> A mentor once told me “words do mean something” right before opening a copy of Black’s law Dictionary to discuss the content of a legal description.
I think that in the context below, ancient would refer to any original subdividing mark.
Proverbs 23:10
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless,
> Yeah, I've did all that.
Well, it sounds like it's time to draw a map with a blizzard of text so a title company can write a description that solves the problem. :>
What I have is a tidy record that mostly maths out and a physical reality on the ground that doesn't fit the record in perfect harmony, perfectly square vs. very warped. So the question really is which should be adjusted, the lines on the ground to the paper, or the paper to the actual location of the established boundaries. Realistically to fix up the record you need agreements entered by the landowners, probably boundary line adjustments to bring all along in Utah (the title folks hate boundary line agreements, you gotta convey to make them happy).
Some try to move the ancient line on the ground and then sort out who owns the gaps or overlaps. If you are one of the landowners where east meets west and have the overlap problem or need to claim no mans lands to own your house, then what the surveyor threw you into isn't a very pleasant experience.
Most landowners are resistant to spending any money to repair what they don't see as broke. Bad survey stories don't help.
So if we want boundary utopia, where the GIS map (title records) and the actual boundaries are the same, there is a lot of work to do that nobody wants to pay for. What's going to break the dam and cause the flood of repairs needed?
Maybe you're thinking of the ancient document rule of evidence. If I recall, 30 years old meets the federal rule and states have similar rules that may differ slightly (I think NY is 20 years).
The rule allows (for instance) a survey map not filed in the public record to be introduced into evidence even if the surveyor is long dead. Normally not allowed becuase the surveyor needs to be in court to authenticate the document. To be allowed in under the rule it would still need to be shown that said surveyor actually existed and worked in that geographical area.
As far as the fence goes; I'm not sure it makes much difference. I like to use "ancient" cause it makes me feel younger:-/
Thank you, Kent!
New one for me, I will try to use it in a sentence 5 times today ....heh, right!
Contemporaneously:
: existing or happening during the same time period
: existing, occurring, or originating during the same time
-JD-
That's probably it. 🙂
Generally speaking in terms of surveying, I would suggest that it's all relative; and would be interpreted within the context of your use. I highly doubt that a term on your plat will be interpreted by a court by some "legal" definition. Maybe if you used ancient, relative to a fence, you might use it for if the fence appears to have been there longer than the (as someone mentioned) statute of limitations or the amount of time it takes to acquire by adverse possession. You aren't making a determination of adverse possession per se, but merely pointing out the apparent age of some of the improvements. Even then, giving a realistic estimate of the actual length of time it's been there is of much more value (in my opinion) than what term you actually used.
Ancient in terms of actual boundary markers might be, for instance finding a boundary marker of a spanish land grant vs. whenever a section was set by the original surveyor.
As far as Kent's banterings with his online adversaries, I would say that his disagreements with Leon or Gene Kooper are "old" whereas his arguments with Richard Schaut would be 'ancient'.
Seems to me that I read (or heard at a seminar) long ago that "ancient" in this context means "beyond the memory of man," so the actual age (or pedigree) of an "ancient" monument would almost by definition be impossible to prove.
The terms are relative to the age of the person writing the note. An iron rod from 1984 may be "old" to a 25 year old, but not to a 65 year old.
Now for some Van Halen........
Federal Rules of Evidence (adopted in the majority of states):
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.
Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:
(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;
(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and
(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.
Thank you!
Like I said, I come here to learn AND sometimes for entertainment.
Having evidence to support the age is the real kicker. Being rusty in appearance is not enough.
Yes, it's about reliability of the evidence. It is interesting how this changes in differing jurisdictions and circumstances. Many states don't use the federal rules of evidence, but may use something similar.
If relying on a certain piece of evidence, it would be prudent to review how your state treats it. After all, the surveyors opinion is that of the lowest and undeclared court.
