'T'would seem.
"The court’s opinion is a welcome one for clarifying an extremely muddled area of law."
http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/10/boundary-dispute-sheds-light-on-complex-issue/
YOS
DGG
(Howcummizzit a Canuckian is concerned ?
Same issues here as to evidence interpretation of "intent" !)
The courts do have a way of perpetuating the fees of their brethren, do they not?
I mean, if you think the road was built with reliance on the original survey, due to that being the common historical practice, then say so. If you believe the road is somewhere other than on the section line between the original stakeout of the corners, but is the line now because it is longstanding and relied upon, then say so. Why mix it like a molotov cocktail that the entire legal profession can now light and throw? Is it a lack of available language? Must everything be referred to as either adverse possession or acquiesence? Can't a judge or justice express themselves in an orignal manner? How many licks to get to the center of a lollipop? The world may never know.
Honest to pete!
Attorneys in WI are much the same as anywhere in the US. They do not understand the concept of allodial land ownership and the rights and responsibilities of the land owners.
Remember, the court's decision answers the allegations and arguements made by the lawyers. When the lawyers make bad arguements, the judges must 'tailor' their response to address the concerns raised by the lawyers as well as state the fundamental principles supporting their decision.
Richard Schaut
