Source: https://www.pobonline.com/articles/94783-unmistakable-marks-can-we-agree-to-disagree
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:33:46+00:00

Document:
Unmistakable Marks: Can We Agree to Disagree?
Home » Can We Agree to Disagree?
The scene: Two adjoining landowners on good terms with each other decide that the boundary line between them just really isn’t in a convenient location.
They decide to agree between themselves to “move the boundary line” to a new location more advantageous to both landowners.
On face level, this appears to be a fine example of reasonable individuals cooperating to improve the utility of the properties in question. However, this testament to good intentions, whether executed purely as a parol (verbal) agreement or drafted with the aid of a surveyor, can become a minefield of conflicting issues to trap the unwary.
In addition to the issues mentioned above, it is entirely too easy for the surveyor to mistake the status of the “landowners” in situations of this type. There may be multiple individuals who hold title to each tract or fractional interests in the land. Depending on jurisdiction, the individuals’ status as tenants in common, co-tenants or spouses with rights of survivorship can make a binding agreement much more complicated. It is interesting to note that in the various disputes reviewed for this article, little evidence was discussed indicating that the rights of spouses or co-tenants to the lands in question were considered by the parties to the line agreements.
It is well-established in most jurisdictions that a parol agreement attempting to “move” an existing boundary line (where that boundary line is not to some degree in doubt or dispute) is in violation of the statute of frauds. Individual state jurisdictions vary somewhat with regard to the level of uncertainty that must exist before an agreement becomes valid, but in all cases reviewed, the conflict with this statute was by far the most common issue raised when line agreements were later challenged in court.
North Carolina (quoting both “American Jurisprudence” and “American Law Reports”) reinforces the principle that some level of uncertainty is required to validate a parol agreement and further complicates the issue by introducing elements of possession or acquiescence.
The legal system has developed a rationale justifying the apparent conflict with the statute of frauds in certain circumstances.
Yet another complication arises when, despite some uncertainty as to the true location of the boundary line in question, the landowners request the surveyor to mark the agreed-upon line in a location that is at odds with any possible interpretation of the description creating said line. It is generally held that this attempt to move the line by agreement beyond any legitimate interpretation of the muniments of title would then constitute a transfer of title and become subject to the statute of frauds.
A contract between owners of adjoining tracts of land fixing a dividing boundary is within the Statute of Frauds but if the location of the boundary was honestly disputed the contract becomes enforceable notwithstanding the Statute when the agreed boundary has been marked or has been recognized in the subsequent use of the tracts …6 The degree of uncertainty and the difficulty with which the true boundary might be correctly determined both play an important role in determining the validity of an agreement. Mere ignorance of the true location of the line on the part of the landowners may not be considered a sufficient level of uncertainty.
New Hampshire presents a unique situation in its statutory requirement for boundary line agreements. RSA 472 requires the agreement be put in writing and only allows such agreement when the line “cannot be determined by the monuments and boundaries named in any of said deeds.” RSA 472.4 also requires that the agreed-upon line be surveyed and appropriate monuments placed.
It would appear in retrospect that, in the situation described above, the more prudent solution from the surveyor’s perspective would have been to suggest the landowners retain an attorney to prepare quit-claim deeds utilizing the survey just completed.
It is well for the surveyor to remember the difference between the “deed” and the “description” when dealing with situations where the courts might rule that actual title transfer had been attempted. While the surveyor’s plat and written metes and bounds description of the proposed agreement line may be more than adequate as a description, it does not necessarily constitute a valid deed.
Statutes vary from state to state, but most require, at a minimum: (1) sufficiency of description; (2) operative words of conveyance; (3) a competent grantor and grantee; (4) proper execution; (5) delivery; and (6) acceptance. Observe that in Smith v. Digh it seems likely the court was dubious that all legal requirements for a valid deed had been met and was therefore forced to rely on estoppel as the only legitimate means to lend validity to the agreement.
All states have adopted some form of recording requirement in order to ensure public access to deeds and other documents that convey title to real property. This concept becomes particularly important when easements or other hereditaments exist in the vicinity of the proposed boundary line agreement. In one recent case, a parol boundary line agreement between parties was a collateral issue in a jury trial regarding the status of a previously recorded easement adjacent to the boundary line in question. In another case, the existence of a public access apparently created in 1896 was called into question due--in part--to questions regarding the method in which the documentation describing the easement had been recorded and indexed.
Thus, the surveyor who considers facilitating a boundary line agreement between clients should also give thought to the method by which the agreement will be linked to the chain of title of all affected lands.
If the situation is one in which a written agreement is called for, the surveyor should make sure to perpetuate the agreement in an appropriate written format.
It would be safer for the client to employ a surveyor and a real estate attorney working together in order to effect a legal transfer of title according to the wishes of the landowners. Unfortunately, problems all too often arise from one of two mistaken ideas on the part of the landowners: that (a) the surveyor marking the proposed line on the ground is better qualified to perpetuate a title transfer than the attorney; or that (b) removing the attorney from the process will save money and time. In the long term, both assumptions often prove incorrect and may come back to haunt the client.
1. “Clark on Surveying and Boundaries,” Lane J. Bouman and Walter Robillard (7th ed.), 1997, Lexis Law Publishing.
2. William Silvarer v. Lawrence Hansen, et al., No. 11673, Supreme Court of California, 77 Cal. 579, 20 p. 136, 1888.
3. T. Curtis Andrews and wife, Katherine Andrews v. T. B. Andrews, No. 454, Supreme Court Of North Carolina, 252 N.C. 97, 113 S.E.2d 47, 1960.
4. Mary A. Steinherz v. Richard D. Wilson, Supreme Court of Maine, Decided: January 28, 1998, Decision: 1998 ME 22.
5. Kristopher Kline, Unmistakable Marks, “Knowledge in the face of adversity, part 1,” POB August 2010.
6. Steinherz v. Wilson, 1998.
7. Eunice Williams, v. Alvin S. Barnett, 135 Cal. App. 2d 607, 287 p.2d 789, 1955.
8. Beulah Hawkins Smith v. Ralph Fonzo Digh, No. 7025SC486 Court Of Appeals Of North Carolina 9 N.C. App. 678; 177 S.E.2d 321; 1970 N.C. App.
9. Frederick J. Shaheen v. County Of Mathews, Record No. 021350, April 17, 2003 (Circuit Court Matthews Co.,Virginia).
10. Syra E. Lewis v. Johnson Ogram, L. A. No. 1647 149 Cal. 505, 87 p. 60, July 30, 1906.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.