deed that calls to the edge of a lake stay in place if the lake "withdraws" or "overflows"? I'm having trouble believing that regardless of which state you are in. I sure see a delimma here, and not sure I have seen an absolute solution. If a human who owns the lake changes where the edge of the lake is, I would think "I" as the adjacent owner would gain land if that person moves the edge farther away from my original propery line, but I would think it doesn't go against me if that person moves the lake farther onto my property. I would think it would go against the person changing the boundary. (But that is just my speculation. I don't know the answer.)