In the sketch shown, the parcels in black are surveyed with known and monumented boundaries.
The parcel to the south recently successfully quieted title to the existing fences shown in red. By doing so, did the owner abandon any claim to lands outside the fences?
I'm thinking no, and that the green area is his as well as whatever he may have gained by the quiet title action, but I'm willing to entertain other points of view.
Please share your wisdom.
Don 
What is the reason for the obtuse angle between the 2 parcels?
RADAR, post: 330632, member: 413 wrote: What is the reason for the obtuse angle between the 2 parcels?
I suspect the drawing is simply an exaggeration of the existing field conditions.
It's been a while since I was involved in any quiet title actions, but are they not usually specific as to which lines they involve?
Don Blameuser, post: 330628, member: 30 wrote: In the sketch shown, the parcels in black are surveyed with known and monumented boundaries.
The parcel to the south recently successfully quieted title to the existing fences shown in red. By doing so, did the owner abandon any claim to lands outside the fences?
I'm thinking no, and that the green area is his as well as whatever he may have gained by the quiet title action, but I'm willing to entertain other points of view.
Please share your wisdom.
Don
Would have to look at the chain, but can't see why the quiet title action would sever other lands
I believe the answer to your question is probably hinged on the occupation and use of excluded (north of the fence) areas. A good quiet title suit should involve quit claims to adjoiners of areas that have been excluded from the estate. Title to the north may indeed require perfection of title also.
I think you're right but I wouldn't take responsibility for it. I would call the green land a "portion of the square parcel". The owner of the rectangle might think it's his.
It depends on who sued who.
The parcel to the north can't claim title to the green area based on the weakness of title of the red fence guy to that area.
If the quiet Title judgement goes to the fences, it stops there. That does not equate to abandonment of Title to any adjoining lands. If he held title by Deed or other operations of law he still does, unless of course the judgement specifies otherwise.
As for quit claims I would never use one unless ordered by the Court.
I am in the middle of what the attorney calls a boundary agreement....
Never took to that term very much because as discussed in length here, it takes more than an agreement for people to swap property.
Title lines tend to stay the same until decisions are recorded in some fashion.
I would look and see who has actually deeded what to who and/or what some judge told them to do.
0.02
The jdgment should call out specific land. Any land not called out is not affected. Unless the land in green was granted to someone else in the judgment the owner bound by the red has the same claim to the green land as he did before the judgment.
A Harris, post: 330668, member: 81 wrote: I am in the middle of what the attorney calls a boundary agreement....
Never took to that term very much because as discussed in length here, it takes more than an agreement for people to swap property.
Title lines tend to stay the same until decisions are recorded in some fashion.
I would look and see who has actually deeded what to who and/or what some judge told them to do.
0.02
Not sure what state you are in, but in most states boundary by agreement is a location doctrine, NOT a title doctrine. By definition, a boundary agreement cannot be used to "swap property". "Swapping property" would be a conveyance, and conveyances must comply with the statute of frauds. A valid boundary agreement (check the case law in your state for what is required to be "valid") simple establishes the location of an uncertain or disputed boundary between two estates.
"Title lines", if you are referring to what some here call "title lines", are fictional animals that only surveyors argue over. Title is a question of law, location of boundaries is a question of fact. Mr. Lucas has a great article in P.O.B. this month that, at least partially, covers this topic.
Addressing the original post, my question is why was the area in question not addressed either before or during the quiet title action?
Don Blameuser, post: 330628, member: 30 wrote: In the sketch shown, the parcels in black are surveyed with known and monumented boundaries.
The parcel to the south recently successfully quieted title to the existing fences shown in red. By doing so, did the owner abandon any claim to lands outside the fences?
I'm thinking no, and that the green area is his as well as whatever he may have gained by the quiet title action, but I'm willing to entertain other points of view.
Please share your wisdom.
Don
If they argued the fences were the boundary of the black parcel, then yes they abandoned any claim north of them. Too bad, shoulda had it surveyed.
Maybe. What was the decision. Was the northerly neighbor involved? You can always show it and let the Attorney resolve the title...
The quiet title action did not involve the owner of the horizontal rectangle shown. It only involved the one bringing action and those whose title documents would present a claim to any portion of the area under review. Ownership of the green triangle falls under the wording of the title documents of the one bringing action as mentioned. If he ever owned it, he still does. Subject to someone else filing a quiet title action involving the green triangle, of course.
Don Blameuser, post: 330628, member: 30 wrote: In the sketch shown, the parcels in black are surveyed with known and monumented boundaries.
The parcel to the south recently successfully quieted title to the existing fences shown in red. By doing so, did the owner abandon any claim to lands outside the fences?
Like Dave said, it depends upon who the parties to the case were. If the party in red sued all of the neighbors, then they own the red and the neighbors own everything outside of the red. In order for the green parcel to exist, one would have to claim that the red party had subdivided his land between himself and himself by creating a new red boundary through his own property via a quiet title action. Completely illogical way of thinking and contrary to the purpose of a QTA.
JBS
JBStahl, post: 330716, member: 427 wrote: Like Dave said, it depends upon who the parties to the case were. If the party in red sued all of the neighbors, then they own the red and the neighbors own everything outside of the red. In order for the green parcel to exist, one would have to claim that the red party had subdivided his land between himself and himself by creating a new red boundary through his own property via a quiet title action. Completely illogical way of thinking and contrary to the purpose of a QTA.
JBS
Yes, and the post said the QTA resulted in the red line; that's not possible if they didn't name the northern adjoiner in the action. If the northern adjoiner was not a party then there would be no red line on the north. Can't get a result against a neighbor not named in the suit, anymore than you can get one against yourself.
Holy Cow, post: 330711, member: 50 wrote: The quiet title action did not involve the owner of the horizontal rectangle shown. It only involved the one bringing action and those whose title documents would present a claim to any portion of the area under review. Ownership of the green triangle falls under the wording of the title documents of the one bringing action as mentioned. If he ever owned it, he still does. Subject to someone else filing a quiet title action involving the green triangle, of course.
You nailed it exactly. B-)
"Not sure what state you are in, but in most states boundary by agreement is a location doctrine, NOT a title doctrine. By definition, a boundary agreement cannot be used to "swap property". "Swapping property" would be a conveyance, and conveyances must comply with the statute of frauds. A valid boundary agreement (check the case law in your state for what is required to be "valid") simple establishes the location of an uncertain or disputed boundary between two estates."
Brian,
When adjoining property owners decide that some location of the boundary between them other than their deeded boundary will be their future boundary, it takes more than a document stating they agree to that line for them to actually own property to that boundary.
Just saying so does not make it so except between the two people named on the document. I don't think that would pass on to the next owner without swapping deeds.
They must swap deeds to the little areas between the black and red lines and do something about the green area.
0.02
Late to the party, and my 2 cents are state specific but...
Maryland, like many states, has codified certain elements of common law (such as quieting title) to insure that the accepted standardized procedures developed through case law decisions are followed. The requirements to obtain clear title by quiet title suit include (among other things) :
"...actual peaceable possession of property, or, if the property is vacant and unoccupied, in constructive and peaceable possession of it, either under color of title or claim of right by reason of his or his predecessor's adverse possession for the statutory period"
In this case, the only property that can be subject to the quiet title action brought by the southerly owner would be those that he is possessing either under color of title or adversely...the area between the red and black lines. Any description of the red outline, in toto, would be immaterial to the quiet title action, the area to which the plaintiff already has clean title is immaterial.
The standard practice here would be to have a surveyor write a description for the area between the red and black lines and that would be the description of the parcel where title is acquired by the quiet title action. The landowner than would have deeds to two separate parcels of land (since quiet title is a title rather than boundary doctrine the original boundaries remained fixed rather than reformed). If the southerly owner then wanted to develop or improve the property, he would have to go through the locally approved process for combining two parcels in the county or municipality where the property lies.
If the owner of the property to the north is occupying the green portion adversely (given that the black lines are surveyed and have known monuments, I doubt he has color of title through defect, but who knows) then he would have to bring his own action to acquire clean title to that area if he met the statutory requirements, or obtaining it by a separate agreement with the southerly owner, usually through an Addition Plat process. Quiet title is a procedure where the plaintiff acquires clean title at the expense of the defendant(s), I haven't' seen any mechanism in a court decision that would allow the plaintiff to surrender good title through the quiet title process. In fact the courts here have stated that title by adverse possession is not a defense in a boundary dispute, it is something that can only established when the adverse possessor is the plaintiff.
A Harris, post: 330828, member: 81 wrote: "Not sure what state you are in, but in most states boundary by agreement is a location doctrine, NOT a title doctrine. By definition, a boundary agreement cannot be used to "swap property". "Swapping property" would be a conveyance, and conveyances must comply with the statute of frauds. A valid boundary agreement (check the case law in your state for what is required to be "valid") simple establishes the location of an uncertain or disputed boundary between two estates."
Brian,
When adjoining property owners decide that some location of the boundary between them other than their deeded boundary will be their future boundary, it takes more than a document stating they agree to that line for them to actually own property to that boundary.Just saying so does not make it so except between the two people named on the document. I don't think that would pass on to the next owner without swapping deeds.
They must swap deeds to the little areas between the black and red lines and do something about the green area.
0.02
Sorry to disagree, Mr. Harris. But, Brian is correct. You are mixing title law with boundary law. The two don't mix. Boundary law fixes the location of the boundary between two contiguous estates. Title law deals with the conveyance of property ownership to create the two estates. There can be only one boundary between two contiguous estates. When the location of the boundary is uncertain, doubtful or in dispute, the courts will encourage the parties to settle the uncertainty or controversy by entering into an agreement (a contract between themselves) establishing the location of their common boundary. The contract may take the form of an oral contract, a written contract, or an implied contract. Of course a written agreement will always provide the best evidence of the agreement, but as long as it can be proven, an oral agreement will be upheld by the court. The agreement doesn't purport to convey title between the parties, it simply fixes the boundary location in a known location that is marked out on the ground during the settlement process. Because the parties aren't conveying property, there is no need for conveyance language.
When the parties are in a situation where they know where the true line is and there is no uncertainty, doubt or dispute, they are prevented from entering an agreement to fix the boundary in another location. The statute of frauds requires that the parties convey the property by proper instrument to create the new boundary. One estate is enlarged; the other is decreased (unless they're swapping equal square footage). In that situation, you are correct. A conveyance is required. Following is a quotation from a seminal TX case regarding the establishment of boundaries by agreement. Nowhere do the courts impose a requirement for an exchange of title.
[INDENT=1]"The rules with respect to the establishment of boundary by agreement are well settled by the decisions in this state and by [137 Tex. 64] other authorities. There is no real difference about them in the briefs of the parties to this suit. They may be stated generally and briefly as follows: When there is uncertainty, doubt or dispute as to where the true division line between the lands of the parties may be, they may fix it by parol agreement, which will be mutually binding upon them, even though they were mistaken as to the true location of the line. This is true whether the mistake be of a matter of fact or of law. The existence of uncertainty, doubt or dispute is essential to the validity of such agreement. Actual dispute, however, between the parties is not necessary. It is enough that the location of the line has not been definitely established and is doubtful or uncertain. It is generally held that such agreement to be effective and binding must be executed by the parties, that is, by the erection of physical monuments on the agreed line or by otherwise marking the line, by actual possession or use to the line or by the improvement or development of the property with reference to the line. Agreement fixing a boundary may be proven as well by acts and conduct of the parties as by express statement. In this state it is not necessary 'in order to give the agreement vitality, that it should be supported by acquiescence or acts from which an estoppel may spring.' Lecomte v. Toudouze, 82 Tex. 208, 214, 17 S.W. 1047, 1050, 27 Am.St.Rep. 870. Acquiescence in a line over a period of several years is evidence from which it may be inferred that the parties had agreed to the line, but it is not conclusive evidence of that fact. Mere acquiescence in another line than the true line will not support a judgment in favor of such other line, when there is no evidence, other than such acquiescence, of an agreement fixing the line and when it is affirmatively shown that the use of the line resulted not from agreement but from a mistaken belief of the parties that it was the true line. Hoxey v. Clay, 20 Tex. 582; Coleman v. Smith, 55 Tex. 254; Cooper v. Austin, 58 Tex. 494; Harn v. Smith, 79 Tex. 310, 15 S.W. 240, 23 Am.St.Rep. 340; Grawunder v. Gotoskey, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 705; Sammann v. Deitrich, Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 647; Tide Water Oil Company v. Hale, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1102; Shelor v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 207; Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Hughey, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 613; Bohny v. Petty, 81 Tex. 524, 17 S.W. 80; Schunior v. Russell, 83 Tex. 83, 18 S.W. 484; Lecomte v. Toudouze, 82 Tex. 208, 17 S.W. 1047, 27 Am.St.Rep. 870; 8 Texas Law Review, p. 610; Patrick v. Smith, 90 Tex. 267, 38 S.W. 17; Farmers' State Bank & Trust Company v. Gorman Home Refinery, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 694, affirmed in Tex.Com.App., 3 S.W.2d 65; Hefner [137 Tex. 65] and Lockhart v. Downing, 57 Tex. 576, 580; Kiefer Oil & Gas Company v. McDougal, 8 Cir., 229 F. 933, Ann.Gas.1916D, 343; High Gravity Oil Company v. Southwestern Petroleum Company, 6 Cir., 290 F. 370;[/INDENT]
[INDENT=1]152 S.W.2d 715
Galbraith v. Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89, 9 S.W. 365, 1 L.R.A. 522; Stier v. Latreyte, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W. 589; Hunter v. Malone, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 116, 108 S.W. 709; Thompson v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 791; Storey's Equity Jurisprudence, (14th Ed.) Vol. 1, pp. 192-194; Note 69 A.L.R., pp. 1433, 1443, 1459, 1485, 1508; Note 113 A.L.R. pp. 423, 425, 432, 437; 11 C.J.S., Boundaries, pp. 636-642, s 64, subd. a, to s 68; 8 Am.Jur., pp. 797-804, Sections 72-81."[/INDENT]
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W.2d 711, 137 Tex. 59 (Tex. 1941)
