The fence is the monument in this case., and holds over the B-D.
A fence, as a monument, is no more or less susceptible to being disturbed or replaced than any other monument.
> The fence is the monument in this case., and holds over the B-D.
>
> A fence, as a monument, is no more or less susceptible to being disturbed or replaced than any other monument.
Have to disagree with you there Mr. Macolini. Fences get replaced all the time. They age and when the intended purpose is no longer met, often replaced. BTW, I've seldom seen a fence where the intended purpose was to mark a property line. Most often the fence services another purpose, such as keeping animals in the proper area.
I've never seen a circumstance where a client decided their property corner had aged to the point where it no longer served the purpose.
Larry P
> The fence is the monument in this case., and holds over the B-D.
>
> A fence, as a monument, is no more or less susceptible to being disturbed or replaced than any other monument.
I have to agree. What is a more substantial and recognizable monument for the landowners, and least likely to be inadvertently moved or destroyed, a couple pieces of 2-bit rebar over 3900' apart, or 3/4 mile of stable, visible fence? (which is apparently what the expressed intent is)
Called for and intended monuments control over cited bearings and distances. Yes, it is impossible to build over 3900 feet of fence without varying the line a few tenths here and there, but at some point common sense and the intent of the landowners has to take over. Do we measure to the center of each post, or the side of each post? Which side? Or do we measure to every other post, every third post, every 50 feet, or every 100 feet? Just how far "out of line" of a "straight line" can a fence post be before we would be required to set a stick of rebar and call for an angle point? 1.0', .75', .5, .2'?
[sarcasm]What is wrong with me, of course it is .04'!!! Be careful with the size of that dimple though.........[/sarcasm]
Bottom line, talk to the landowners and use your professional judgment.
The problem with fences as monuments is that they are in your face when it comes to the math.
> The problem with fences as monuments is that they are in your face when it comes to the math.
I don't really see that as a problem. Just like when my math doesn't match exactly with a prior plan.
The fence holds unless someone rips it up, and then your math will. And as long as the deviation between your math and the actual location is small enough that you're comfortable, it probably doesn't matter, and no one will ever know anyway, (with the fence gone).
> 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 ______".
I'd probably still include an overall bearing and distance; the call along the fence will trump it, but it gives an indication of exactly what you're doing in the event that the fence (or the dimension point given as a reference) is destroyed at the time of a later retracement.
> > The problem with fences as monuments is that they are in your face when it comes to the math.
>
> I don't really see that as a problem. Just like when my math doesn't match exactly with a prior plan.
>
> The fence holds unless someone rips it up, and then your math will. And as long as the deviation between your math and the actual location is small enough that you're comfortable, it probably doesn't matter, and no one will ever know anyway, (with the fence gone).
And what happens when you decide it is time for a new fence but can't have an unfenced line while working on the new one? So you build the new fence alongside the old fence (3 or 4 feet from the old fence). Then you tear down the old fence because there is no need for two fences.
This sort of things happens frequently in this area. I've seen places where I knew the fence had "moved" 4 or 5 times since the description was written.
I think we all agree that the "new" fence is not the line. But how does one tell where the "original" fence was located?
This is a problem best avoided by not calling for the fence to be the line.
Larry P
I can see your point and had thought about it. Considering how close the fence is to straight I think the parties will accept a new straight line (no fence call) as the boundary. They just don't want to move the fence from where it is (old guys that have accepted the fence as the boundary for over 50 years). By common law the fence probably is the boundary, it's just the math, proportion and section monuments in the deeds that is "off." I'm inclined to accept and call the fence the boundary and so is the landowners. It's the rest of the system (title folks, public officials) and maybe another surveyor down the road that will upset the works (math doesn't exactly work), so to remove all doubt they may execute a boundary line agreement to keep the flies off in the future and keep the boundary where it has always been and no need to move the fence.
If the fence is moved, then it's not the original monument, doesn't control, and then you're left with the B-D.
I'd do as others have said, and locate enough of the fence, and put in some angle points as needed (every 300' or so). It's how we locate stonewalls.
No one, (at least not me), is saying that this is like a riparian boundary. It doesn't move or change with each new fenceline.
It sounds like you know the owner's intent. However, I would go over with them some of the options, and do what they want; especially if it's a boundary line agreement. If the fence is "close enough" to being on the property line, you might consider calling to the extreme fence corners as the corner monuments with a straight line inbetween. If the fence is (more or less) along that straight line, you are good. Then you might consider setting some "witness corners by each fence corner that you are referencing as the boundary corners so that it can be retraced if the fence should be moved or torn out.
I just finished a rural tract whose North was a straight line per its deed. A fence started and ended at its two end points, but in the middle was bowed 20 feet.
No way am I going to do describe anything but a straight line, but I did mentioned a bowed fence in my description.
> I can see your point and had thought about it. Considering how close the fence is to straight I think the parties will accept a new straight line (no fence call) as the boundary. They just don't want to move the fence from where it is (old guys that have accepted the fence as the boundary for over 50 years). By common law the fence probably is the boundary, it's just the math, proportion and section monuments in the deeds that is "off." I'm inclined to accept and call the fence the boundary and so is the landowners. It's the rest of the system (title folks, public officials) and maybe another surveyor down the road that will upset the works (math doesn't exactly work), so to remove all doubt they may execute a boundary line agreement to keep the flies off in the future and keep the boundary where it has always been and no need to move the fence.
Leon,
I fully understand the situation now. In your first post you called it a boundary adjustment. As we know, that is a completely different varmint than a boundary agreement. With this difference known, there normally would be something else to consider. Where you are apparently documenting the common law agreement (establishment) of the line to place it in the public records, you probably will want to call out the fence line as the boundary as that is the location that has been previously established as the boundary and moving it elsewhere will require conveyance language.
However, as you have pointed out in years past, a boundary line agreement in Utah now requires quit claim language (no need to open that irrational can of worms), the only difference is the apparent conflict with the statutory requirement of being a quit claim deed, and the common law recognition that the established boundary stands as the true boundary (even without the quit claim deed), the only way to logically cook this alligator is to hold the fence as the boundary (one bearing for the entire length is in my opinion sufficient) and include quit claim language in the written boundary line agreement.
Hey, this why we get paid the big bucks!!!
> If the fence is moved, then it's not the original monument, doesn't control, and then you're left with the B-D.
How can you tell the difference between a fence that has been rebuilt (and thus not the original) and semi-sloppy original measurements? There are tons of deeds in this area that call for the corner to be "the fence corner".
The real problem is being able to know whether the fence you see in front of you today, is the exact same fence as was there way back when.
Fences get repaired. If I put up new wire does the fence no longer hold? If a few posts are rotted and I need to replace them, is the fence still the line?
I don't disagree with your original statement Mr. Macolini, just our ability to know years down the line whether what we see is in fact the original or not.
All of those questions are moot if the fence is never called for being the line.
Larry P
> > 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 ______".
>
> I'd probably still include an overall bearing and distance; the call along the fence will trump it, but it gives an indication of exactly what you're doing in the event that the fence (or the dimension point given as a reference) is destroyed at the time of a later retracement.
That was the idea behind going "to a fence corner that is" a bearing and distance from the last mentioned point or some other known point... I should have been more clear about that.
The way I do boundary line adjustments is the title deed before and the adjusted deed after. Then the quit claim deed for the adjustment is for whatever portion owned before the adjustment to the new lines after. You really don't need to define the established location of the boundary before the adjustment (just use the title document), wherever it was is wiped out. So the Utah way is to do boundary line adjustments to get the established boundaries into the record. You can do a standard boundary line agreement with all the why's and such, you just need to add the quit-claim language to it to remove all doubt for those ignorant to the law. So I suppose if they keep asking for a cookie you need to give them a cookie! Then they'll shut up!!! By the time the parties have come to the boundary line agreement, it's not a big leap to accept the quit-claim conveyance, but I still don't like it on principle.
Isn't that the question that we have with any found monument, though - whether it's original, and in the original location, or not?
This line is already established and monumented with/by the fence. It seems foolish to me to establish a line virtually on the fence, and not define it as such.
Plus you can't always tell that the fence that is there is the fence that was written to be the line.
In the previous course, call "to a monument set in the existing fence line as exists on ++++date+++", and do not add more or less. Thence "with" or "along" (I don't give a hoot) bearing and distance to a monument set in the existing fence line. If you deem the fence to be crooked then set monuments at all your perceived angle points with the same type call. "Thence departing the fence" to the next monument, again no more or less call.
How far do we have go into the hundreds of "what if's"? What if the fence falls down in 30 years? What if a tornado removes the fence next week? What if an earthquake shifts the fence 1.345 feet next month? What if the 2-bit rebars set at each end and at every 25 feet along the line are removed and hauled to the recycler for beer money? Where do the "what if's" end?
The bottom line is that the current location of the fence is the boundary - the land owners have acknowledged it and recognize it as such, and carry their own responsibility of maintaining their common boundary. Leon is doing what they have asked him to do, and all the "what if's" in the world won't change that. Nothing the surveyor does today can control any of the thousands of potential "what if's" that MAY happen in the future - that is not our job. Our job is to find the boundary and perpetuate the evidence. What may or may not happen in the future is not under our control. Utah requires a survey plat be filed, and it will contain the information of how the boundary was located, and will contain plenty of information that will aid in its future re-establishment if the landowners determine it should become necessary.
All the "what if's" that have been suggested concerning the future of the current fence line (which occupies the location of the boundary line) can be also be said about any other artificial monument(s) set and measured to reference the line. At some point in time each licensed surveyor must use his own professional judgment in each unique situation. What may be "normal" in the urban centers back east is probably not "normal" everywhere else - especially San Pete County.
I disagree with alot of this
Surveyor uses one brg and dist, for a 1/4+ mi line. And says "Thence S xx°xx' E, and following a fence 1500.25 ft. (BTW the tan of 1 minute for 1500 ft is 0.44')
And, lets say that said fence gets destroyed by a bulldozer.
Now, we cannot with certainty replace the line. It puts an ambiguity in that is NOT necessary. Survey, and description CALLS for fence. And, it does bend a bit. BUT the location is GONE.
Now, lets say we tie the fence where it jogs more than about 1/2 a foot, and place a rebar there.
And, we DON'T call for the fence. We may simply note that the survey line follows within 1/2 foot of fence, but the rebar, and line segments define the boundary.
And, the bulldozer gets said fence. AND all the rebar. No problem.
We can put it all back on the ground, without ambiguity.
I have SEEN this happen.
Several times.
Nate
I disagree with alot of this
All true, and may be the way to go IF .44 ft is a huge concern, and IF the fence isn't the established boundary, in the survey "along a fence" that you are performing. However, around here, most of the fence posts are larger than .44 ft, so replacing the fence where it was previously is a no-brainer using modern accurate measurements. 😉
