Murphy, post: 433321, member: 9787 wrote: A recorded plat showing their encroachment would be a breach of contract.
That's twisted logic. My reaction is that knowledge of the facts is nearly always a good thing. It would take some explanation and deep thought to convince me that rule was beneficial.
I did not intend to imply that I agree with it. Maine requires a signed contract prior to the start of any survey and the client has the legal right to specify not only who views the data but also the methods of obtaining the data.
After the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts was broke and commissioned surveys of their northern territory for the purpose of selling the land and/or trading it against debts owed. Millions of acres were suddenly owned by a relatively few private citizens.
Early settlers had an exceptionally difficult task in taming the wilderness. I believe the thought process for the Maine Rule stemmed from a recognition of these hardships coupled with knowledge that timber barons owned nearly everything. If a land owner was so complacent as to not notice that a family had cleared their land (massive trees were cut in wind rows then burned), built a house and barn on it, and cultivated it, well then that landowner obviously didn't need the land as much as the pioneer family.
Of course those days are gone. The handful of adverse possessors I've come across were closer to crooks than the brave souls who first settled Maine.
