Is this statement true?
"Although not contained in the 1973 and previous Manuals, repose is introduced in the 2009 Manual at 3-137. As applied to the Public Land Survey System, repose works to stabilize title transactions, not location, when an argument is based on differences in acreage or original survey measurements. In particular, it typically works to dismiss transaction conflicts based on acreage discrepancies in a patent when manifested by differences in original versus resurvey measurements."
(emphasis added)
For your consideration, from the 2009 Manual § 3-137: "Were the Federal Government obliged to open the question as to the location of a particular tract or tracts over technical differences or reasonable discrepancies, controversies would constantly arise, and resurveys and readjudication would be interminable. The law gives these activities repose."
My understanding has always been that repose is specifically applicable as a location matter. I don't understand a statement that asserts otherwise.
Where did that statement come from?
Evan,
That was my understanding also, especially considering the clear language of 3-137 in the Manual (as well as other locations), but that is why I posted this. I was looking for more input or possible references that would help me understand that position.
As to where it is from, it may surprise you, but then again, maybe not. It is from a state BLM office.
The statement seems a bit misguided to me.
My understanding: A statute of limitation sets a time period starting when damages are discovered where recovery is possible. A statute of repose sets a time period from the initial act when damages my be recovered. Repose in general is just a long period of time where the courts just deem it long gone and not reasonable to try and correct some error (forever let sleeping dogs lie). So the location of a boundary mark would be subject to repose from my view and seems to be what the 2009 Manual says. It's sort of common sense that after a long period (repose) that correcting an error may cause more damage than accepting the error and leaving it stand.
Brian
Was the statement from your State's BLM?
The statement does not seem to be right and a reading of the Sub-Titled, "Subdivision of Sections by Local Surveyors" and its Summary (3-137) seem clear to me.
It also would seem to me that this is a well written explanation that is opposite the "bogus theory" that I refer to?
The fact jumps out at me that the Manual is about surveys and locations of boundaries, not about title disagreements.
Keith
