Plan Reference, Later Deed, and the Missing Iron Pipe
A coastal Knox County parcel was conveyed in 1985 as 'Lot 4 as shown on Plan 1234' recorded in the registry. The plan shows Lot 4 bounded by a 200.00-ft frontage on a town road, a 410.00-ft easterly line, a 310.00-ft rear line, and a 405.00-ft westerly line. In 2001 the same grantor conveyed the same parcel by metes and bounds, beginning at 'an iron pipe at the corner of the Smith lot,' thence N 10° E 410.00 ft, thence E 310.00 ft, thence S 10° W 405.00 ft, thence W 200.00 ft to the road. The iron pipe is not found at the computed point. A 1998 survey by another surveyor shows an iron pipe 4.6 ft northwest of the computed point and labels it 'found pipe, Smith corner.' A blazed cedar post stands at the road frontage corner. The tax map shows the westerly line 12 ft east of the 1985 plan line. The client wants a survey 'based on the deed, not the old plan.'
1. Outline the records research and field evidence you would assemble before resolving the boundary.
Read the worked answer
I would pull the complete chain of title for the subject parcel and the Smith parcel, not just the 1985 and 2001 deeds. I would obtain Plan 1234 and any later plans, check registry indexes and plan cabinets, and search for the 1998 survey and the surveyor's field notes. I would compare the 1985 plan dimensions with the 2001 metes and bounds and with the Smith deed calls.
In the field I would search for the iron pipe at both the computed point and the 1998 location, look for the blazed cedar post and any bearing trees or fence evidence, and measure between all found monuments. I would treat the tax map only as an index, not as controlling evidence. The goal is to determine whether the 2001 deed was a reformulation of the plan lot or an intent to change the boundary, and whether the 1998 pipe is the pipe called for.
2. How would you weigh the 1985 plan, the 2001 deed, the 1998 survey pipe, the blazed cedar post, and the tax map?
Read the worked answer
The 1985 deed to Lot 4 on Plan 1234 is the earlier conveyance and incorporates the plan by reference. The 2001 deed from the same grantor is later, but a later deed does not automatically change the boundary if it merely restates the same parcel. Its call to an iron pipe at the Smith corner is a call to an existing monument.
The 1998 survey is strong evidence because it records a found pipe at the Smith corner, and the 4.6-ft offset is within a reasonable original survey error for a 410-ft line. If that pipe is the one called for in the 2001 deed, it controls over the deed's bearing and distance, and also over the plan line if the plan and pipe conflict. The blazed cedar post is evidence at the road frontage but must be tied to the deed calls. The tax map's 12-ft shift is weak and likely a mapping artifact. I would show all conflicts on the plan and explain which evidence controls.
3. What would you set or show at the disputed corner, and what would you tell the client about the tax map?
Read the worked answer
I would not set a new boundary monument at the computed point unless the evidence supports it. I would show the found 1998 pipe, the computed 2001 deed position, the 1985 plan corner, and the 4.6-ft offset. If a temporary marker is needed for construction, I would label it 'temporary' and not as a boundary corner.
I would tell the client that the tax map is a cadastral index, not a survey, and its 12-ft shift does not control. The survey should be based on the deed, plan, and monument evidence, with the conflicts disclosed. If the client wants to reject the pipe, I would explain that the legal effect of the pipe and any occupation evidence should be reviewed by counsel before I seal a boundary determination.