Thence south 00 degrees 38 minutes 52 seconds east, 1284.36 feet along a fence

I'll bite,

Saying Along implies the fence controls which is fine and the tie is just for reference.

If im going straight line derived from a linear regression of the fence I give the tie then say " being generally evidenced by".

Which way I go depends on a number of factors including the past deeds.

Does the fact that reporting the boundary bearing to 1 second indicates someone who hasn't a clue have an influence?

I would trust a monument (ie fencepost) at each end of the line way more than those numbers

does the adjoining property call for the fence? 

@hpalmer 

I have found this to be used commonly on a smaller tract being separated from a larger tract.  The parent tract less the new tract leaves a remainder tract, which would be bound to the same intent as the surveyor attempted to document.

This would be inapproriate for something like a quarter section line.

Saying along, is different than with.

The property line doesn't weave and meander as the fence does between the two main fence corners when along is used. But it does when with is used.

Each state is different how this is adjudicated, but in my opinion use from the 2" aluminum cap, at a fence corner, thence S0d38'52"E, 1284.36 feet along said fence line to a 2" aluminum cap at a fence corner. The 2" aluminum caps control. 

James, that seems odd. In common usage, when you walk ALONG the fence you don't straddle it. That would seem applicable here.

There are situations where with is more proper than along, a creek/river boundary, be sure and use "with the thread of the stream", this will override the B&D calls. 

Posted by: @holy-cow

↑

How do you feel about this?  What do the courts say? 

It's a call to a monument, so it has to be honored. Nevertheless it is not a very precisely defined monument - there is no pinpoint to put your sharp rod tip on - so the surveyor is left with a lot of leeway.

California Civil Code of Procedures:

[2077.]

Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

One—Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by the first mentioned particulars.

Two—When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

Three—Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

Four—When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

Five—When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

Six—When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 383.)

Intent is the fence . . .

Posted by: @holy-cow

↑

 

How do you feel about this?  What do the courts say?  Would love to hear comments from our surveyors who live in "stone wall country" with said fence perhaps approaching 500 years since construction.

@bill93 

Yes Bill you are correct in a technical verbage way but are making an assumption that the scrivner of the 1800 era deed is as a well versed in the legal verbiage as you. I believe we would be hard pressed here in colonial land for a judge to ignore a 200 year old stonewall mentioned in the deed (wether called along or with) and honored as the line for said period to get caught up in splitting hairs between along vs with.

Also brings up the question if its truly "along" the fence what's the offset and which side?

Commonly around here some will straight line it, some will show major deflections (no set degree deviation) and some will map every angle point. Every case is different. 

Back to the original post as written and barring no additional information to the contrary I'm holding the fence and making the course and distance the tie.

It's highly unlikely that a fence cound be constructed in a perfectly straight line over 1280 feet long.

Fast forward, what line is used to make sure the 4 million dollar building is not built in violation of zoning?

@gary_g Obviously the survey crews doing the layout give enough guidance to keep the building in a straight line and from not encroaching into setbacks or the property line in the case of zero setbacks. As a society do we really see a benefit in enforcing this same precision on everyone who has built or is going to build a fence.

The cost benefit is just not there. It would be a colossal waste of money. The acceptance of crooked or wandering fences as our boundaries is so much less expensive and we lose naught in actual benefit. Although I recognize some landowners feel mortified when their boundary is not "perfect". I think they will get along just fine, with nothing more lost than their psychological scars. 

@gary_g good point.  The fence line - I would give my Client the benefit and measure at right angles to the 4mil bldg to the outermost part of the fence if needed.  If a stone fence, then you have lots of variable widths to include the base/foundation and the top - plus some are leaning.  As a matter of caution, I would likely profile the fence to show where the measurement was given if close to the brl.

Here's a twist that I found yesterday on a survey I was reviewing.

Thence (bearing/distance west) on the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter with a fence, thence..............

OK.  You have a stone wall.  You have typcial municipal BS with dictatorial little gnomes wandering around the site with clipboards and tape measures or fancier devices.  You are building something more expensive than a tent.  The property line is somewhere in/on/along/with the stones.

I would document, at ground level, the toe of the fence in the area where construction will be allowed.  If the fence is leaning, I would document that line as well to show the closest possible  interpretation of where a certain BS term is to be applied. 

Posted by: @holy-cow

↑

OK.  You have a stone wall.  You have typcial municipal BS with dictatorial little gnomes wandering around the site with clipboards and tape measures or fancier devices.  You are building something more expensive than a tent.  The property line is somewhere in/on/along/with the stones.

I would document, at ground level, the toe of the fence in the area where construction will be allowed.  If the fence is leaning, I would document that line as well to show the closest possible  interpretation of where a certain BS term is to be applied. 

Fortunately, in stone wall country, the gnomes don't do this. They dictate that the surveyor provide and certify the offset measurements for checking compliance with zoning. I am not aware of any situation where the width of a stone wall was an issue of controversy in determining a boundary line. The surveyors are aware that there is a certain "error budget" to measuring the wall's location.

Profile a stone wall? (Falls down laughing. Hits his head on the computer's Uninterruptible Power Supply. Laughs some more.)

@peter-lothian 

I am thrilled to know that I have brightened your day.