Mr. Fenton
If the established physical boundary was in place when the present owners bought the property, they were not part of the agreement, therefore they have no right to abrogate that agreement.
Even if the original boundary monumentation is in place or can be replaced, that is irrelevant. When statutes of limitation or repose are in your state laws, you are slandering the title of the one who occupies and controls the property when you question the validity of the visible occupation and control evidence.
Go to the POB site and search for the Lucas article on slander of title and you will see what happened when a CA surveyor 'staked a deed'. I believe the appelate court called it a 'bogus survey'.
Not all lawyers are stupid and the punitive damage award of 2 or 3 times the actual proven damage is free money for the lawyer. Kiss your retirement fund goodbye.
Richard Schaut
Mr. Schaut
If you're going to refer to that Lucas article as an example, at least get some of the facts straight. I did not "stake the deed" and therefore produce a "bogus survey". The current deeds to the subject properties described parcels created on recorded Parcel Maps prepared by a civil engineer who lost his license due to negligence, incompetence, fraud and deceit. Those were "bogus" surveys as were most of the surveys that engineer did in his career. The purpose of the survey I recorded was to show the "Area of Conflict" between those surveys and what a correct interpretation of the parent deeds would have been.
I did not participate in the Appellate case, in fact didn't know it had taken place until I read about it in POB. I don't know what testimony led the judge to label my survey "bogus". There was testimony at trial that there were occupation lines based on the old surveys, which wasn't true. The trial judge threw out my client's claim in the quiet title action, the neighbors brought the slander of title suit and won. I was specifically excluded from any slander charges because the slander (in the court's decision) occurred before I was hired to show the conflict that was the subject of the quiet title action.
Does that help?
Mr. Schaut
Not necessarily arguing against your position, I just have never seen these "agreements" you talk so much about. I have seen original owners of subdivided lots who both thought the fence (or some other feature) was the line, and they were content with this line, until the original subdivision monuments were uncovered. At that point all bets are off, and, invariably, the owner who stands to "gain" land all of a sudden is not happy with the "agreed upon" line.
Are you saying that owners who believed a line to be in one place are precluded from claiming to the line as subdivided when original monuments are uncovered?
