> Acqisitive prescription
>
> and not really 'changing hands' so to speak
> Prescription
> Predial servitudes
> usufructs
Wow...you made me look up some of those.
Another "claim to land" that is often used in conjunction with, or relating to, adverse possession are estoppel and laches
If you know it's your property and don't do anything about it while someone else is improving on it, you best speak up before all is said and done.
You could well lose your land before the adverse possession clock has run I think by the doctrine of laches.
Trusts
Oh, I got a couple more
- Identity theft.
- Cloning
- Alien takeover of your body
- (In the case of a person w/ split-personality,) the deeding of land from one personality to another within the same person.
- Separation of conjoined twins.
and I get partial credit for Sex Change of the grantee.
Also it would change hands in the case of a double-hand transplant.
Oh, I got a couple more
I get partial credit for Sex Change of the grantee.
You are still talking about Transfer of Real Property, right???
Oh, I got a couple more
> I get partial credit for Sex Change of the grantee.
>
> You are still talking about Transfer of Real Property, right???
yes, the property would change ownership from John Doe to Jane Doe.
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
I don't really see it that way. A boundary established by agreement or acquiescence is a transfer of title, particularly when the line could have been established by a surveyor. Brown 4th addition, on page 37, under the section "Unwritten rights or title to land" says:
> "... every state reconginizes that land can be involuntarily transferred from one person to another under the law. Prolonged occupancy, agreement, and several other doctrines recognize acts, behavior, and actions of adjoining landowners."
But it also says:
> No legal doctrine actually conveys title. It has been held, though, that adverse possession creates a new title, but there is no written title. There must be a writing to have good and marketable title.
So, basically, none of the legal doctrines are considers a title transfer, until they are upheld in court, and new legal description is adpodted...
Oh, I got a couple more
I concur Mr Fleming. As they say - fences make good neighbors.
However, if we could find a couple wall contractors on a fast track, hold back a bit of water, then maybe this method could accomplish the same end result.
[flash width=560 height=345] http://www.youtube.com/v/s0xVRDUQrow?version=3&hl=en_US [/flash]
Here is Brown's list, which he notes is a partial list:
Title by conquest of war
Title by US patent
Title by State patent
Title by deed
Title by descent from a deceased person
Title by will from a deceased person
Title by involuntary alienation (backruptcy or foreclosure)
Title by Adverse possession
Title by eminent domain
Title by esceat (reverting to the state)
title by dedication
At law (ex: court granting title to accreated land)
Title by parol granting uder certian strict requirements
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
> I don't really see it that way. A boundary established by agreement or acquiescence is a transfer of title, particularly when the line could have been established by a surveyor. Brown 4th addition, on page 37, under the section "Unwritten rights or title to land" says:
>
> > "... every state reconginizes that land can be involuntarily transferred from one person to another under the law. Prolonged occupancy, agreement, and several other doctrines recognize acts, behavior, and actions of adjoining landowners."
>
> But it also says:
>
> > No legal doctrine actually conveys title. It has been held, though, that adverse possession creates a new title, but there is no written title. There must be a writing to have good and marketable title.
>
> So, basically, none of the legal doctrines are considers a title transfer, until they are upheld in court, and new legal description is adpodted...
I agree with eap. In general, an agreement is an inexpensive way to decide on where a previously-unknown line lies. It does not exchange property. The legal descriptions' areas do not change. The descriptions are probably vague or ambiguous enough that the real property line can't be established without a court decision except in the case of an agreement by the adjoiners. A boundary-line-agreement finalizes and properly establishes the unknown line location to make it known.
re:
> > No legal doctrine actually conveys title. It has been held, though, that adverse possession creates a new title, but there is no written title. There must be a writing to have good and marketable title.
>
> So, basically, none of the legal doctrines are considers a title transfer, until they are upheld in court, and new legal description is adpodted...
Well, yes and know. Adverse possession occurs when all of the elements, including the time has been met. When a court ajudicates it, it becomes clear title, perhaps, but courts have supported that title had transferred when the elements have taken effect, and not as of the date that it was decreed by the court.
Still, I would suggest that the adverse possession title is "clouded" until it has been proven in court. Not so with a boundary-line-agreement. The agreement finalizes and clears the title line in question when the agreement is made.
The time has come to re-break-out the old hagar cartoon. If you've seen it you don't have to look again.;-)
You might want to check Black's
I have posted this before but you might have missed it:
Alienation
In real property law, the transfer of the property and possession of lands, tenaments, or other things, from one person to another. The term is particularly applied to absolute conveyances of real property. The voluntary and complete transfer from one person to another. Disposition by will. Every mode of passing realty by the act of the party, as distinguished from passing it by the operation of law. See also Restraint on alienation.
Restraint on Alienation
A provision in an instrument of conveyance which prohibits the grantee from selling or transfering the property which is the subject of the conveyance. Most such restraints are unenforceable as against public policy and the law's policy of free alienability of land. See restrictive covenant.
The phrase 'act of the party' refers to clear physical evidence of occupation and control. This is an 'exception' to the statute of frauds because the owner's aren't capable of accurately describing their acts nor knowing what the legal documentation requirements are; only a surveyor, (not attorney), knows what is required to accurately describe parcels of land.
If not the surveyor, who?
When the surveyor cannot or will not discharge his duty, he creates a situation that operates as a 'restraint on alienation', also sometimes known as 'slander of title'. This usually occurs when a deed staker marks the deed lines and refers to the legal physical boundary as an 'encroachment'.
See also the two paragraphs after the subheading 'Background' in the July 2007 ALTA/ACSM ACCURACY STANDARDS and my previously posted material from the law school textbook regarding Apprasial of Title - part 1, Appraisal part 2 and Appraisal part 3 on the old board.
Again, IF NOT THE SURVEYOR, WHO? Remember, if you own land, we are talking about your rights. If you don't know what your rights and responsibilities are, how can you function in a profession whose responsibility is to assist land owners to protect their rights?
Richard Schaut
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
The legal doctrine of "boundary by agreement" should not be confused with a written "boundary line agreement". A "boundary line agreement" is a form of "boundary by agreement", but "boundary by agreement" does not require an express or writen agreement, but much like acquiecense, the actions of parties can result in a "boundary by agreement".
I think the case that I see more often when "boundary by agreement" or acquiescence could apply isn't because the deed line was unattainable, it's because the parties were too cheap to hire a surveyor ... someone built a fence, and other party didn't question it. The “uncertainty” was due to ignorance, not a true case of the line being “lost”. I’ve always considered that an unwritten transfer of title, because once the deed line is established, it becomes clear that title to certain areas may have changed hands. However, after rereading that chapter in Brown, it seems that title isn’t transferred by these legal theories; it’s gained by one party, and lost by the other. A small point, but seems an important distinction if this thread is about methods of title transfer.
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
Here's a quote from a Florida case talking about "boundary by agreement", and note there was no formal agreement made. Both parties acted as if a fenceline was their boundary, and the court ruled "boundary by agreement".
> [1—4] As was explained by this court in King v. Carden, 237 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), lands may be acquired by way of the acts and conduct of abutting landowners, requiring the application of an equitable estoppel. Two of those methods of establishing a boundary are (1) boundary by agreement, and (2) boundary by acquiescence. The elements of a boundary by agreement are (1) uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary; (2) an agreement that a certain line will be treated by the parties as the true line; and (3) the subsequent occupation by the parties in accordance with the agreement for a period of time sufficient to show a settled recognition of the line as the permanent boundary. The elements of a boundary by acquiescence are (1) a dispute from which it can be implied that both parties are in doubt as to the boundary and (2) continued occupation and acquiescence in a line other than the true boundary for a period of more than the statute of limitations. Therefore, the common element of both doctrines is a dispute as to the location of the common boundary.
> [5,6] Although we cannot find a boundary by acquiescence in this case, the record does support the application of the doctrine of boundary by agreement. First, the dispute necessary for a boundary by agreement does not require an open hostility between the parties, but can consist of a mere uncertainty as to the true location of the line. Sanlando Springs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Douglass, 455 So.2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We find that the record in the instant case supports such an uncertainty. Appellant Campbell conceded in his 1982 deposition that he did not know where the boundary line was at the time Pate had the land surveyed. Pate’s uncertainty is evident from the fact that he hired Peaden to locate the boundary prior to building the fence.
> Second, although there is no evidence of an express agreement, Campbell’s actions in clearing his land to the fence line and in extending, repairing, and utilizing the fence constitute at least an implied agreement to treat the fence as a boundary line. See Watson v. Godwin, 259 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
> Third, the evidence indicates that both parties occupied their properties according to the fence line up until the day of the trial. Even if Campbell’s 1975 letter could be construed as an end to his acquiescence in the fence as the true boundary, his occupancy according to the fence continued. Thus, the occupancy period lasted at least five years, and arguably longer. Boundaries by agreement have been found in Florida where occupancy was for as little as two years. Reil v. Myers, 222 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
There is no such thing as an unwritten transfer of title. It's something Brown and his title insurance buddies made up, not supported by common law. It violates the Statute of Frauds. The perpetuation of this fraud (an unwritten transfer of title) by many in the surveying community along with title folks and public officials such as recorders and county surveyors has created a mess that threatens the continuation of the land surveying profession because it is totally contrary to common law. A boundary surveyor should have a handle on boundary law but even then its difficult because many others in the title industry don't have a clue either. What you gotta do is quit claim everything, the shot gun method, if there is a question about the boundary just have em quit claim it, that will fix it!
And to support the quit-claim method my Du*b A$$ state legislature at the request of the title insurance community, county recorders (supported by the county surveyors) enacted into law a statue to this effect. Every boundary line agreement must be in the form of a quit claim deed. There is no limit to the stupidity of folks that should know better when it comes to land boundaries. Nobody studies the law they just make it up by shooting from the hip.
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
I don't follow you. The term "unwritten transfer of title" is a generic term that covers legal doctrines like adverse possession, acquiecenses, boundary by agreement, estopple, etc ... As others have said, title transfers by these methods the moment all the requirements are met. It doesn't have to be written for it have happened, but it does have to be in writing to have marketable title. The Statute of Frauds says that certain types of contracts have to be in writing. Adverse possession, etc., are not contracts. I don't see the relationship.
Read Brian Allen's Post, Above
There is no transfer of title via the boundary by agreement doctrines. That's the whole point. There is no such thing as unwritten transfer of title. Uncertain boundaries can be established (fixed in location) by agreement. There is no transfer of title, written or unwritten, what happens is the location of the existing title is established. No land transferred from one party to another, all they did was agree upon the location of the uncertain boundary. So the Statute of Frauds is not violated as there was no conveyance, no need for a conveyance to be written.
Adverse possession is different as there is a transfer of title, which happens when the court decrees it.
Read the Post by Brian Allen and the case cited. There are many more. Read Lucas "The Pin Cushion Effect" where this is discussed in detail. These cases have been posted on boards such as this for years but it's such a shift from the last 5 decades of surveying literature for most surveyors that they have a hard time understanding. I had a hard time turning on the light.
In Utah the legislator and his minions had a UTAH case from the 1920's shown to them that clearly stated that there is no transfer of title by boundary line agreements and they went ahead and screwed over the common law anyway. The law doesn't mean much in the US anymore. Ignorance is in charge, no one wants to make the effort to get anything right anymore.
Pseudo, this is not directed towards you, I'm just lashing out at the failed system.
TPR
Reread, and pay special attention to the highlighed portion:
"Where the location of a true boundary line between coterminous owners is known to either of the parties, or is not uncertain, and is not in dispute, an oral agreement between them purporting to establish another line as the boundary between their properties constitutes an attempt to convey real property in violation of the statute of frauds (I.C. §§ 9-505 and 55-601) and is invalid. But, where the location of the true boundary line is unknown to either of the parties, and is uncertain or in dispute, such coterminous owners may orally agree upon a boundary line. When such an agreement is executed and actual possession is taken under it, the parties and those claiming under them are bound thereby. In such circumstances, an agreement fixing the boundary line is not regarded as a conveyance of any land from one to the other, but merely the location of the respective existing estates and the common boundary of each of the parties." DOWNING v. BOEHRINGER 349 P.2d 306 (1960)"
Note this case is over 50 years old. I can post many recent cases in many other states if you want, but the concept is basically the same and really isn't that hard to understand. The LANDOWNERS agreed upon the location of their uncertain common boundary. Just because they didn't hire a surveyor with his super-duper measuring system and autocad, doesn't mean they can't agree upon the location of their uncertain common boundary. Even if they (or their successors) hire a surveyor later, the location is established.
Yes, each state has different requirements. For instance, in Idaho, boundary by agreement and boundary by acquiescence are the SAME thing.
However, the legal principles are basically the same - landowners are NOT required to hire a surveyor to settle an uncertainty or dispute in the location of the boundary lines. The "settlement" they agree on, if meeting certain requirements, is then binding on them and their successors.
Adverse possession is another animal altogether, a distant cousin, but still another separate species.
TPR
Wow. You quoted one judge's opinion. Big deal. If you'd get off your high horse for a moment and read the Florida case law that I posted, you'd see that this judge refers to boundary by agreement and acquiescence as ways to ACQUIRE land.
> lands may be acquired by way of the acts and conduct of abutting landowners, requiring the application of an equitable estoppel. Two of those methods of establishing a boundary are (1) boundary by agreement, and (2) boundary by acquiescence.
And that case is OVER 40 years old ... WOW! See, maybe you don't know everything ...
TPR
I didn't read your cited case, but your quote here:
lands may be acquired by way of the acts and conduct of abutting landowners, requiring the application of an equitable estoppel. Two of those methods of establishing a boundary are (1) boundary by agreement, and (2) boundary by acquiescence.
leaves a lot to be desired in showing that boundary line agreements are involved in acquiring land?
Seems like, the point that Brian is making, which I agree to, is the fact that boundary line agreements only show where the boundary line is, as in ". . . Two of those methods of establishing a boundary . . .
Land has not been transferred!
I will venture to say that some context is missing in your quote!
Keith