John
Not to berate you but you seem to be trolling with these lines of questions.
Obviously, boundaries are created in multiple ways.
Original lines ran from the owners
New division lines created thereafter
Adjustments made to the lines in a myriad of ways.
What I don't know, is what you're trying to evoke here. You don't typically look for a fight, but you don't back down. This line of questioning here isn't going to (in my opinion) open a new line of dialog up. It seems to be a question of the old "how long has there been a fence there" discussion which just like P&R, folks have already drawn swords and picked a side.
For me, unwritten rights were not an easy concept to grasp or understand, and even tougher was how to implement the possibility that it had occurred. To that end, I read clark, skelton, robillard, brown, and all had a similar, but different stance on when and how practical location, adverse possession, acquiescence and long standing recognition either are created or take place. For that reason, I then, after having had the ground work, spent time reviewing cases on the subject and then asking for interpretation from learned attorneys in the real estate world.
Only then did I realize I'd forgot one thing. The most important item to remember is that jurisprudence and real-estate action for these types of occurrences are going to differ by jurisdiction due to stare-decisis in that STATE case law is going to be given preference over other states case law. Essentially, this says that each state treats these differently and understanding your states stance on the subject and remedies to them are the only way you can ever apply them in the real world.
Speaking strictly from Texas, Chapter 16 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies code outlines AP very well, but it can only be recognized as having happened after a district judge rules that all of the criteria were met. This is not running from the problem, or ignoring our "quasi-judicial" role as outlined by Cooley, but simply allowing the courts to do their job inasmuch as calling of witnesses, introducing evidence, and other arguments that are outside the purview of surveyors.
Obviously, this has caused quite a stir, but when it became apparent that should I make decisions that certain actions had happened, without allowing the other side their argument in a court of law, it was shown that I could be depriving (at a very extreme level) certain people of their 14th amendment, not only jeopardizing my license, but my personal estate at a federal level.
Now, that is not to say that I haven't counseled clients and had them call neighbors in to outline problems that I'd found, given both side all of the information, and then offered possible remedies that they could both use. We are not advocates for our clients, but we are not courts-of-law either. I fully believe that the rights of the owners are paramount and so long as both parties are in agreement, there is no reason to involve the courts so long as their actions (or inactions) are fully memorialized in the public record.
So, in short, it depends. 🙂
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
So...seminars come first; then come seminars.
Kris
I wouldn't call it trolling; I don't think John in intentionally stirring up trouble. The rest of your post is a nice little essay though, well done.
Personally, after 4 years of college (OK 5), I had it up to here with the Socratic method of teaching where the wise professor asks a question and waits while the ignorant class flails at answers until some apple-polisher says the magic words the prof was looking for. I prefer that the teacher tells me what he thinks I need to know and I can be on my way.
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
> So...seminars come first; then come seminars.
Yes, once a person discovers that he can collect money for giving seminars, it's like an addiction.
Deral and Perry,
Darn it...no, was not done on purpose, just sometimes my fingers work that way?
By the way...Deral or Darrel?
Keith
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
Well, I can certainly see that. If you like teaching and if people are willing to pay to hear you teach, that would be a good money-making venture. And if you like playing the "devil's advocate" and poking holes in everything someone else says whether you agree with them philosophically or not, you might become a lawyer. Me...I can't do much of either well. I think I will stick to being a eastern-european cab driver....;-)
boundary lines
When determining boundary line in deed, if the description in deed is clear and unambiguous, it must me given in effect; in such case, inquiry is not intent of parties but intent that is expressed in the deed.
Kris
> I wouldn't call it trolling; I don't think John in intentionally stirring up trouble. The rest of your post is a nice little essay though, well done.
>
> Personally, after 4 years of college (OK 5), I had it up to here with the Socratic method of teaching where the wise professor asks a question and waits while the ignorant class flails at answers until some apple-polisher says the magic words the prof was looking for. I prefer that the teacher tells me what he thinks I need to know and I can be on my way.
Steve,
I would agree with your assessment of teaching methods. The best professor I had was for Psych 101 (which I majored in) who did just that. He told us that he didn't want to play a game wherein the students guessed at what they should learn out of the textbook. He said he would tell us what he wanted us to learn and we could concentrate on that instead of dividing our attention amongst irrelevant and innocuous material. He said that if we studied what he told us to study for the tests, we would make a 100, if not, we wouldn't. He was right. It was straightforward and a much more effective way of teaching.
Kris
> I wouldn't call it trolling; I don't think John in intentionally stirring up trouble. The rest of your post is a nice little essay though, well done.
>
> Personally, after 4 years of college (OK 5), I had it up to here with the Socratic method of teaching where the wise professor asks a question and waits while the ignorant class flails at answers until some apple-polisher says the magic words the prof was looking for. I prefer that the teacher tells me what he thinks I need to know and I can be on my way.
Thanks Steve. I appreciate the kind words on a subject I still find myself grappling with at times.
After 20 years of mandatory continuing education, I cannot figure out
why JB and Lucas are trolling the Internet for seminar business. It does
not seem to make any money for them. The associations make most of the
money and pay the speakers about $1000 +/- With all of the running around
and seminar preparation, it would seem like waste of time. All the
seminar speakers that I know have a real job:
Robillard - attorney
Wilson - professor
Lucas - lawyer
Wahlstrom - professor
Broaddus - attorney
Wahl - BLM
Denny - training
Wendy -- I don't really know what Wendy does. I guess she is a surveyor.
She seems to go around keeping surveyors unemployed by slamming
corporations who provide us surveyors jobs. Her name is always
showing up with the Audubon Society or Save the Earth. She seems
to be knowledgeable about FEMA and as a result probably signs
few of the flood certificates.
Many of the speakers above are good but I think are wasting their time.
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
> Well, I can certainly see that. If you like teaching and if people are willing to pay to hear you teach, that would be a good money-making venture.
I think that "talk" is probably a better verb than "teach". Teach assumes that the person speaking is doing anything more than simply making foam from such material as "Why is a boundary?" and "When is a deed?"
Glenn
Psych's what I got my degree in, too.
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
> > Well, I can certainly see that. If you like teaching and if people are willing to pay to hear you teach, that would be a good money-making venture.
>
> I think that "talk" is probably a better verb than "teach". Teach assumes that the person speaking is doing anything more than simply making foam from such material as "Why is a boundary?" and "When is a deed?"
lol.....and that's why I make a better cab driver than a lawyer.
Seminars just may prevent the cock ups that are providing U
> I think that "talk" is probably a better verb than "teach".
The word, "teach," presumes that the listener is able to be "teachable." Perhaps, that's why Kent prefers "talk."
JBS
No, I'm not "trolling for seminars," nor am I attempting to apply some "Socratic method" to my questions. And, I do wonder sometimes why I've invested and excess of 20 years of my surveying career to "teaching" surveyors anything that I've learned. It certainly isn't because of the "money." Show me one teacher out there who's "in it for the money." Paul is right in saying, that "with all of the running around and seminar preparation, it would seem like waste of time."
There are certainly times when I begin to wonder why as well. It takes a lot of work and a lot of my time. Time I could be accomplishing more work and, frankly, making more money (I am a full-time surveyor, if you didn't know). It just happens that I have a gift. Most teachers have a gift. The gift isn't some superior knowledge. It's a gift of teaching. My knowledge and experiences have given me a unique opportunity to share those with others in our profession. I love it; that's why I do it. Anyway, back to the real questions at hand...
The reason I'm asking these questions is because I am surprised by many of the responses that I get. We have become too wrapped up in ourselves to step back and answer these two simple questions? We, of all professions, ought to be able to know with absolute certainty what the answers are. Yet, I never really new (or understood) these answers until recently. I've been so caught up in the technicalities, that I had lost sight of the purely fundamental issues.
The [serious] responses that I got on the first question were really close to the mark. Some of the textbook definitions, of course are correct definitions, but there is a key element that is consistent in most every answer. It's a key element that really makes the light bulb flicker when you first realize it.
There have been very few [serious] responses to the second question. And, I would venture to say, that none of them are even close to the right answer. This is the question that I expected everyone to stumble over. It's one I stumbled over for most of my career. I never realized it, until the "light bulb" moment.
So, in all seriousness, no baiting, no tricks, no ulterior motives... how would you answer these questions? We're surveyors who make their livelihood from determining boundary locations. We ought to know...
> What is a [real property] boundary?
> How are real property boundaries created?
JBS
Real property boundaries are created by occupation and agreement.
John
I agree with Steve. Nice essay. The question that is posed has nothing to do with anything covered in your essay, however.
>How are real property boundaries created?
JBS
The definition I would use is they are created by having an initial right to occupy land then by use of that land, and the successful defense of that lands bounds.
jud
John
I disagree. In each case, a new boundary may be created. Your question leaves a lot to the imagination.
While I don't have a text book, how about these
1. When your wife says no in bed and slaps you. No fence goes up but a boundary has for sure been created
Okay, enough fun, so here's a stab at an all inclusive definition
Whenever a severance is made by the sovereign, a secondary severance is made of junior tract, political subdivisions divide land for districts, or any othe severance or division of either real property for the use of an individual or the general public, a boundary is created.
🙂
Question #2...Why teach?
I do not pretend to speak for John as he is more than capable of speaking for himself.
I can tell you part of the reason I teach is because of all that I learn from the process. Plus, I love to share the things I've learned with others. Makes me feel good to know that someone else can benefit from something I taught.
Ok, back to the regular discussion.
Larry P