Here??s what I know. ?ÿIf you don??t like long reads, skip this one.
Farm A and Farm B joined along several consecutive lines, all marked by fences, back to at least the early 50??s. Neither deed accurately described these lines. ?ÿIn fact, plotting the old deeds is an exercise in futility, calling for several different tracts, some with no calls, just a mess. ?ÿHowever, nobody questioned where the lines were, the fences were the lines. ?ÿIn the 80??s both farms ended up with heirs, none of them farm. ?ÿHeir of Farm A rented the place out to several cattle farmers over the years. ?ÿHeir of Farm B had it surveyed and divided into 4 tracts, Tract 4 supposedly being the portion adjoining Farm A. That surveyor is no longer with us. ?ÿCurrent owner of Tract 4 bought it about 20 years ago and lives across the road from it.
The common lines are on the back side of each farm by a creek, all grown up today, probably nobody but deer hunters have been back there in years. ?ÿThere??s nothing of value there except some timber that would have been on Farm B based on the old fences. ?ÿFarm A recently was rented to a new cattle farmer, and apparently part of the deal was to put up new fences on the boundary, so the heir has it surveyed. ?ÿHere??s where a problem arises. ?ÿNew renter calls current owner of tract 4 to tell him he is going to cut the timber and put up a new fence, and is told it??s not his to cut. ?ÿBut the new survey of Farm A says it is. ?ÿThat surveyor is called and explains that he was following the line established by the 80??s survey of Tract 4, since there was no description in the old deeds to either farm to establish it.?ÿ
The Corps of Engineers bought some property off Farm B along the creek, but not Farm A, in the early 60??s for a new lake. ?ÿThe Corps line is monumented along a contour, which comes near, but not all the way to the old fence line. ?ÿThey did get a flowage easement, which is at an 11?? higher contour, from Farm A. ?ÿThe surveyor that created Tract 4 in the 60??s jumped over to the Corps line and followed it back down the creek rather than following the old fence, effectively leaving the property between the Corps lines and the old fence out of any tract of the division. ?ÿ
A 1956 tax photo clearly shows the old fence, with cropped fields on either side. ?ÿThe plat showing the Corps boundary also shows the property line between the 2 being where the fence was/still is. The father of the current owner of Tract 4 is in his 80??s, grew up in the area, and he says the fence row was always known as the boundary. ?ÿ
At this point, I think the piece with the timber on it does not belong to the owner of Tract 4, since his deed just says he bought Tract 4 of the division, so not sure he has any say in whether the timber is cut or not. ?ÿI don??t see how it belongs to Farm A either, based on an adjoining survey that appears to have been in error. I think it still belongs to the heir of Farm B, even though they thought they had sold it all. ?ÿWhen contacted, they said they would deed whatever is left to the owner of Tract 4, since they thought they had already sold it. ?ÿ The kicker is, the day after the renter said he was going to cut the timber, he did. ?ÿ
How do you advise the owner of Tract 4?
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
hmm....
Could spend 50k and might get title to the old fence, might not. Even if he did, considering the circumstances probably will not get reimbursed much if anything for the trees, and don't see any sort of negligence or malicious acts that could lead to other damages.
File trespassing charges against the renter. Offer to drop the charges in exchange for title to the land and remuneration for the timber.
My suggestion was to have the heirs deed the overlap to him by quitclaim or deed of correction, then let the other side prove it's theirs. May not be worth it, but he's pretty pi$$ed about it after the guy cut the trees after he told him there was an issue.
If it's decided they did own it and could deed it to him, then the renter would owe them for the trees. Im told there were several walnut trees cut.
Also, apparently the heir to Farm A does not intend to transfer anything based on the recent survey, only had it surveyed to straighten up some issue on with another adjoiner on the other side I think.
I think you are correct in your suggestion. The owner of Lot 4 only has rights in that part of the ground that lies within Lot 4 per the plat in the 60's unless an adverse claim can be made for that portion outside of Lot 4. So your idea to get a quit claim deed from the heirs of the farm would be in their best interest.
nobody questioned where the lines were, the fences were the lines.
There’s nothing of value there except some timber that would have been on Farm B based on the old fences.
The so only question is if farm B conveyed all of that land to the owner of the tract and where was the tract line understood to be by use etc. before surveyor for A came along? The tract owner clearly thinks it is the fence. Apparently A had no reason to cross over the fence until his survey and does not recognize a possible remnant of the parent farm B. Nor does his surveyor. In other words, no one recognizes more than one boundary.
New renter calls current owner of tract 4 to tell him he is going to cut the timber and put up a new fence,
So A's renter recognizes the tract owner may have interest in the land. Why else contact them?
the heir of Farm B.... thought they had sold it all.
If you have testimony of the owner who conveyed the land that they sold it all that's pretty strong testimony of intent. A corrected survey for the tract depicting the intent with a statement from the party of conveyance and a narrative of the history as described here would give the owner of the tract solid evidence of ownership. The trespass issue is separate. The renter was put on notice of a disputed location. Why didn't the surveyor for A uncover this? They could have prevented this in my view my simply speaking with the neighbor before finishing the survey. Perhaps a resolution would be for A to put a new fence where the old one is at their cost rather than a shared cost and agreeing to the corrected survey. If the trees value is considerably more than the tract owners share of a new fence that is another consideration.
Surveyor for A did uncover it, was told about it by owner of Tract 4, but decided the better evidence was the 80's survey which had not been questioned (because they weren't aware of it). I would venture a guess that neither of the heirs to the 2 farms have ever been back on this part of the place. Then there's this...
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 364.130
KRS 364.130
Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 386, sec. 1, effective7/15/1994. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 281, effective 7/15/1980. -- Created 1956 Ky. Acts ch. 26, sec. 1, effective 5/18/1956.
I think I had a conversation with someone about this one a week or two ago. Current surveyor was just venting a bit about the overall situation. I recommended a deeper dive into how lines were called out in the past (i.e. did any of the lines call for an adjoiner in such a way as to lock down the line). From your description, it sounds like there isn't anything in the deed language that would have cleared it up.
Sounds like one of those instances Lucas discusses where it is pretty important to have gathered some testimony as to what the fence might represent.
I did not realize the surveyor from the 80s was no longer with us. Just looked it up and saw the obit.
I haven't looked at the deeds, but the 80 year old father is my former mentor, and though he was never licensed he knows how to read and plot deeds. He said the same thing as the surveyor, I had them both on the phone at the same time. Sounded like he had been thru the ringer on it before this issue came up.
I would be very hesitant to offer advice on this situation for a number of reasons. With the parent deed apparently being garbage, the best available evidence would be the time honored fence lines and usage and I would be hesitant to suggest that jumping to the Army Corps line would be the correct course of action.
The possibility still exists that the timbered area was not a part of the subdivision and therefor remains in title with the subdivider, whether it was intended to be conveyed or not. I'm also curious as to how the renter would have any legal standing to harvest timber or otherwise modify land that he doesn't own.
There are only two ways that the owners and occupants of these properties are ever going to peacefully coexist, one is to sit them all together and come up with a boundary line agreement to be filed and the other is to file a motion with the courts to quiet title.
This situation seems to have too many variables to simply render anu advice without digging deeply into history and all the nitty gritty details over time.
