Follow Up
:good:
I agree. The importance of rec. vs. meas. is very important. I think it clarifies a lot.
Often times the "deed" calls to monuments, if we hold that seniority of calls you will almost always get a different bearing and/or distance call. I bet the title insurer doesn't even pay attention to that higher hierarchy. If they do, then what if the original monument can't be found? Now you might have a call to a new monument that is not the same as on the deed.
a verbatim match is virtually impossible.
> http://slsiforum.info/index.php?mode=thread&id=164809#p164893
Interesting -- it's SurveyorConnect (Beerleg) in a SLSI wrapper. Are there any posts on that site that don't show up here, or vice versa?
> > http://slsiforum.info/index.php?mode=thread&id=164809#p164893
>
> Interesting -- it's SurveyorConnect (Beerleg) in a SLSI wrapper. Are there any posts on that site that don't show up here, or vice versa?
Interesting! My username and password for Beerleg also works on that site. I hope Wendel is getting some perks for that
Follow Up
I think these disagreements can be largely avoided and better explained by:
1) Using the ORIGINAL property description
2) Over-riding some of our field to finish software's desire to report every answer to the 0.01' and a single second. Yes, I understand the impact on workload.
3) Only placing the most pertinent "recorded as" information on your map. Even if the line has been measured ten times since the original, you'll probably just see the original recorded distance from me. UNLESS, one of the distances or bearings BETTER (much better) relates to the evidence than the original.
Steve
Follow Up
In this case, I'm dealing with about 300 acres, half of which is on the side of a mountain, that was surveyed in the very early 1800's, from which the current description was written. The deed miscloses by 150', which given the field conditions, is pretty darn good for that era. More importantly, the shape created by the description matches very well with the ancient stone walls and barbed wire fences on the ground that everyone has been honoring for almost two centuries. The big fly in the ointment revolves around an area where the deed was ignored and, based on parol evidence from an old timer who's lived and worked the land since the 1930's, the abutting parties agreed to "a three strand barbed wire fence that ran right down the mountain on the east side of the stream." The fence is there, clear as a bell, my survey shows it, but the title guy wants an agreement, as for some reason, he does not believe that a survey is sufficient for him to certify title. He seems to think that land on either side of that line will still be owned by the heirs of the past owners. It's definitely not a common view around here that he's holding fast to, but I am seeing signs the some of the local deed stakers starting to follow suit. My mentor would roll over in his grave if he saw this crap going on!
re: Follow Up
tough call...
considering there is an oral agreement (notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds) it would probably be best to pursue formalizing it to prevent future claims.
Your title atty. seems to be a bit more astute than most, times are changing.
re: Follow Up
I have the same reaction. The Title Attorney may be correct.
If the boundary is truly uncertain then the wire fence may be a valid agreed location. But if the property owners that agreed to the fence knew where the true boundary is located then there is a Statute of Frauds problem.
re: Follow Up
" if the property owners that agreed to the fence knew where the true boundary is located then there is a Statute of Frauds problem."
So you're saying that in the 1930's, two abutting land owners couldn't agree to a new boundary line? Even if they did know where the original line was?
re: Follow Up
"Your title atty. seems to be a bit more astute than most, times are changing."
I'm not sure what the times have to do with it. I'm pretty sure the laws governing boundary line determination haven't changed all that much recently, and given some of the comments I've read about this guy, I believe NooB is a more apt description than astute.
re: Follow Up
> "Your title atty. seems to be a bit more astute than most, times are changing."
>
> I'm not sure what the times have to do with it. I'm pretty sure the laws governing boundary line determination haven't changed all that much recently, and given some of the comments I've read about this guy, I believe NooB is a more apt description than astute.
It's rare that I run in to parole evidence from the '30s. There is something to be said for that. Often, I try to use parole evidence (especially a single source) as corroborating evidence unless I have NOTHING else to go from.
You know the YOUR corner of the surveying world the best. If you think the testimony supports this location AND the location is reasonable stick to your guns in the most PROFESSIONAL fashion you can muster.
Steve
re: Follow Up
If they knew they were moving the boundary line (as opposed to settling an uncertain one) then they should have exchanged Deeds effecting the change of ownership.
If Farmer Jones and Farmer Brown had no idea where the boundary line was located then their boundary line agreement may be valid although their established boundary doesn't look much like the deed boundary. The requirements vary from state to state and how the requirements are applied vary too.
However if they were knowingly exchanging property without written deeds then that is a problem. It is a valid concern if most of the boundary reasonably fits the 1830s survey except for this one area that follows some other alignment.
re: Follow Up
Thanks for all the comments. This has been 14 years in the making, but pending a positive result with the abutter re: the BLA, we should be wrapping this up in the next few months. It's definitely the toughest one I've ever been involved with.
