I have run into this problem a number of times and would like to get a sense of how others approach it.
When a USA condemned property is bounded by a stream and described by meander lines can those lines move? Or are they fix by the condemnation proceeding at the date of decree.
If a USA condemned boundary states "to the bank" can I extend it to the thread as is typical under state law?
Thanks
- James
It sounds like they only condemned to the bank.
described by meander lines
Who owns the stream bed? What do the adjoiners descriptions along the waterway say.
jud
It depends on the state.
Here in Ohio property described as to and along the top of bank of a navigable stream extends to the median line (not the thread) of the stream per Gavit v. Chambers 1828.
Excellent question. Tough to answer without having experience in the proper jurisdiction.
Additional Info:
Condemnation by the United States for National Forest system lands.
State of New Hampshire
Non-Navigable stream, under state law ownership extends to the thread even when the deed calls for the bank etc.
Adjoiners descriptions call for both bank & thread but state law applies.
Problem or question I have is can NH state law can be applied to a federal condemnation action.
Yes. State law applies to private lands and their transfer. The owner whose property was condemned otherwise would still own between the meander lines and the thread. Normally, that would make no sense whatsoever.
> Additional Info:
>
> Condemnation by the United States for National Forest system lands.
>
> State of New Hampshire
> Non-Navigable stream, under state law ownership extends to the thread even when the deed calls for the bank etc.
>
> Adjoiners descriptions call for both bank & thread but state law applies.
>
> Problem or question I have is can NH state law can be applied to a federal condemnation action.
Yes. There is no federal "property law." There is only state law. A federal agency, condemning property, will follow state law with regard to the boundaries of the property being condemned. They can only condemn what the party owns; that's governed by state law.
The presumption of law holds that the boundary between adjoining upland properties on opposite sides of a non-navigable stream own to the thread (split of the OHWM), unless contrary evidence is discovered. A call to the bank in the deeds of conveyance are not an expression of a contrary intent. It is normal to describe to the bank and to survey a meander line for the purpose of determining the area of the upland property which has value. That area will be used to determine the valuation of the property to be compensated as a result of the condemnation action.
The call to the natural monument is a call to the center of the monument. The fact that they called to the "bank" of the monument, doesn't create an automatic intent for the owner of the bed to retain its holding. There's simply no practical purpose. In TX, the principle is referred to as the "doctrine of strips and gores." In other jurisdictions, it's simply a presumption of law that the landowners intend to convey all they have with no intention of retaining some small, narrow strip of land with no practical purpose.
Sure, they could have described it better (and possibly kept some anally-retentive surveyor from creating a "gap"), but that's not a requirement. The presumption stands until direct evidence is discovered to overcome it.
JBS
Thank you
The only consternation I have is that condemnations take the exact property listed in the decree. They do not need to conform to lines of ownership. (looking for cite, have to grab from office) If the surveyed decree is technically correct it could be viewed that the intent was to conform to the survey. Or that it is not possible to determine the intent of the time, even when the solution seems obvious or common.
Devils Advocate
The only consternation I have is that condemnations take the exact property listed in the decree.
Any grantee is going to take ownership of the property in the description per the law of the state.
It might be easier to just realize that the words "condemnation" and "federal government" do not figure into how riparian property is described and conveyed in New Hampshire. I thought JBS made that pretty clear.
If a parcel was conveyed from John Smith, grantor, to Fred Johnson, grantee, using the same description, the result would be the same. What would be the result in that case? There is your answer.
