Brian,
There is a court case in Texas that says a Junior tract can be used to determine the boundary line of a Senior tract, however it only applies if the Senior Tract has no monuments, in fact it is a last resort to use the Junior Tract to determine the Senior boundary.
adamsurveyor
Well, if it isn't bogus, there must be a good source to where and why it was stated?
Has nothing to do with land surveying.
Right?
adamsurveyor
> Well, if it isn't bogus, there must be a good source to where and why it was stated?
>
> Has nothing to do with land surveying.
>
> Right?
It certainly would have to do with the intent of a deed, and/or whether the landing being transferred was owned by the grantor don't you think? Wouldn't that have to do with land surveying and property boundaries?
adamsurveyor
Got a source for the quote?
Scott,
Is this the one you are referring to?
I'd suggest one study this case, it is a very good, detailed decision, that covers land surveying and boundary law quite thoroughly.
Here is another good one (not from TX).
Enjoy
Is there a surveyor here,
Let's start another one
You can't keep what you don't defend
Is there a surveyor here,
linebender,
I like that one, and can I quote you?
The bogus "you can't sell what you don't own" is just a cheap shot at justifying expert measurements and somebody has told somebody that is the reason it is done around here!
Maybe there is a better source?
Keith
Is there a surveyor here,
Gee,
Maybe there is a lesson here to be learned!
Research this bogus statement and see where and why it was stated.
Hopefully in some other book than Clarks?
Keith
Jimmy Dufus
Jimmy comes back to the office after working in the field all day:
"Hey, Uncle Don, we set all those corners you wanted today. Billy dropped the transit but it seemed O.K.
Oh, and Sammy's goat got horny so we had to drive in one of your stakes to tie him to and keep him close when we was driving all the other corners.
Hey! Thanks for the five bucks!
I'm getting drunk right now.
See you in the morning. We'll stake that other job you was talking about.
Don
Is there a surveyor here,
Defend your boundary, eh. Like this from Utah Law?
Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 20, 44 P.3d 781 (stating that record property owners "must . . . take some action manifesting that they do not acquiesce"); id. ¶ 19 (indicating acquiescence may be shown "regardless of whether the landowner knows where the actual boundary lies or whether the boundary is uncertain"); Lane, 505 P.2d at 1200 (indicating a landowner may "'consent by silence,'" or inaction when "a fence. . . appears to be a boundary").
This was the biggest logging truck year I have seen in a while. A lot of redwood logs going to the mill. They are still hauling last summer's logs.
Scott,
> Is this the one you are referring to?
>
> TH Investments
>
> I'd suggest one study this case, it is a very good, detailed decision, that covers land surveying and boundary law quite thoroughly.
>
> Here is another good one (not from TX).
>
> Newfound Mgmnt
>
> Enjoy
Brain,
This is not the one I was referring to, When I get some free time at the office I will look it up.
Scott
:good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
LR
I really hope that you just forgot to turn the sarcasm font on...
Does the Junior Deed give an acreage or say half or a third of the Senior Tract? Its possible the last surveyor found the Senior Tract corners and found more land than in the Deed. The Junior deed said half of the Senior tract so he more the line for the extra acreage.
adamsurveyor
> Got a source for the quote?
Well....okay here goes:
"Well, if it isn't bogus, there must be a good source to where and why it was stated?
Has nothing to do with land surveying.
Right?"
Keith (source)
"It certainly would have to do with the intent of a deed, and/or whether the landing [sic] being transferred was owned by the grantor don't you think? Wouldn't that have to do with land surveying and property boundaries?"
adamsurveyor (source)
I catch your drift, but I disagree that someone can transfer property that they don't own. If you're arguing that a line bends through a "junior" corner, then you are arguing where that senior line is, but you are not showing me how it is selling property you don't own.
adamsurveyor
I really meant a credible source 😉
You know as well as I do what the argument is and it ain't about selling a building that you don't own!
It is the bogus opinion that is stated to prove that a junior corner monument cannot be used to bend a senior line, because that encroaches onto land that is not owned. And that is why it is bogus!
Doncha think that land ownership follows the monuments that are established to show its boundaries.
Again, where and why was this bogus theory stated?
If it is as simple as just measuring between original senior corners to locate all subsequent corner monuments of subsequent land divisions, then it does not take a Land Surveyor to make any decisions on the legitimacy of the junior corners.
Your unlicensed, crew chief can do that very well.
Would you accept my 1/16th corner monuments that were a little off line?
Keith
I would hold the straight line within the limits of the tools I was using. I would only hold the offline monuments for direction, not length. Seems those pins as described are not set within the requirements we have to meet here. It was stated that there was no occupation evidence or visible claims of ownership to the junior pins. As the case was stated, the senior line is in agreement with intent and the junior monuments show excessive error, with no reliance or claims that the junior pins were ever accepted or relied on by anyone. I would show that I had held those pins for direction only, unless I had reason to totally reject them. No title claims to take into account here that are contrary to deed descriptions. That is how I would handle it, Ownership claims because of reliance could change what I did, but the location of the senior line and the fact it was intended to be and is described as being straight does not change even if there is justification for doglegs that effects ownership because of evidence of the actions and acceptance of the owners.
Is there a surveyor here,
There's really nothing wrong with the statement, "You can't sell what you don't own." It is true. However, the context of the phrase is taken from title law, not boundary law. We are too accustomed with the notion that the two are the same; they're not.
Title laws are designed to prove your right to purchase, occupy and convey a particular parcel that you own. The surveyor isn't determining that ownership right (what). The surveyor is determining the extent or limit of the ownership (where). Boundary laws are designed to determine the extent of the title. The question here is with regard to the location of the boundary, not the ownership.
If the boundary is, in fact, located in accordance with the monuments, then the boundary, as established on the ground, is the extent of what is owned and conveyed. The adjoining owner could sell what he owned.
JBS
Keith
> Would you accept my 1/16th corner monuments that were a little off line?
>
> Keith
Yes (generally speaking and assuming it hasn't moved or been disturbed, etc. etc.)
My disagreement with you is about the phrase being bogus.
Regarding "you can't sell what you don't own":
When I find a legal description that blatantly overlaps a senior line, I argue that the intent of the deed isn't to overlap a senior line. And even if the intent was to overlap, the fact that the grantor "can't sell what he doesn't own", comes in to play. I am having a hard time with you calling "you can't sell what you don't own" a bogus concept. I think it is an extremely apropos argument in surveying. I don't think it applies to your example about a monument that is slightly off some calculated line.
Does that clarify what I have been trying to say?