LRDay, post: 346987, member: 571 wrote: I'd like to read the case, what is it?
LRDay, post: 346987, member: 571 wrote: I'd like to read the case, what is it?
LRDay, post: 346987, member: 571 wrote: I'd like to read the case, what is it?
I'll see if I can find it.
It isn't precedent, it was never appealed
MightyMoe, post: 346973, member: 700 wrote: And sometimes a fence is just a fence to keep cows in pastures, and like the recent famous local case, the long held fence was rejected by the court.
The property owner along the east side of a section line was allowed to move his fence 150' to the west into the landowner to the west.
My point being, be very careful about rejecting deeds.
The deeds are very, very important................
I don't think they reject deeds; even in Utah:)
neither do I.
so what surveyor-in-training has to say is not so out there.
I greatly respect what Leon is saying, it's always been a vexing issue, but we as surveyors do have limits.
I agree. As each of us know, every survey is different, just as every piece of property is different - that is why we are licensed professionals. We must be knowledgeable in every aspect of what we are doing - especially the laws (common, administrative, statutory, etc.) so we can provide solutions, advise, and expert opinions for each unique circumstance/problem we come across in our daily work. That is also why we cannot be straight-jacketed by rules that do not allow the flexibility that professional judgment requires.
yep Brian, agree with that, well said 🙂
Land Surveyors are well equipped to find existing survey monuments and original boundaries as established in Deeds. If a Deed boundary has been created but not physically established in the field then we can handle that well too.
Two problems come to mind:
1) The problem of where the agreed or acquiesced boundary doesn't fit the pattern of Survey control in the area, for example, the fence established by the owners without reference to any survey because they didn't want to pay for a survey, didn't know to do that, or for whatever reason. This sort of problem is not easy for a Surveyor to deal with and often property owners want to change their story when they find out the boundary "should" be in a materially different location from the fence (or whatever).
2) The other problem, we should be able to deal with better. This where a Deed has hit the dirt, so to speak. A survey was done and monuments set which are in use. Often they aren't found, not searched for or disregarded as being "open to collateral attack." These should be accepted by the Surveyor if at all possible. I just looked at two Record of Survey maps. One in 2007 set monuments on the north line of the south 330' of a 660' subdivision lot (nothing to do with Sectional land). The second in 2014 set new monuments 0.17' north on the south line of the north 330' of the same lot. The lot is really 660.17' in north-south dimension. If I surveyed that lot I would've accepted the 2007 monuments. The 2014 R/S has a County Surveyor's note about the "gap." There is no gap, just accept the pre-existing monuments. This is ridiculous, 0.17'.
I understand what the law is but I also understand a lot depends on Attorneys and Judges and their pre-existing prejudices, lack of knowledge, so on and so forth. In the case of 1) it's tougher unless there is some logical reason that the fence is off, for example the owners thought a 1/16th corner splits the distance but it's a fraction section and it doesn't split the distance. The surveyor may be able to figure out the property owners acted without technical knowledge so that explains it. But if it's just a random spot chosen for no particular reason it gets tougher to explain as a professional expert. In the case of 2) I can explain about the world not being a perfect place and property owners did the right thing by having a survey so we should honor that, not keep pulling the rug out and saying, no over here now because my magic box tells me so.
Sorry too many words.
Seems like you went through the full analysis.
As to SIT and his point, I don't believe I disrespected his point, and don't recall that anyone else did either. Several, myself included, took his initial comment in the light that it is often meant in, placing deed (or section breakdown math) on the ground, report other facts relative to those lines while ignoring that some of those facts may be better evidence of the true boundary.
Once he protested that was not what he meant, several of us asked for clarification and got only increasing disrespect from SIT as we encouraged him to elaborate and invited him to join in the conversation in a way that we could all benefit from an exchange of ideas. He responded with increasing disrespect. My last comments to him were reflective of the respect he had earned.
I haven't read a single post in this thread that suggested, even remotely that one should reject a deed. The only time a deed should be rejected is when it contains a patent ambiguity that renders the property unlocatable. The deed is the starting point. Without it, you have no survey to perform.
Nearly every time of the hundreds of times I've heard someone say something like "place the deed on the ground", when you pin them down, what they mean is place the geometry on the ground and any occupation or use not in agreement with that is a potential encroachment. In many cases, the person who uses such a phrase to describe what we do will also reject the monuments of the first surveyor to break the section down or the first to have marked particular lines and points even though placed to accuracies commensurate with the equipment, methods, and standard of care of the time they were set. They read the deed and apply its terms in context of their own recent measurements and calculations without regard for reasonable differences between measurements of differing eras, with equipment and methods of differing precisions, an by people of varying levels of skill.
When we talk about holding physical evidence as the best evidence of the true boundary and making the deed dimension geometry subordinate to that, many of the "place the deed on the ground" people hear or read "discard the deed and hold the fences".
The job of the boundary surveyor is to gather all of the potentially relevant evidence, which includes the deed as an essential element, and follow that which comes together to best indicate where the original boundaries were established. The deed gets one to the right vicinity, and if other evidence is lacking or does not support an establishment that would have been based upon the terms of the deed, then those dimensions may be the only reliable evidence at your disposal.
I agree with all you say/said above. My only argument is that "placing the deed on the ground" in a literal sense is not the same as what most surveyors or others think when the terminology is used. If you think about it, "placing the deed on the ground" or deed staking would be coming up with the original intent of the deed and coming up with final solutions on the ground (including all evidence). The term has gotten so lost, that every time deed staking is mentioned it makes the hair on the nape of the neck stand up for most responsible surveyors. Our friend in training needs to learn that you can't just mention similar terms and wave the red flag in front of the bull without getting one of the bulls charging at him.
Whether this guy meant it in the more correct context, is some of the question. My guess it is terminology he heard from someone he admires like a mentor or instructor at one time, and he is defending his use of the terms to the hilt. Maybe give the new kid a break.
"placing the deed on the ground" in a literal sense
That would mean to take a paper deed and place it on the ground - in a literal sense, Right? Like I'd set a golf ball or bag of something on the ground. Actually even in the sense of survey lingo it's not a very good way to put it.
What the courts have said:
A boundary line may be established by showing the two adjoining landowners or their predecessors in title have recognized and acquiesced in a boundary line for a period of xx years. Each of the adjoining landowners or their grantors must have knowledge of and consented to the asserted property line as the boundary line. When such acquiescence persists for xx years, the line becomes the true boundary even though a survey may show otherwise, and even though neither party intended to claim more than called for by his deed. Acquiescence need not be specifically proven; it may be inferred by the silence or inaction of one party who knows of the boundary line claimed by the other and fails to take steps to dispute it for a xx-year period. However, the party seeking to establish a boundary line other than the boundary line in accordance with a survey must prove acquiescence by clear evidence. A finding of boundary by acquiescence must be based on a definite line. Even if the prerequisites for boundary by acquiescence have been in existence for some time, the trial court must still find a definite boundary line. A boundary line cannot be an approximation, but must be specifically located. The line acquiesced in must be known, definite, and certain, or known and capable of ascertainment. The line must have certain physical properties such as visibility, permanence, stability, and definite location.
I read similar language re the agreed boundary doctrine in many states. All that varies is the time element. Harmonizing with other fences or other surveys is not necessary to establish an agreed boundary.
Yes....lol; touch̩. placing the piece of paper on the ground (literally) would be silly. I had a poor choice of words. I even had hesitation when I typed it, but went ahead anyway.
My point is, if anyone missed it, is taking the deed and figuring out its intent is a huge effort and a much greater task than interpreting a bunch of bearings and distances onto the ground. Larger still is making the leap to determine if acquiescence or if a fence were meant to be built as a boundary-line fence. But some could consider that the task @ hand as well in trying to establish a property line. But after all that, you can't just ignore the deed and the calls in the deed. That is the document that created (or transferred) the property.
The courts have said repeatedly the acquiesced or agreed boundary is the same boundary described in the deed. They do this to avoid violating the Statute of Frauds. Therefore if there is a boundary established by acquiescence or agreement it is the deed line.
Tom Adams, post: 347251, member: 7285 wrote: Yes....lol; touch̩. placing the piece of paper on the ground (literally) would be silly. I had a poor choice of words. I even had hesitation when I typed it, but went ahead anyway.
My point is, if anyone missed it, is taking the deed and figuring out its intent is a huge effort and a much greater task than interpreting a bunch of bearings and distances onto the ground. Larger still is making the leap to determine if acquiescence or if a fence were meant to be built as a boundary-line fence. But some could consider that the task @ hand as well in trying to establish a property line. But after all that, you can't just ignore the deed and the calls in the deed. That is the document that created (or transferred) the property.
I had never heard the term "Deed Staker" until chatting with another surveyor who works in an eastern state.
I kind of understood he meant it as a pejorative of some sort, but at first I didn't understand.
Getting hung up on slang terms can be the basis of poor communication.
I see myself as a deed staker, and many other things as a surveyor.
If someone wants to insert attributes to that, that's on them, not me.
So many terms in surveying get misused, we often say we are writing a "deed", of course we aren't,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well we shouldn't,,,,,,,,a surveyor could get into all kinds of trouble doing that.
Being a deed staker doesn't mean being a math staker, and that leads to three irons at a corner, dumb little offsets to the "true position" on a map, silly and destructive behavior by surveyors, and it should be derided, but maybe deed staker is the wrong slang term to be using, no matter how long it's been used in some regions.
"Deed Staker" means somebody that is insisting upon staking their deed's calls regardless of how it fits on the ground.
99.9% of the time, that don't make harmony exist.....
