I got a call to survey an estate property. The heirs have no idea where their southern boundary lies. (Not that they have to know, that is what surveyors are for.)
In talking to everyone in the area, they all agree on a few things.
One, a new bridge was built across the river sometime in the 1980's.
Two, part of what is now river bottom used to be an island in the river.
My clients deed gives only a general direction "up the river" to the beginning corner. The neighbor across the river (John) is the only person in the area whom I have not contacted. John does not live in that community. Plus I have had dealings with him in the past. He enjoys the reputation as someone who will say and do anything necessary to give himself even the smallest advantage. John tried that trick with me more than a decade ago (unsuccessfully).
John's deed, while far from modern, fairly accurately describes the location of what appears to be the "main channel" of the river. Yet, 3 neighbors have all told me that John owns most of the river bottom because what used to be the island is John's and not my clients.
Neither deed mentions an Island. If I go by the current tax photo:
there is no evidence of an island. Plus my client's deed distance fairly closely matches the distance from the road to the current bank of the river.
I got a copy of the USDA 1964 photo to see if I could learn something more about the island.
It is easy to see the bridge has moved. But the dark line above the bridge does not look like part of the stream. Instead, it looks like a shadow of trees. I might be convinced it was part of the stream if I could see where that branch of the water left the main body. Seeing none is part of what makes me think it is a shadow.
I also was able to get what I believe is a 1940 photo of that same area. Clearly in this image you can see not only one, but two islands.
(That thing that looks like a 6 in the 1940 image is a 6 written in ink on the image. These images were used to identify farms for government subsidy programs back during that time period.)
So, I am left with some questions.
1. Am I justified in concluding that my client owns to the bank of the current river.
2. Even if I do not conclude my clients own to the current bank, I think it is very clear that John does NOT own a large chunk of river bottom that is on my clients side. Anyone disagree with that conclusion?
This should make for an interesting discussion.
Larry P
Ooooooooo. That's a good one. Time to dig up Great-great Grandpa Elderberry and his peers who have some memory of that land and how it was treated. The FSA (Farm Service Admin.) local office should be able to help a gret deal based on their records dating to the 1930's or thereabouts. Sealing off the watercourses forming the backside of the two islands had to be a major undertaking. However, historical records need to be found to back this up.
Can you track down the bridge plans from the 80's and maybe even the original ones?
I just have questions, no answers.
Is the current descriptions the same as the original descriptions that created the parcels?
It's not clear to me which side of the image is your client and which side belongs to John.
Navigable stream? Who owns the stream bed? Which way does the water flow?
It would seem to me that the ownership of the islands would be indicated in the early record some where, maybe by junior/senior rights. Someone deeded off to the edge of the stream and the remainder included the islands although not described, something like that.
I agree. I would be looking for the highway right of way plans in addition as it looks as if most if not all of the highway in the current photo was realigned when the bridge was built. If there is an ancient 15' quad map of the area available that might shed some light.
The current view shows what appear to be clear lines of occupation and cultivation. If that has been pretty much in place since at least 1964, without "John" doing the occupying and cultivating, he might not be a problem, just an irritation.
It would also be helpful to know if this is in a common law state regarding riparian rights and boundaries.
1) Yes
2) John does own a large chunk of what used to be river bottom between the islands and the road. Great example of how testimony has some truth but gets a bit twisted over the years (or hours, days, months) in most peoples memories.
I'd agree; your client owns to the "main channel" as well. Like Leon asked, though... Navigable? It appears to me from the photos that the main channel is always against the trees, but can't quite see clearly enough.
The "islands" you're talking about seem to be upland which is divided by braided channels at high water (not really islands). They appear seasonal. I'd suggest getting the full series of single-frame photos and pay close attention to the time of year of each photo.
Use the NGS EarthExplorer site for historic photos of the area.
JBS
