A new IBLA case from California that involves some BLM acquired land.
http://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/181IBLA/181IBLA291%20DENNIS%20KRAMER%209-20-2011.pdf
Any comments?
2 questions after reading the case:
1. Why is the IBLA involved when the government land in dispute is aquired land and NOT public domain?
2. Why didn't IBLA recognize Kramer's rights of possession on aquired land?
It seems to me the IBLA overstepped on this one.
Interesting.
Attempting to prove an old fence is an agreed boundary is nearly impossible in California due to Bryant vs Blevins. As in Bryant, the losing side in this case appears to have approached the case incorrectly. There is a tantalizing reference to the disputed boundary going to a "witness tree" but not much other information. That would lead me to believe these probably repeated descriptions from old Deeds were originally surveyed. That is what I would look into. Is there is evidence of an established location of this boundary which doesn't exactly match the record?
Forget the agreed boundary doctrine and, instead, dependantly resurvey that Deed boundary (vs just going record bearing and distance).
Note: none of this is meant to be criticism of the BLM and there is a good chance their answer is the best available especially since it more or less matches a 1959 Record of Survey.
BLM is correct, Kramer could have easily found out where his boundary is just by reference to the 1959 Survey. Also the fact that the mobile home appeared after the Feds took title doesn't help his case.
The point is the BLM administered land is AQUIRED. That means that Kramer is eligible for possessory rights under adverse possession. However what I don't know is how California handles adverse possession. That fact that the acquired land is being treated the same as public domain is what I find trouble some...
Since there are distinct differences between aquired federal land versus public domain it seems to me that Mr. Kramer might have recourse in State Court system. Fundamentally the once the public domain leaves it cannot return with the same status. Unless I missed it I did not see where the IBLA even addressed that issue. So I question whether or not they should have even rendered an opinion. This was not a survey issue but a possession claim. That is what I am seeing..