In Maine, whom the gods wish to destroy, they supply with a nice-looking, recorded survey plan showing a long, very straight stone wall, and with deeds clearly calling the plan and calling the wall as the new boundary line (describing it with measurements that match those shown on the plan).
The survey plan was done in 1977 by a since-deceased surveyor for a big corporation that owned all the land on either side. But it turns out there are 2 stone walls that were thought by the subsequent owners, based on brief inspections, to run parallel with each other, about 20 feet apart, all the length of the boundary. They have no idea which is the boundary and one, wanting to cut some trees in between the two, hired me to find out. It sounded like the 1977 surveyor had simply failed to show one of the walls, considering it irrelevant, and I figured it would be a simple matter to use his measurements to determine which wall was intended to become the boundary.
The situation on the ground in fact seems to be as shown on this sketch:
There are no parties to the original conveyances around, nor any acts of the parties, to clarify any of this, nor any real acquiescence, possessory claims, etc. Were this going to court, my thinking would be that 1). the walls, as physical monumentation, trump the measurements, and 2). any ambiguity should be construed to favor the grantee -- in this case, owner 'B', whose title traces to a much earlier deed from the corporation than does 'A''s. I would therefore think that the boundary runs southerly along the more westerly wall till it ends and then somehow jogs over to run southerly along the easterly wall.
On the other hand, following in the "footsteps" of the 1977 guy -- well, I'd bet money that those were out in the nice open field lying east of all this, with a quick side shot on the pile of stones at the north end of what he erroneously assumed was the line of one and only one continuous wall, which he later depicted by connecting the dots. So his intentions, and thus those of the grantor, are somewhat ambiguous -- see 2). above.
I'll most likely recommend a BLA but any thoughts are welcome.
I know you like your stone walls up there, but isn't a wire fence that follows close to a straight extension of a stone wall on a line to a pile of stones a pretty good sign of intention and/or acquiescence? I'd be hard pressed to argue for a crooked boundary when there is a straighter line visible.
Cee Gee,
I agree with you on a BLA,
but if I were king, I sure do like that more s'ly wall and it's n'ly extention to the pile of stones.
The north end of the west wall seems to be trying to get back there, and the wire fence starts at the s'ly wall, then moseys a bit and looks like it's trying to get back to s'ly wall-pile of stones line.
[edit] I think Bill's idea is best.
My gut is with Bill's approach, my head is with the stone walls. I should add that the wire fence I've shown is really just a line of scant fence remnants in trees and not especially prominent, and that the northerly area is in steep woods where folks rarely venture (evidently including the previous surveyor!).
Incidentally, the pertinent deed language, running counter-clockwise around 'A''s parcel, is: "...westerly [along 'C']...to a point, said point being at a corner formed by the projection of two stone walls [the second being the easterly portion of C's southerly line, not shown on the sketch]; thence running southerly along [land retained by the corporation]... and to and along a stone wall." But either of the north-south stone walls roughly "projects" onto a corner near the painted tree/pile of stones, so the deed doesn't really resolve the ambiguity.
The 1977 plan clearly shows "the" stone wall running continuously up to about where the more northerly wall terminates. I suppose it's arguable that, since the more southerly wall does fit the deed language, it is "the" wall, i.e. the boundary, and that its length is simply depicted erroneously on the 1977 plan.
Here's the pertinent portion of the 1977 plan -- not a great scan but you get the idea. The line squiggly line styles are clearly identified on the plan as stone walls:
You have a descibed and monumented straight line that is along a stone wall. That second stone wall is no where near the property line and would provide a two property lines for a good portion which cannot in fact exist. Since the fence is not called for but a stone wall is you should hold the described straight line with the preponderance of the stone wall in agreement. If you jog the line I believe you are commiting slander of title. A BLA is not required.
Paul in PA
From what I have seen so far, I definitely like the SE'ly wall. I don't like the jog the line idea. I agree with the above post, it doesn't seem related to the boundary. The fact that someone tried to true it up as they neared the corner is telling.
One question, the record plan shows a gap between prop. corner and beginning of the north-south wall. What distance does it scale? I'm guessing that it matches the beginning of the SE'ly wall. That would be a hefty piece of evidence.
Stephen
Stephen: it's about 70 or 80 feet from the northwesterly corner area to the north end of the more northerly stone wall, which is roughly what one would scale off the 1977 plan. Which implies that the 1977 surveyor got a shot on the northerly end of the more northerly stone wall and used it to plot what he assumed was just one continuous, straight wall. That's one reason I resist rejecting the northerly wall altogether.
Another thing I should've perhaps added above: the terrain in the middle portion of the area of concern involves a small ravine that might lure one toward a connect-the-dots solution, especially if one was using transit and tape, which I suspect was the case here. I.e. I suspect the surveyor located the southerly portion of the southerly wall, traversed counterclockwise to the northwesterly corner, did or did not close his loop in more favorable terrain, and did the rest on paper. Though simply walking the line(s) might have kept imprecision from morphing into blunder.
Again, my gut is with the straight line solution. But the fact is that if you're walking the boundaries counterclockwise and you stand at the northwesterly corner and look southerly you can see the northerly end of that more northerly stone wall, and you also see that you're in the extended line of that wall, and if you've got the survey plan in hand you say "there's my line!" and you start walking that wall. You don't find out about the more southerly wall for several hundred feet.
But you just said you didn't think the older surveyor walked it. And the property owner could walk it clockwise and follow the wire. Are you looking too hard for ambiguity, when the intent appears to be fairly obvious to most posters.
Don't you just love stuff like this? Did the original owner start building the wall from one direction and the come from another direction and miss his other wall? Of course he must have passed by a good 30' or more! I hate it when that happens!
Or maybe someone started moving that wall? and then gave up?
I like the southerly wall based on what's been presented but if this was an exam question I'd want more info!
Bill: I hear you and as I said, in my gut I agree. But the ambiguity arose independent of me -- the fact is that both property owners have walked the line(s) and both are confused and uncertain -- that's why one brought me in. The wire is hard to find and even with it flagged up (as of last week!) it's understandable that one might not follow it when it's not called anywhere and there's a stone wall shown on the plan and prominent a few feet to one's left.
I agree with Bill. Could there have been an old drive or farm road between those two walls?
Maine stone wall deed reading
> Incidentally, the pertinent deed language, running counter-clockwise around 'A''s parcel, is: "...westerly [along 'C']...to a point, said point being at a corner formed by the projection of two stone walls [the second being the easterly portion of C's southerly line, not shown on the sketch]; thence running southerly along [land retained by the corporation]... and to and along a stone wall." But either of the north-south stone walls roughly "projects" onto a corner near the painted tree/pile of stones, so the deed doesn't really resolve the ambiguity.
>
> The 1977 plan clearly shows "the" stone wall running continuously up to about where the more northerly wall terminates. I suppose it's arguable that, since the more southerly wall does fit the deed language, it is "the" wall, i.e. the boundary, and that its length is simply depicted erroneously on the 1977 plan.
Well, the most straightforward approach is to actually read the language of the deed. The locative elements are:
- a corner formed by the projection of two stone walls
- thence running southerly ... and to and along a stone wall
In other words, you don't have two walls that the West line runs along, you have one.
The plan is, I take it, entirely sufficient to identify which one was intended. To argue that the language of the deed refers to two stone walls when the language says no such thing is what introduces the ambiguity that is claimed to exist.
There appears to be an angle point of roughly (but not quite) 180 near the end of the southerly stone wall. I think the projection goes from the end of that southerly wall. If the intent was the other wall, then the measurements would reflect it rather than the southerly one. The drafter inadvertantly drew in too many stones; should have stopped at the angle point but possibly there was a location on the end of the other wall and they connected dots they shouldn't have.
The mapping and deed language is not great but the fact is that if you project off the notherly wall there is no way to make the deed work without injecting uncalled for courses. Neither map nor deed calls for two stone walls, so even if the theory is that the wall call can have twists and turns not reflected in the measurements, you still depart from the deed and map when you switch from one wall to the other. I think you have to pick one wall or the other, and looking at it that way, which one would you choose? You would need to extend the northerly wall in a southerly direction also, and there does not seem to be any call for that.
There is only one reasonable retracement solution, but if the parties want to argue over unwritten lines they certainly have that right.
> The drafter inadvertently drew in too many stones; should have stopped at the angle point but possibly there was a location on the end of the other wall and they connected dots they shouldn't have.
I agree wholeheartedly. This appears to be a drafting error. What season was this survey done? Hopefully there was no snow on the ground?
My gut tells me this is a case of the surveyor (party chief) drawing a poor sketch and a draftsman drawing in a stonewall where there was none. Also, you mentioned that although the Corp owned both properties, each parcel had a prior historical record and description. It would seem to me that the intent may have been to relocate the historical line which my gut tells me is the most easterly line (wall and fence). Am I correct?
From what I know from this post I would go with the wall and fence remnants.
Merlin:
The 1977 survey is dated September so snow was probably not a factor (though plans sometimes get finalized and dated many months after field work is complete).
If "the" stone wall had been a boundary prior to the corporation's ownership it was in the distant past and there's no manifest evidence of an intent to "revive" it as such that I've seen. Certainly that may have been in their minds though.
Merlin:
> If "the" stone wall had been a boundary prior to the corporation's ownership it was in the distant past and there's no manifest evidence of an intent to "revive" it as such that I've seen. Certainly that may have been in their minds though.
Just to clarify what you mean in the above paragraph, does the "meaning and intending to convey" part of the description give a deed reference that can be connected to the historical line? I know that the "meaning and intending to convey" part of the deed is weighted very lightly in litigation, but for non-court purposes I would give it weight given the circumstances. Also, for non-court purposes, I would emphasize my gut feeling to the parties in hope of getting a meeting of the minds.
Merlin:
Good question. Interestingly, the deed from the corporation does not include any source recital at all. I would agree that in some situations such a clause might have clarified things.
And I will indeed emphasize my "gut feeling" to the parties as you suggest -- it's been strengthened by all these responses!
A blowout!
Seems basically unanimous, as is rarely the case on this board. I'm not at all convinced that there's no ambiguity but I am convinced that I was making too much of it. I expect to advise my client that the more easterly solution is by far the most defensible but that a BLA would clear up the record. He is not so much concerned with using or claiming more land as with resolving the uncertainty.
Many thanks to all who posted.