Title lines versus ownership lines
Recently, I did a retracement for some property along very established occupation lines. The deeds on either side of the existing occupation were called to the same lines. It was about 17 miles of line, I didn't follow any of the occupation evidence, except were it crossed over the deed calls.
To piggy back on what thebionicman mentioned earlier, I've had an attorney elucidate the point that a judge merely recognizes when an adverse claim ripens. For purposes of liabilities, liens, trespass etc., a PLS must consider the possibility that an adverse claimant already owns the property he's been asked to survey and he might be trespassing or causing damages to it. I'm sure if a PLS told a judge something akin to, "Your honor, I'm a surveyor and not a judge, I can't opine as to the location of the boundary but I do know that the title line was on the other side of the six foot fence as measured from the road. Yes your honor, it's true the fence was well maintained and had no-trespassing signs and was assumed by all concerned parties to be the boundary, but I found no record of it having been adjudicated."
Title line theory is hogwash. Man up and solve problems instead of pushing them to the courts. Use your knowledge to develop an educated guess as to where a judge would place the line, explain the uncertainty to your client and allow them to make the decision as to the need to formalize it through the courts or just roll with it.
I have another interesting one this week. A 5 Ac parcel that needs surveyed, per deed the east line is a 1/16th line, the north line is a 1/16th line, the westerly line is a creek. A subdivision was surveyed along the west line and crossed easterly past the creek into the parcel. Then another survey was done following the geometry of that plat.
I'm not following the subdivision boundary, I'm following the creek, on the north and east I'm not on the math breakdown of the section, I'm following monuments that run about 10 west of a breakdown for the east line and along the north line about 7 feet north.
So, each line has its own issue. I'm not going to show competing lines on my plat with offsets and such, my survey will show where the boundaries are.
This probably seems simple to most here, but it's one small example of "fixing" lines without anything else but a proper survey.
Do the lot owners in the subdivision occupy past the creek?
No, but that would be more interesting.
The creek is the boundary for both, the subsequent surveys after the subdivision muddled the location by holding the subdivision line.
By the end of my survey the owner along the right side of the creek will increase their area by .5 acres, which is a bunch for 7.5 acres.
The subdivision was done in 2000. The stream hasn't moved, it's in a granite rocky area and isn't subject to much movement, there is POD near the property's downstream corner that's been in the same location for 140 years.
One amusing factoid is that the subdivision created two 17 acre lots with acreages displayed to the thousand of an acre.
If a surveyor told me he could collect all the evidence relating to the boundary of my property but he was unable to express a professional opinion as to the actual boundary lines of my property by applying the appropriate legal principals, I simply would refuse to hire him. I'm not interested in his ability to measure or his ability to draft those measurements. Those may well be very good technical skills and perhaps there are people who want to pay for those skills, but I'm looking for a professional who has the ability to evaluate evidence and make a professional decision as to my actual boundary lines. I could collect the evidence myself and take it to court to have a judge evaluate it. Has anyone ever had a client who wanted to only see the relationship of his "title lines" to the conditions on the ground?
Has anyone ever had a client who wanted to only see the relationship of his “title lines” to the conditions on the ground?
Yep, every single one of them.
If all they cared about was what was being occupied then they certainly didn't need me out there.
The term title line causes more confusion than it's worth. It has led many a surveyor to stop short of marking the property line. Everything I've read and heard re title is that title is a bundle of rights. One of those rights is possessing, occupying, call it what you will. Any survey that marks the extents of title rights somewhere other than where it is does so at the risk of harming title. It is a false premise to think that protecting title demands marking the four corners of the deed where there are conditions indicating possessor rights are or could be in another location. The opposite is true. Even the BLM manual says when the surveyor encounters existing property lines that are assumed to be correct it is their responsibility to evaluate conditions and determine a location. It also states no rigid rules can be written to control such a condition. I believe this is what troubles surveyors most. It requires professional quasi-judicial judgement. Our supreme court has stated time after time that it is the law where two adjoining property owners abide at peace in a line definitely
marked in some manner, it then becomes the true
boundary although a survey may show otherwise, and neither party
intended to claim more than called for by their respective deeds. In other words, it is a possessor right included in title. The surveyor had nothing to do with this before they arrived and can do nothing to change it. Justice Cooley said that introducing another location by the visitation of the surveyor as a public calamity.
Well said Norm, so many times a surveyor can clean up issues with descriptions and boundaries by completing a comprehensive survey. It's my opinion after all these years that one of my main, if not the main task, is to keep my client out of court.
It is a false premise to think that protecting title demands marking the four corners of the deed where there are conditions indicating possessor rights are or could be in another location. The opposite is true.
The surveyors in my neck of the woods seem to do a pretty good job of showing both occupation and record (deed) data on their surveys, but maybe elsewhere in the country you've got guys running around staking out deeds only or accepting every fence line they come across.
I think I would much rather do the former and then give my client some options to resolve any discrepancies than to exercise some vague form of quasi-judicial power and hope I don't get sued because of it.
