I'm not knowing what they mean by medial line.
In California, the Courts have said the boundary is the thread between the low water banks, not the centerline between the high water banks.
The medial line is a center line. It is usually calculated from the ordinary high water line, but in some cases ordinary low water, or even the gradient line is appropriate. The problem with just saying center line (or thread) ?ÿis that there ?ÿare an almost infinite number of methods to actually calculate it for a winding river. The medial line method solves that problem by describing the exact method to use. The legal boundary is actually the median line, but for practical proposes it is simplified to the medial line (see manual sections 8.62-8.69).
I use this method even for non-federally created boundaries, just because there is?ÿ not much guidance that says to do it any particular way from the states.
I don't think the boundary is calculated.?ÿ Our Courts have reasoned that the thread of the low water channel is the boundary because both owners need and are entitled to access to the water without committing a trespass.?ÿ There's no calculating involved, both owners can access the water's edge and own to the center of the channel.?ÿ Using the medial line between the high water banks could result in one side not having access to the water in summer or drought years which defeats the purpose of a water course boundary.
I'm not knowing what they mean by medial line.
In California, the Courts have said the boundary is the thread between the low water banks, not the centerline between the high water banks.
The medial line is a center line. It is usually calculated from the ordinary high water line, but in some cases ordinary low water, or even the gradient line is appropriate. The problem with just saying center line (or thread) ?ÿis that there ?ÿare an almost infinite number of methods to actually calculate it for a winding river. The medial line method solves that problem by describing the exact method to use. The legal boundary is actually the median line, but for practical proposes it is simplified to the medial line (see manual sections 8.62-8.69).
I use this method even for non-federally created boundaries, just because there is?ÿ not much guidance that says to do it any particular way from the states.
I don't think the boundary is calculated.?ÿ Our Courts have reasoned that the thread of the low water channel is the boundary because both owners need and are entitled to access to the water without committing a trespass.?ÿ There's no calculating involved, both owners can access the water's edge and own to the center of the channel.?ÿ Using the medial line between the high water banks could result in one side not having access to the water in summer or drought years which defeats the purpose of a water course boundary.
A?ÿmedial line?ÿbetween the ordinary low water lines (unlike OHW) would almost never be out of the water.
I haven't read California case law extensively, but the only cases I have seen that use the thread are noted as deviating from the norm because of the importance and difficulty of access. Is it adopted as universal assumption in California? The reason most jurisdictions have stayed?ÿaway from?ÿusing physical features below ordinary?ÿwater levels is the obvious difficulty of surveying?ÿa feature that is always under water.?ÿThe methods used to find the thalweg of a major river like the Mississippi?ÿdon't work to well in a mountain stream. ?ÿ
Dave Karoly you usually are quick with the legal references. What is your take on distance by straight line or meandering? Like I said previously the local practice here is to measure along the meander but with a serpentine brook the difference can be significant.
.Not quite sure which solution you favor Aliquot.
I think language like that usually means along the meandering brook, but I wouldn't give my opinion much weight, because local practice there may dictate otherwise. The other problem is that?ÿthe distance?ÿwould have been along the brook at the time the description was written, so any changes to the brook would require you to try to try to recreate the former position of the brook to determine the position of the sideline. Hopefully you have something else to go on?ÿto locate the side line.
Aliquot I agree with all you say in regards to local practice as well as original location. The reason I bring it up is that recently I read in "Interpreting Land Records" by Wilson that seems to be a reliance on holding a straight line distance.?ÿ
Giving it more thought raises several questions. In the case of a serpentine brook what would most likely have been the intent of the parties to follow the meanderings of the brook or a certain distance from one corner to the next.
?ÿ
Hack
I think what the cases say is that when a bearing and distance are given, the presumption is the line is intended to be straight.?ÿ In this case no bearing is given, and the distance is qualified as approximately.?ÿ The more certain language is the brook (a natural monument) and the stake (an artificial monument).?ÿ The stake is likely not there anymore, but historically artificial monuments have been memorialized or accessory evidence has been placed in reliance on them (including any improvements built at or nearer to the time of the original description) so that it's possible to determine the original location with a fair degree of certainty.?ÿ
Basically, if an adjoiner called me complaining about a retracement survey of this and asking if they should retain my services for a second opinion, and the survey showed 1180 feet, either along the brook or straight line, I would counsel them that yes I would probably have a different opinion of the line.?ÿ May or may not be in their favor, but definitely looks like evidence was missed.?ÿ I can't envision holding that distance under any circumstances, but theoretically I guess if that is the only option I would hold the solution that best matches the acreage.
I'm not knowing what they mean by medial line.
In California, the Courts have said the boundary is the thread between the low water banks, not the centerline between the high water banks.
The medial line is a center line. It is usually calculated from the ordinary high water line, but in some cases ordinary low water, or even the gradient line is appropriate. The problem with just saying center line (or thread) ?ÿis that there ?ÿare an almost infinite number of methods to actually calculate it for a winding river. The medial line method solves that problem by describing the exact method to use. The legal boundary is actually the median line, but for practical proposes it is simplified to the medial line (see manual sections 8.62-8.69).
I use this method even for non-federally created boundaries, just because there is?ÿ not much guidance that says to do it any particular way from the states.
I don't think the boundary is calculated.?ÿ Our Courts have reasoned that the thread of the low water channel is the boundary because both owners need and are entitled to access to the water without committing a trespass.?ÿ There's no calculating involved, both owners can access the water's edge and own to the center of the channel.?ÿ Using the medial line between the high water banks could result in one side not having access to the water in summer or drought years which defeats the purpose of a water course boundary.
A?ÿmedial line?ÿbetween the ordinary low water lines (unlike OHW) would almost never be out of the water.
I haven't read California case law extensively, but the only cases I have seen that use the thread are noted as deviating from the norm because of the importance and difficulty of access. Is it adopted as universal assumption in California? The reason most jurisdictions have stayed?ÿaway from?ÿusing physical features below ordinary?ÿwater levels is the obvious difficulty of surveying?ÿa feature that is always under water.?ÿThe methods used to find the thalweg of a major river like the Mississippi?ÿdon't work to well in a mountain stream. ?ÿ
This question of bank vs. thread is not one I have personally encountered in practice.?ÿ I haven't read all the cases Miller & Starr cites and the ones I have read have more circumstances than just a bare question of "does the bank equal the thread?"?ÿ California Courts typically don't make a lot of rules governing specific fact situations like other States sometimes do.?ÿ It tends to be more of an inquiry into what do the facts show the parties actually did.?ÿ The few cases I have read have additional circumstances backing up the ruling, such as the grantee accessed the water for over 30 years, this is strong evidence that the call to the bank carries out to the thread.?ÿ The California Courts will accept a practical interpretation by the parties as long as the language of the Deed is reasonably susceptible to that interpretation.?ÿ Our Parol Evidence rule is one page with 80 pages of exceptions in Witkins Summary of California Law.
Dave Karoly you usually are quick with the legal references. What is your take on distance by straight line or meandering? Like I said previously the local practice here is to measure along the meander but with a serpentine brook the difference can be significant.
If I had a Deed that intersected a creek or street with a distance to a point of intersection of the next sideline departing from the creek or street then I would look for superior evidence of that sideline and use the distance along the creek or street as a check to support that I'm at the correct sideline.
It can be tough to find legal citations on specific fact questions because that isn't what they are for, typically.?ÿ No Court is going to pronounce that the rule is a distance along a creek is always a straight line or always meandering, it's a question of fact unique to each case.?ÿ Old cases may provide some guidance in the reasoning to be used when picking one over the other.
