With the fence

Leon,

I would not hesitate one second to do as you suggest, only I
prefer to use the word "upon" in lieu of "with".

Scott

I would use the term "along" an existing fence line. Along is usually used in a collective sense to cover an aggregate total of several segments...i.e. thence along an existing fence line....By a line, or upon a line, relates to being on or along a line also..

My dos centavos

Pablo B-)

I probably wouldn't give an overall b&d because I would want it to be clear that it is not a straight line. I might use "Northerly, along an existing fence to a fence corner that is______ from ______".

Use along (or with, your choice) the existing [describe type of] fence having an average bearing of N 1 18'58" W distance etc...

Ken

"generally along the fence"

With implies that as it ebbs and flows, so does the line.

A better way would be to say THENCE North 01°xx'xx" West, and intermittently along a fences, 4000 feet to a 1/2" steel rod set for the TERMINUS of this BOUNDARY LINE.

I don't like the simple term "with". It could be construed that the bearing goes in the same general direction of the fence as opposed to, say, merging away from the fence. Reading below, "upon' sounds like a word that I might have trouble misconstruing as being other than the fence as the monument. Could you even add some language to the effect: "The intent of this description is to establish the fence as it sits today as the common boundary between the adjoining parties"? (off the top of my head just to that idea) Many of our argumments are over how to interpret some language of a deed by the definition of one word.

> 3/4 mile long fits in less than a 2 foot wide corridor. It's rural dry pasture. I'm thinking just give one simple bearing and distance from end to end and say the boundary is with the existing fence.
>

You can't ask for much better than that can you?

I usually do the same: "Thence N 01d 19' W, 3924.4 feet along an existing fence line to ....."

There is no need to worry about a few tenths here and there, what are we supposed to do, put a dimple in the top of each fence post? No, you don't need a micrometer to accurately describe the monument (fence) marking the new boundary line. The intended monument controls, not the stated bearings and distances.

:good:

By the way - that fence is as straight as a reasonable and prudent person would expect it to be. The tiny jigs and jogs you note are irrelevant...

> "generally along the fence"

I agree with Mr Shelton.

One thing I do when creating a straight line following an almost straight fence is calculate the intrusion area on each side of the line and adjust the line to make the areas equal so that if the two owners choose to maintain the fence or they choose to rebuild on a straight line, they still have the same amount of property under fence.

James

If the fence bows to the right of the intended course and distance, I might say," North 45 degrres East, slightly West of a crooked fence, a distance of..., but please don't state it that someone later will make a bend at an every post along the full course of the line.

I agree with Tom. If your intent is to make the fence the line, then it needs to be clear. I'm good with," along the fence", and using one B-D.

We have the same trouble with stonewalls. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a new lot corner set a few feet one side of a wall or the other, when the old stonewall is the intersecting line, not necessarily the B-D that someone previously described, based on locating two ends a thousand feet apart, 30 years ago.

Use of the word "along" by itself can be misleading, for example:

• I walked along the path - this can be construed as walking on the actual path.
• I walked along the river - this could mean I am walking along the edge of the river, not the center of it. Unless it is shallow and I like getting my feet wet.
• I walked along the fence - probably means I am walking next to the fence and not on it.

So, if the boundary is following along the fence, is the boundary going through the middle of the fence or on the side, creating a gap or overlap.

In this case it might be simple to just add "follows along the middle of the fence" and it will probably take care of any ambiguity.

But how would you deal with a call to an adjoining landowner where the boundary line is not visible or defined on the ground by a natural or artificial feature? Perhaps the use of the word "upon" would suit this situation better, since the boundary line has no real width to it.

Just my 2¢

> Doing a boundary line adjustment to follow a fence. Best fit of my data points taken along the fence shows it's pretty straight. 3/4 mile long fits in less than a 2 foot wide corridor. It's rural dry pasture. I'm thinking just give one simple bearing and distance from end to end and say the boundary is with the existing fence.
>
> Its there a better way?
>

I beg you to carefully consider the long term consequences what you are about to do.

Imagine you come back to the area in 15 to 20 years. You are asked to survey an adjoining property. The adjoining property does not adjoin the entire length of this line, just a portion. You are tasked with setting a "new" corner in the line you are about to describe.

Will you put the new corner on the bearing and distance described in the deed?

Will you put the new corner "in the fence" as it exists when you return to the site? Even if this means mathematically being a foot or so off the previous "line"?

Will you be able to determine where the fence was when the line was described at that previous date? Fences are moved and sometimes removed. What then?

If you say that the fence (as currently placed) defines the line, you leave the very great potential for significant problems in the future.

Given that your current math is as close as it is, might you and the clients be far better served by defining the line by the corner markers at each end of the line? You could say that there is an existing fence that generally marks the physical location of the straight line between the corners. But make it clear the corners are set and the line between them is the property line, not the fence.

Something to consider.

Larry P

PS: In case you couldn't tell ... "with the fence" has been the bane of my existence for some time now. Where was that fence back in '72 when they wrote this description?

I would like to see enough bearings and distances along the fence so future generations know where it was if it disappears.

That is easy to do with computers nowadays.

After doing this for many years one thing I do know it that fences tend to move, if they are on a side hill they slide down it, if they are old they get rebuilt in a slightly different place, they lean and over time shift.

Kinda like those surveyors who drive a railroad spike into a utility pole for a bench mark, only to see the pole get replaced (never understood why you would do such an awful thing), the brace panels and posts get replaced too.

Set monuments at both ends and write the deed as along so that the fence isn't the boundary but the line between the monuments is.

It depends upon what the actual intent of your clients is. Is it to make the fence the monument so that the property line is coincident with the fence at any given point along the line? Or is it to create a course that generally follows the fence from one end to the other with little regard as to whether the fence is a bit on one side or the other of the boundary line?

The current clients may be reasonable people for whom a foot this way or that on the boundary of large parcels isn't significant enough to worry about. But properties get sold and the subsequent owners may not be so reasonable. Expensive litigation happens over fences being a few inches one way or another with enough frequency that your description should be make it very clear whether it is the fence with all its minor sinuosities or the single course (or the pipes at each end) in a straight line that is the controlling element.

To that end, I would not rely on the understandings of a few surveyors who interpret "along the fence" to mean that the single course is the boundary and the fence generally follows it, or the others who interpret it to mean that the fence is the boundary and that the stated course is the general direction and distance followed by the fence's many actual courses. I know of case law that holds that "along the fence/gulch/creek/road/whatever feature" means that the center of the mentioned feature is a continuous monument, just as "along the [navigable] river" with bearings and distances has been consistently ruled to be meanders with the true boundary following the sinuosities of the actual ordinary high water mark (or low water mark, or thread, depending upon your state's stautory boundary for navigable waterways), and there may be case law somewhere that holds a single course that is near the mentioned feature (though I'm not aware of any).

Be specific in the description to avoid future confusion. As long as the language is crystal clear on the intent, I don't see much problem with using one bearing & distance to describe the line when the variations are relatively minor. With the data set you provided, I would probably put a few angle points in the description. It seems that there are appreciable breaks every 200 to 600 feet or so. As Dave said, should the fence fall down or get torn out, the intermediate angle points would allow the line to be re-established more accurately.

Reminds me of this island owned by Finland and Sweden.