AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Ties verses boundary callscalls

3 Posts
3 Users
0 Reactions
364 Views
billvhill
(@billvhill)
Posts: 399
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I am currently working on a survey within a land grant where land was divided in section, township and range. the section I am working on is section 36, which is short approximately 800 feet. The property I am Surveying is the easterly part of a larger parcel. Both parcel descriptions start at a mile post then along the state line to the point if beginning, thence to the SEcorner of section 36. The descriptions mathematically end up 400 feet east of the actual monument. The description for easterly parcel does call out the section corner but not the actual monument. Another surveyor held the tie and surveyed the remainder claiming that his client has senior rights. He doesn't reference a deed to that transfer but to the larger parcel on his survey. The owner of the larger parcel is the Grantor to my client which means the remainder has junior rights.
Does anyone know of any court cases where the tie was given precedence over the actual boundary calls or vice a versa.


 
Posted : November 7, 2017 1:05 pm
thebionicman
(@thebionicman)
Posts: 4524
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

billvhill, post: 454394, member: 8398 wrote: I am currently working on a survey within a land grant where land was divided in section, township and range. the section I am working on is section 36, which is short approximately 800 feet. The property I am Surveying is the easterly part of a larger parcel. Both parcel descriptions start at a mile post then along the state line to the point if beginning, thence to the SEcorner of section 36. The descriptions mathematically end up 400 feet east of the actual monument. The description for easterly parcel does call out the section corner but not the actual monument. Another surveyor held the tie and surveyed the remainder claiming that his client has senior rights. He doesn't reference a deed to that transfer but to the larger parcel on his survey. The owner of the larger parcel is the Grantor to my client which means the remainder has junior rights.
Does anyone know of any court cases where the tie was given precedence over the actual boundary calls or vice a versa.

Way too many unanswered questions to make a call. There are a few points to ponder.
The actions of owners over time (and the amount of time) may change any answer tossed out here. It is also important to remember the structure of the creating documents can flip the junior / senior relationship.
Good luck, Tom


 
Posted : November 7, 2017 2:29 pm
MightyMoe
(@mightymoe)
Posts: 10534
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I don't have a court case, but we all know the ties to mile posts can be wonky. I would look at the plat and see if the distance tie would make sense to an office created description. Then of course what has happened on the ground to fix the locations would be the most important evidence. I would only hold the tie to that mile post if it works, sounds like it's out of whack.


 
Posted : November 7, 2017 2:30 pm