Directly related to the other thread on this topic...
Joe Blow has title to the entire SE1/4 of a rural section. Joe Blow Non-Surveyor wants to demarcate his lines for timbering. Of course this indicates he is in a high multi-path environment. Anyway, Joe Blow rents a network rover and goes to town tying in his corners. The friendly guys at the neighborhood survey rental shop even show Joe Blow how to key in a line with 2 points. Joe Blow sets his section lines out marked by tee posts every couple hundred feet.
Time goes on...
For 20 years no one questions the line.
I think I know the answer after reading all of the court cases recently posted, but I have to ask.
Boundary by acquiescence?
JBrinkworth, post: 349978, member: 6179 wrote: Directly related to the other thread on this topic...
Joe Blow has title to the entire SE1/4 of a rural section. Joe Blow Non-Surveyor wants to demarcate his lines for timbering. Of course this indicates he is in a high multi-path environment. Anyway, Joe Blow rents a network rover and goes to town tying in his corners. The friendly guys at the neighborhood survey rental shop even show Joe Blow how to key in a line with 2 points. Joe Blow sets his section lines out marked by tee posts every couple hundred feet.
Time goes on...
For 20 years no one questions the line.
I think I know the answer after reading all of the court cases recently posted, but I have to ask.
Boundary by acquiescence?
Well, maybe, but what does a network rover have to do with it? What if he had just used a compass and paced out the 200' intervals? Also, does he actually cut timber to that line and continue to do so for 20 years? Does he plant grass or other crop to the line? I think his actions have to last for a longer time. Cutting timber one year might not "cut it". One might question a bunch of t-posts as opposed to a fence. (Point is, using the rover might be the least of the actions that help it ripen to full ownership.)
Tom Adams, post: 349990, member: 7285 wrote: ...Cutting timber one year might not "cut it"...
Also depends on how obvious this is to the true owner. The absentee, non-resident owner of timber land may, in good faith, not become aware of the trespass until a number of years after the fact. Until he is aware of it he cannot acquiesce to it.
Tom Adams, post: 349990, member: 7285 wrote: One might question a bunch of t-posts as opposed to a fence.
I doubt this would be an issue. I've read cases where anything that reasonably defined a visible usage line was sufficient.
I agree that measurement methods don't matter. How the line got there is irrelevant; it's how the line is treated over the years.
Good point, Norman. Whereas adverse possession of a parcel may only require that an adverse usage be "open and notorious" etc with a responsibility for the true owner to check on their property, Acquiescence to a boundary requires both adjoining owners to take actions that treat the line as their boundary.
First, we definitely need to know which state the land is located in.
Tom Adams, post: 349990, member: 7285 wrote: Well, maybe, but what does a network rover have to do with it? What if he had just used a compass and paced out the 200' intervals?
Right. In the spirit of this thread Renting survey Equipment to non-surveyors. His example was a novice renting a GPS unit in a high multipath environment. Obviously, the results would be less than stellar. Hell, his example quoted 500 acres. I was trying to simplify it.
Tom Adams, post: 349990, member: 7285 wrote: Also, does he actually cut timber to that line and continue to do so for 20 years? Does he plant grass or other crop to the line? I think his actions have to last for a longer time. Cutting timber one year might not "cut it". One might question a bunch of t-posts as opposed to a fence. (Point is, using the rover might be the least of the actions that help it ripen to full ownership.)
I am illustrating the fact that boundaries can be created by non-surveyors if the appropriate conditions are met. Change 20 years to 50 years with obvious occupation along the errant lines run by Joe Blow and acceptance by the adjoiners. I believe Joe Blow would have a case.
Brian Allen, post: 350006, member: 1333 wrote: First, we definitely need to know which state the land is located in.
Awww...come on Brian. Joe Blow lives in every state. I think the concept is generally the same. Specifics of how long and some other details are state-by-state. (Maybe you could assume it's Idaho).
Bill93, post: 350005, member: 87 wrote: ....adverse possession of a parcel may only require that an adverse usage be "open and notorious"....
I think the same principle would apply to AP. In AP possession needs to be open and notorious so as to put the true owner on notice that his land is being encroached against. What "open and notorious" means varys with the geography and the various principals circumstances. An owner deployed on military service cannot be AP'ed against, for example, because he can't be expected to be on such notice. The seminal Oregon AP case, Reeves v. Porta, includes a discussion of this. If the property is remote forest land suitable for nothing else but growing trees it might be perfectly reasonable for an encroachment to go unnoticed for decades. Such occupation would not be sufficiently open and notorious to satisfy AP.
The laws of your state may vary.
Tom Adams, post: 350008, member: 7285 wrote: ....Joe Blow lives in every state. I think the concept is generally the same.....
There is more variation than you might think. The Oklahoma court really likes fence lines and rules in favor of recognition and acquiescence often. The Oregon court sets a very high bar for AP and rules in favor of unwritten lines only rarely. The fact that you can often stand on the road and see all 4 corners of an entire section in Oklahoma, and not be able to see the right of way fence from your car in Oregon, may have something to do with that.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 350016, member: 9981 wrote: There is more variation than you might think. The Oklahoma court really likes fence lines and rules in favor of recognition and acquiescence often. The Oregon court sets a very high bar for AP and rules in favor of unwritten lines only rarely. The fact that you can often stand on the road and see all 4 corners of an entire section in Oklahoma, and not be able to see the right of way fence from your car in Oregon, may have something to do with that.
It's very tough to get unwritten title transfered in some states, what works in one won't in another.
MightyMoe, post: 350027, member: 700 wrote: It's very tough to get unwritten title transfered in some states, what works in one won't in another.
I thought this thread was on boundary acquiescence, which shouldn't affect title. How did it get switched to title issues?
Bill
You make a good point. This linked case gives clues regarding the difference.
AP a title question
Bill93, post: 350052, member: 87 wrote: .....How did it get switched to title issues?
Um...somebody named Bill introduced the subject of AP.
Oh, that was just to emphasize the distinction when I was adding to your point about notice.
Bill93, post: 350076, member: 87 wrote: Oh, that was just to emphasize the distinction when I was adding to your point about notice.
And it's tougher to move a boundary from the written deed in some states.
