Considering the NC Boards "opinion" that has been discussed, it's ironic that Jeff Lucas' latest article seems to be on point.
A careful reading should help clarify a few items of confusion. Or it may add to it.
In a nut shell, a surveyors professional and well reasoned opinion of the location of the boundary line between two owners doesn't change the title of either one.
Ten years ago I wouldn't of had a clue what Lucas is talking about. Now I understand and agree completely. It's tough to eject a ball and chain for sure!
The first time I read Lucas I thought he was nuts. Who is this guy?
It took a while to sink in but you have to be able to revise your beliefs as new information arrives.
His last paragraph speaks volumes:
"If land surveying as practiced, in contradistinction to how it should be practiced, is not fundamentally different than what can be accomplished in a GIS, why do land surveyors need an exclusive right to survey property? The answer is they don’t. The land surveying profession better wake up. The sheer weight of events is moving forward without it."
> His last paragraph speaks volumes:
>
> "If land surveying as practiced, in contradistinction to how it should be practiced, is not fundamentally different than what can be accomplished in a GIS, why do land surveyors need an exclusive right to survey property? The answer is they don’t. The land surveying profession better wake up. The sheer weight of events is moving forward without it."
From my understanding of the confusing opinion of the NC board, they are not only allowing the profession of surveying to become obsolete, they are requiring it.
Look up the NC Statutes regarding Adverse Possession under color of title and you may begin to see why the board takes the stance it does. Under color of title in NC, if a surveyor prepares a filed survey and shows the boundary of the property, then the map becomes prima facia evidence of the title to the property by adverse possession. There are some other conditions in there such as marking the lines and monumenting the corners, but I believe this is the crux of the issue.
Rambleon sounds like you got it , I did some reading last night so I can reconcile this ruling in my head.
From the book Titled North Carolina Law and Adjoining Landowner Disputes .
When deeds overlap , the question arises of who has superior claim to the are of the lappage. According to the book this is a Adverse possession problem . Parties my be claiming possession under color of title , as both deeds described the disputed area as belonging to both claiments .
The book says that N.C courts have come up theses rules.
1. Neither Claimant in actual Possession of Disputed Property .
Deemed by law to be holy in the Senior Title holder of the holder of the better title.
2. One Claimant in Actual Possession of some part of the Land covered by the Lappage .
Claimant who is in actual possession of a part of the lappage is deemed to be constructively possessed of the entire lappage area. In this situation it does not matter whether the claimant in actual possession is the junior claimant . In order to prevail though a claim of advers possession, the claimant in actual possion must be in actual possession for seven years under color of tite .
3. Both Claimants in Actual Possession of part of the Lappage .
If their actual possession itself does not overlap both are in actual possession of different parts of the lappage the senior claiment is deemed in possession of the lappage which he is in possession of plus all that is not actually being possessed by either party . The junior claimant is deemed in possession of that portion of the lappage which he is in actual possession of only.
Does it really say "holy" when they surely mean "wholly"?
1. Neither Claimant in actual Possession of Disputed Property .
Deemed by law to be holy in the Senior Title holder of the holder of the better title.
Holy Cow's need to know.
The book says "holy"
I'd love a copy of that book, where did you find it? it appears to be out of print
