How about this situation. The street creeps by almost a foot over a couple decades. Pins have been set at the property corners, ostensibly, original monuments and are fairly stable. The pins are mowed over, and disappear from view into the soil. Curb cuts are right there on top of the ambulatory street and are being relied on to mark the extension of the property line. Homeowners see the curb cut and have always believed that to be the line.
From a survey standpoint, I don't know why a licensee would be marking the extension line without finding and using those rear monuments.
If the landowners are relying upon called-for monumentation and occupying to them, I'd have to ask why my magic survey box - which will only detect that movement over many years - should overrule their acceptance of that bona fide monumentation and their agreed-upon and occupied boundaries.
I'd be genuinely curious to see an actual, real-world situation where it can be proven that an entire street has moved enough on its own over decades - without anything else in the area moving - to upset real property rights or deprive anyone of their land.
Anyone have any case law on such an occurrence? I'm not talking earthquakes or avulsive events, but where existent and relied-upon monumentation was overruled by natural, slow and steady movement of large sections of ground, and new monumentation was placed where the original monumentation "used to be".
In my part of the country, the concrete streets themselves actually float little by little as 12x12 sections. You can see the gaps between each section increase over the years. One case I alluded to in particular was a cul-de-sac at the bottom of a long hill with concrete streets. The street pushed the driveway which pushed the garage off the house, tearing apart the brick facade enough to put a hand through to the outside. Ultimately, the driveway had a large section taken out and replaced with asphalt which then buckled up because of the continuing pressure/movement from the street.
Common usage of centerline and curb cuts only came into being around here about 30 years ago and the problems are only now coming to light. Kentucky is not a flat or dry state. Asphalt is more stationary than concrete but it still slips some. imagine a single concrete pad poured on a slope with no footers. By itself, that pad is going to slowly inch its way down the hill. Now imagine a bunch of those pads poured on a slope with no footers and surrounded by houses. Still going to move downhill.
Anyone have any case law on such an occurrence?
Maybe; if Johnny Cochran was on the case...
I'm just going to leave this right here:
This article has been corrected in this online archive. Originally, due to a mistake by the Associated Press, the marker’s location was incorrectly reported as being 2.5 miles off the correct spot. According to Dave Doyle of the National Geodetic Survey, the monument marking the intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah is about 1,807 feet east of where it should have been placed in 1875. Doyle says the monument’s location has been legally
adopted by all the states as the official corner.
How about this situation. The street creeps by almost a foot over a couple decades. Pins have been set at the property corners, ostensibly, original monuments and are fairly stable. The pins are mowed over, and disappear from view into the soil. Curb cuts are right there on top of the ambulatory street and are being relied on to mark the extension of the property line. Homeowners see the curb cut and have always believed that to be the line.
It might be a candidate for acquiescence if it went to court. I'd ask the homeowners separately if they'd prefer the original monuments or the curb cuts. If they both wanted the curb cuts, I'd guide them through the quit claim process then pull the original monuments after tying them down the new ones I'd set. I might even tie it state plane and slap some coordinates on the new corners.
If they couldn't agree, I'd hold the originals, show the cuts and tell them they better call Saul after pointing to the small print on page 37 of my contract that details my obnoxiously high hourly fee for anything associated with legal actions, proceedings, clarifications, documents assembly, calls, responses to emails or texts, and correspondences of any shape or form
