Wall vs. Line

I would believe that your first location to determine what is considered the mean centerline of the wall. That is one of interpretation as the wall appears crooked and I can think of several ways to calculate that could define different locations.

The original surveyor may have done this by looking down the wall line and placing a toe to tie in a location along an eyeballed alignment and "calling it to extend from ?here?".

In that you mention that the other boundaries call is to the adjoining properties. That sort of implies that you need to survey their properties to determine the limits of the parcel you are surveying.

I would need to read the many property descriptions contained in all the adjoining properties to begin to understand and determine senior rights for an actual determination.

Glad this one is on your desk today and not mine, I'm just trying to get something done in between our weekly showers......

Rich., post: 372946, member: 10450 wrote: Does it seem like I would have enough to explain myself, or does it look like I am jumping the gun and should just show the line as the deeded M&B call for in my deed and just show the other neighboring deed lines as discrepancies?

If this were in Texas (which it is not), the first question I would want to answer is that of order of conveyance out of common source of title. Which parcel was conveyed first, which second, and which is junior to both? Knowing that history of title would provide a basis for properly interpreting the discrepancies you mention (if this were in Texas, which it is not).

The way that I'd approach the problem, I'd just begin with the senior parcel and locate its boundaries as described in the original conveyance, using such evidence outside the description as might be relevant.

Then the next parcel is located with the prior conveyance in view and, finally the most junior.

The boundary agreement presumably came later and so is probably just relevant to the two adjacent tracts whose owners were parties to it.

Kent McMillan, post: 372962, member: 3 wrote: If this were in Texas (which it is not), the first question I would want to answer is that of order of conveyance out of common source of title. Which parcel was conveyed first, which second, and which is junior to both? Knowing that history of title would provide a basis for properly interpreting the discrepancies you mention (if this were in Texas, which it is not).

The way that I'd approach the problem, I'd just begin with the senior parcel and locate its boundaries as described in the original conveyance, using such evidence outside the description as might be relevant.

Then the next parcel is located with the prior conveyance in view and, finally the most junior.

The boundary agreement presumably came later and so is probably just relevant to the two adjacent tracts whose owners were parties to it.

Thanks Guys.

Yes, Kent, my thoughts exactly with Jr/Sr rights. Problem is they havent provided a title report or such and its gonna cost me a pretty big chunk of the fee to run it myself. I think the property is being sold so I will contact them to see if they have a title report and ill read through it/email the title company and tell them I need them to find that out.

I guess my conflicting problem in my head is that there is a 'gore' between the lands, so even if the other parcel is SR and gets its full allotted width, should the property I am surveying still have rights to the gored land although their M&B description doesnt cover it and the few filed maps dont show them as owning a particular line that resembles the neighboring deeds.... If my tract is SR, then again, do they just own the lines as defined by B&D...which would def cause a gore as the neighboring deed definitely doesn't own over the wall.

I just dont want to have to pull all my hair out over this one... im young still....

A Harris, post: 372952, member: 81 wrote: I would believe that your first location to determine what is considered the mean centerline of the wall. That is one of interpretation as the wall appears crooked and I can think of several ways to calculate that could define different locations.

The original surveyor may have done this by looking down the wall line and placing a toe to tie in a location along an eyeballed alignment and "calling it to extend from ?here?".

In that you mention that the other boundaries call is to the adjoining properties. That sort of implies that you need to survey their properties to determine the limits of the parcel you are surveying.

I would need to read the many property descriptions contained in all the adjoining properties to begin to understand and determine senior rights for an actual determination.

Glad this one is on your desk today and not mine, I'm just trying to get something done in between our weekly showers......

Thanks Harris. Yes the 'bend' in the wall is something I will look at. The shots I got could just be not the best as the wall in the field was scattered and remains at best in the middle. The only surveyor that mentioned the wall is the one writing the description for Parcel A. The others seemed to just grab the deed and put the deed lines on the ground as per the monumentation in the rear section of the lot im doing.

Rich., post: 372999, member: 10450 wrote: I guess my conflicting problem in my head is that there is a 'gore' between the lands, so even if the other parcel is SR and gets its full allotted width, should the property I am surveying still have rights to the gored land although their M&B description doesnt cover it and the few filed maps dont show them as owning a particular line that resembles the neighboring deeds.... If my tract is SR, then again, do they just own the lines as defined by B&D...which would def cause a gore as the neighboring deed definitely doesn't own over the wall.

I'd say that the answer probably depends upon the case law in your state. In Texas, the strips and gores doctrine would apply whereby it is presumed that the grantor did not intend to reserve a strip or gore along the boundary of some tract of land he conveyed unless such reservation is explicitly made. The doctrine originated Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cantley v. Gulf Production Company 135 Tex. 339, 143 S.W.2d 912, 916 on the grounds that it was sound public policy because to hold otherwise would only multiply ownership disputes over narrow strips of land of little or no separate use. Strips to which Texas courts have applied the doctrine have been more than thirty feet wide.

Kent McMillan, post: 373020, member: 3 wrote: I'd say that the answer probably depends upon the case law in your state. In Texas, the strips and gores doctrine would apply whereby it is presumed that the grantor did not intend to reserve a strip or gore along the boundary of some tract of land he conveyed unless such reservation is explicitly made. The doctrine originated Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cantley v. Gulf Production Company 135 Tex. 339, 143 S.W.2d 912, 916 on the grounds that it was sound public policy because to hold otherwise would only multiply ownership disputes over narrow strips of land of little or no separate use. Strips to which Texas courts have applied the doctrine have been more than thirty feet wide.

Thanks Kent.

I would assume most states have a similar law as it makes sense. To be honest, I always thought that was more of an overall rule of thumb however I'll take a glance over some cases tonight and see if I can find anything in NY.

You are wrong if you think you are only concerned with A, B & C.

From what I see you have to also be concerned with the parcel or parcels to the West of A/B and the parcel or parcels to the East of A/C then you resolve within those exterior rights..

It appears the West line of C could rotate West from the SE corner of B and meet the midpoint of the North end of the stone wall. Question is what is the nature of the tooth at the northeast corner of A? And what is the differences in the distance of a common? A/C line along that tooth? What is the record and use of the westerly line for parcel to the East of A/C ?

Paul in PA

Rich., post: 372999, member: 10450 wrote: Thanks Guys.

Yes, Kent, my thoughts exactly with Jr/Sr rights. Problem is they havent provided a title report or such and its gonna cost me a pretty big chunk of the fee to run it myself. I think the property is being sold so I will contact them to see if they have a title report and ill read through it/email the title company and tell them I need them to find that out.

I guess my conflicting problem in my head is that there is a 'gore' between the lands, so even if the other parcel is SR and gets its full allotted width, should the property I am surveying still have rights to the gored land although their M&B description doesnt cover it and the few filed maps dont show them as owning a particular line that resembles the neighboring deeds.... If my tract is SR, then again, do they just own the lines as defined by B&D...which would def cause a gore as the neighboring deed definitely doesn't own over the wall.

I just dont want to have to pull all my hair out over this one... im young still....

Kent is correct on this, you need 3 chains of title to properly resolve this.

Kent McMillan, post: 373020, member: 3 wrote: I'd say that the answer probably depends upon the case law in your state. In Texas, the strips and gores doctrine would apply whereby it is presumed that the grantor did not intend to reserve a strip or gore along the boundary of some tract of land he conveyed unless such reservation is explicitly made. The doctrine originated Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cantley v. Gulf Production Company 135 Tex. 339, 143 S.W.2d 912, 916 on the grounds that it was sound public policy because to hold otherwise would only multiply ownership disputes over narrow strips of land of little or no separate use. Strips to which Texas courts have applied the doctrine have been more than thirty feet wide.

Texas seems to be unique on this. In California the strips and gores doctrine refers to streets the grantor likely would not have kept. I think the presumption exists, it just isn't specifically stated as a doctrine anywhere. The Courts deal with cases and boundary tends to be heavily fact dependent so they don't always state their underlying assumptions which everyone know is an assumption.

I don't recall ever reading a case that wasn't overturned by a higher court where the court found that a grantor who otherwise no longer owns any of the lands on either side of the supposed strip still retains title to a strip simply because the dimensions of adjacent deeds do not fit precisely together as a math/geometry exercise. They always reduce it to a location problem of a common boundary between the estates on either side of the line (or supposed strip or gore).

As others have stated, these parcels can likely be traced back to a common grantor. From the way you mention "Cushman", I suspect that A & B were once a common parcel owned by Cushman and that one was cut out and the other the remainder. C was likely existing when that happened. Depending upon how these parcels are fully described, where they begin or commence from, you will probably need to look at the deeds of other adjacent parcels.

As to evidence on the ground, have you looked closely to see if there is even the slightest indication that the rock wall once extended to the SE corner of B?

Regarding the costs of unexpected research, if you contracted the project as a lump sum and there are no provisions as to unexpected circumstances in your contract, you can try to negotiate more fee, but are probably stuck with bearing the extra costs yourself. Even if you are going to lose money on this job, you still have that responsibility. If you are using a standard contract form prepared by your state society or other professional society, reread all of the boilerplate. There may be a clause regarding unforeseen circumstances or costs of research. If so, explain the circumstances to your client and why they were not reasonably foreseeable and point out that clause.

If you have no such provisions in your standard contract, add one for future use. While having to research chain of title is not a standard necessity for most boundary surveys, it or other extended research and/or fieldwork is required often enough that a provision to account for it in your boilerplate is warranted.

The contract aspect has been discussed many times on this forum. JB Stahl often weighs in on those with useful info. Try looking at old threads using search terms like "contract", "unforeseen" or "unforeseeable", or by looking back through John's posts.

eapls2708, post: 373146, member: 589 wrote: I don't recall ever reading a case that wasn't overturned by a higher court where the court found that a grantor who otherwise no longer owns any of the lands on either side of the supposed strip still retains title to a strip simply because the dimensions of adjacent deeds do not fit precisely together as a math/geometry exercise. They always reduce it to a location problem of a common boundary between the estates on either side of the line (or supposed strip or gore).

As others have stated, these parcels can likely be traced back to a common grantor. From the way you mention "Cushman", I suspect that A & B were once a common parcel owned by Cushman and that one was cut out and the other the remainder. C was likely existing when that happened. Depending upon how these parcels are fully described, where they begin or commence from, you will probably need to look at the deeds of other adjacent parcels.

As to evidence on the ground, have you looked closely to see if there is even the slightest indication that the rock wall once extended to the SE corner of B?

Regarding the costs of unexpected research, if you contracted the project as a lump sum and there are no provisions as to unexpected circumstances in your contract, you can try to negotiate more fee, but are probably stuck with bearing the extra costs yourself. Even if you are going to lose money on this job, you still have that responsibility. If you are using a standard contract form prepared by your state society or other professional society, reread all of the boilerplate. There may be a clause regarding unforeseen circumstances or costs of research. If so, explain the circumstances to your client and why they were not reasonably foreseeable and point out that clause.

If you have no such provisions in your standard contract, add one for future use. While having to research chain of title is not a standard necessity for most boundary surveys, it or other extended research and/or fieldwork is required often enough that a provision to account for it in your boilerplate is warranted.

The contract aspect has been discussed many times on this forum. JB Stahl often weighs in on those with useful info. Try looking at old threads using search terms like "contract", "unforeseen" or "unforeseeable", or by looking back through John's posts.

Luckily the property is going to be sold so I will have the title company do the title research so this won't end up on my dime anyway.

And yes, I'm almost sure there were remains of the wall (just not as intact remains as the northern half which was basically a wall still) that go all the way to the SE of B. So I'm almost sure the problem exists as a measurement difference and the wall was the boundary from the NE of A down to the SE of B, however I want to get all the title report documents in my hands before proceeding any further.

If there were identifiable remains of the wall the whole way, that probably shows you where the true boundary is.

Rich., post: 373192, member: 10450 wrote: Luckily the property is going to be sold so I will have the title company do the title research so this won't end up on my dime anyway.

It may be worth mentioning that in Texas I just assume that I'm going to have to produce the necessary abstracts myself. In fact, many of them have been for the benefit of (wait for it) ... land title insurance companies. Abstracting is quickly becoming a lost art in the Texas title insurance industry and land surveyors ought to have the skill to fill the gap..

Depending upon where the property is, it's usually a paying proposition to just buy access to an abstract company's plant ($35.00 - $70.00 per hour average fee) to get the bare bones of the research in order. Just because the plant exists in the form of card files or tract books doesn't mean that there is still anyone in the company who can do very much with it.

One thing that may be worth sharing is the actual form in which the abstract is assembled. I've made more than a few and I'll post an example of one later.

Kent McMillan, post: 373213, member: 3 wrote: It may be worth mentioning that in Texas I just assume that I'm going to have to produce the necessary abstracts myself. In fact, many of them have been for the benefit of (wait for it) ... land title insurance companies. Abstracting is quickly becoming a lost art in the Texas title insurance industry and land surveyors ought to have the skill to fill the gap..

Depending upon where the property is, it's usually a paying proposition to just buy access to an abstract company's plant ($35.00 - $70.00 per hour average fee) to get the bare bones of the research in order. Just because the plant exists in the form of card files or tract books doesn't mean that there is still anyone in the company who can do very much with it.

One thing that may be worth sharing is the actual form in which the abstract is assembled. I've made more than a few and I'll post an example of one later.

Yes hopefully they will still be able to otherwise I will go that route.

I tried to trace the deeds myself but I lose the chain around the 1930s. Once you get into the 20s-30s and beyond the records get very sparse

Rich., post: 373243, member: 10450 wrote: I tried to trace the deeds myself but I lose the chain around the 1930s. Once you get into the 20s-30s and beyond the records get very sparse

Do the old tax records exist? Those can be really useful in providing names of owners and dates for changes in the same.

It is becoming very trendy for the Title Company to not even begin to do any title examination or issue a Commitment until after they have received my survey.

The local offices are understaffed with less qualified personnel compared to 10yrs ago.

A Harris, post: 373289, member: 81 wrote: It is becoming very trendy for the Title Company to not even begin to do any title examination or issue a Commitment until after they have received my survey.

The local offices are understaffed with less qualified personnel compared to 10yrs ago.

Yea well then I will not be taking off any of the notes I have on my survey regarding that line. Nor the huge wording on the survey stating 'not for title use'

Owner is using it to close out a permit, nothing to do with boundary lines. So when it goes to sell the title company will have to provide necessary information if they want it rectified. If not, they can get another survey that ignores any of the aforementioned discrepancies.

[USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]

That survey is definitely one that would require a well developed and worded survey report to accompany the drawing and other product in order to define your steps be it notes on the drawing or a separate essay if that many words and references are needed.

With all that, many will not understand any of it as it relates to boundary construction.

Rather than change your survey, it is more and example of what else is needed to improve or replace the existing record to better relate to paper what the true boundaries are on the ground.

A Harris, post: 373307, member: 81 wrote: [USER=10450]@Rich.[/USER]That survey is definitely one that would require a well developed and worded survey report to accompany the drawing and other product in order to define your steps be it notes on the drawing or a separate essay if that many words and references are needed.

With all that, many will not understand any of it as it relates to boundary construction..

There is an art to writing surveyor's reports that can be understood by intelligent non-surveyors, but I don't think it is impossible at all. If a report is lapsing into technical details that would only make sense to a surveyor, it may be time to rethink the narrative approach. In this case, the problem on its face seems pretty simple, i.e. taking the senior conveyance and locating it on the ground from the best evidence and then taking the next two in order and doing the same with the prior grants in view. The report is a summary of the history and an overview of the evidence upon which the surveyor's opinion was based.