Land use

[LdiJ]

I'm curious... You don't need to remove the fence in order to put up a new one in the correct place.

Would there be anything wrong with OP getting a surveyor to put in permanent monuments (if they're not there already) and just passive aggressively fencing in their entire lot, including the fence in question?

I don't think that we are talking about a normal sized lot here. It sounds l like significant acreage.

 

[quincy]

I'm curious... You don't need to remove the fence in order to put up a new one in the correct place.

Would there be anything wrong with OP getting a surveyor to put in permanent monuments (if they're not there already) and just passive aggressively fencing in their entire lot, including the fence in question?

It could be a problem if the neighboring property has gained rights in that slice of land. The good thing is that the current neighbor seems to be friendly and might agree to everything.

Missouri law: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=516.010#:~:text=(1958) If the possession occupies,facts of the legal title.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

I'm curious... You don't need to remove the fence in order to put up a new one in the correct place.

Would there be anything wrong with OP getting a surveyor to put in permanent monuments (if they're not there already) and just passive aggressively fencing in their entire lot, including the fence in question?

People bent on stealing someone else’s land won’t be stopped by a boundary marker unless you post the property, guard it 24/7 and have the trespasser arrested every time they cross the line.

 

[quincy]

People bent on stealing someone else’s land won’t be stopped by a boundary marker unless you post the property, guard it 24/7 and have the trespasser arrested every time they cross the line.

Right now it seems that Curious2134 has a good relationship with the neighbor. I wouldn’t want to do anything to sour that relationship by going behind the neighbor’s back to change the fence or it’s location - at this point. Because a survey was done on the property, though, Curious2134 will want to have property line markers that can become permanent boundary markers later.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Right now it seems that Curious2134 has a good relationship with the neighbor. I wouldn’t want to do anything to sour that relationship by going behind the neighbor’s back to change the fence or it’s location - at this point. Because a survey was done on the property, though, Curious2134 will want to have property line markers that can become permanent boundary markers later.

Permanent and clearly marked boundary lines won’t stop a title transfer if all the elements are met for Adverse Possession. Here in NY an adverse possession award was appealed and upheld in the higher court because someone simply mowed someone else’s property. This prompted the legislators to overhaul the law making simply mowing other peoples property and other acts not “adverse”. They should have thrown the whole adverse possession concept in the round file. I know, you are going to say the OP is in Missouri. It’s just an example of how stupid these laws are.

 

[Litigator22]

Thank you all for the great points and information. Yes, the idea is exactly as quincy states, eliminate questions of ownership. I have no intention of removing the fence unless there's some reason I have to. On the survey print we were given when we purchased the property, the fence-line isn't displayed. It's not on the one I just had done either. The mention that a fence on the property existed was in our purchase's disclosures. I didn't walk the perimeter of the property to see if there were problems that might come up but in hindsight, I should have at least looked at that fence. I'm hoping to work this out with the current owner instead of initiating a dispute, something like any fence upgrade must follow the property line.

A word of caution here! The line or course of the existing fence may have greater legal significance than you are aware!

If in existence ten plus years (Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 516.010) it could in fact prevail over your so-called "survey print" as defining the legally recognized common boundary of the adjoining properties.

To learn more research the subject: "Boundary by Acquiescence/Tacit Acceptance" - as for example given recognition in the Missouri Court of Appeals case of Underwood vs. Hash, 67 SW3d 770. (Noting: dictum only)

 

[Curious2134]

If it was just the husband, I'd already have this dealt with. But his wife is claiming to the fence and telling the area neighbors that we're trying steal "their land." So, I spoke with a lawyer yesterday.

Some have wondered and yes, we pay the property taxes on this land.

Every survey, image, county map, etc shows the correct property line. Only one satellite picture from 2017 in the winter even gives the hint a fence exists because it's in the woods. Prior owners of my home said they just assumed their neighbors were honorable people as the barbed wire fence dates back before 1993 when my house was built. According to our lawyer, our current neighbors will have a hard time proving adverse possession in the woods although he did say the 10 years doesn't have to be the current owner. 10 consecutive years no matter who owned the property. That will be their go-to argument.

According to the lawyer, 15-30k, and at least 2-3 years, for us to start a dispute against the neighbor. My lawyer noted it would cost them that much as well during action against us. He recommend marking the real property boundary with purple paint and tell them they have 6 months to remove the fence and they can have any materials. After the 6 months, I am removing the fence and any cows on our property would be considered trespassing. If the neighbors ignore the markings then I am to call the lawyer's office back. If nothing else, it forces them to initiate any dispute if they are going to.

As far as the purple markings, surely that doesn't require trees exactly on the property line. I read online from one person the painted mark has to "point" to the property line but they give no proof of the claim. Statute provides no answer on how close the trees need to be.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.145

This statute says that just telling the neighbor to get off the property is as good as anything else.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.140

Any advice on the purple??

 

[LdiJ]

If it was just the husband, I'd already have this dealt with. But his wife is claiming to the fence and telling the area neighbors that we're trying steal "their land." So, I spoke with a lawyer yesterday.

Some have wondered and yes, we pay the property taxes on this land.

Every survey, image, county map, etc shows the correct property line. Only one satellite picture from 2017 in the winter even gives the hint a fence exists because it's in the woods. Prior owners of my home said they just assumed their neighbors were honorable people as the barbed wire fence dates back before 1993 when my house was built. According to our lawyer, our current neighbors will have a hard time proving adverse possession in the woods although he did say the 10 years doesn't have to be the current owner. 10 consecutive years no matter who owned the property. That will be their go-to argument.

According to the lawyer, 15-30k, and at least 2-3 years, for us to start a dispute against the neighbor. My lawyer noted it would cost them that much as well during action against us. He recommend marking the real property boundary with purple paint and tell them they have 6 months to remove the fence and they can have any materials. After the 6 months, I am removing the fence and any cows on our property would be considered trespassing. If the neighbors ignore the markings then I am to call the lawyer's office back. If nothing else, it forces them to initiate any dispute if they are going to.

As far as the purple markings, surely that doesn't require trees exactly on the property line. I read online from one person the painted mark has to "point" to the property line but they give no proof of the claim. Statute provides no answer on how close the trees need to be.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.145

This statute says that just telling the neighbor to get off the property is as good as anything else.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.140

Any advice on the purple??

It is generally best to follow the advice of the local attorney.

 

[Curious2134]

It is generally best to follow the advice of the local attorney.

I am doing the purple so let me rephrase, does anyone know if I have to locate trees exactly on the property line? I've watched a few videos and such but I can't discern if there is a "standard". Is 1 foot away close enough? 10 feet? Just so it's visible somewhere on the property? I get that the idea is to establish ownership instead of driving poles in the ground, but I don't want to spend money to ask about something seemingly trivial. I am probably thinking about it too much.

 

[quincy]

If it was just the husband, I'd already have this dealt with. But his wife is claiming to the fence and telling the area neighbors that we're trying steal "their land." So, I spoke with a lawyer yesterday.

Some have wondered and yes, we pay the property taxes on this land.

Every survey, image, county map, etc shows the correct property line. Only one satellite picture from 2017 in the winter even gives the hint a fence exists because it's in the woods. Prior owners of my home said they just assumed their neighbors were honorable people as the barbed wire fence dates back before 1993 when my house was built. According to our lawyer, our current neighbors will have a hard time proving adverse possession in the woods although he did say the 10 years doesn't have to be the current owner. 10 consecutive years no matter who owned the property. That will be their go-to argument.

According to the lawyer, 15-30k, and at least 2-3 years, for us to start a dispute against the neighbor. My lawyer noted it would cost them that much as well during action against us. He recommend marking the real property boundary with purple paint and tell them they have 6 months to remove the fence and they can have any materials. After the 6 months, I am removing the fence and any cows on our property would be considered trespassing. If the neighbors ignore the markings then I am to call the lawyer's office back. If nothing else, it forces them to initiate any dispute if they are going to.

As far as the purple markings, surely that doesn't require trees exactly on the property line. I read online from one person the painted mark has to "point" to the property line but they give no proof of the claim. Statute provides no answer on how close the trees need to be.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.145

This statute says that just telling the neighbor to get off the property is as good as anything else.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=569.140

Any advice on the purple??

Thanks for the update. Establish the property line with survey markers and let the surveyors mark the trees. Follow the advice of the attorney you hire should the neighbors decide to dispute the boundary.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Apparently, it’s not going be as simple as a friendly neighbor giving the go-ahead to the land that OP bought and paid for, and, then they sit down and have a beer together.

 

[Litigator22]

I am doing the purple so let me rephrase, does anyone know if I have to locate trees exactly on the property line? I've watched a few videos and such but I can't discern if there is a "standard". Is 1 foot away close enough? 10 feet? Just so it's visible somewhere on the property? I get that the idea is to establish ownership instead of driving poles in the ground, but I don't want to spend money to ask about something seemingly trivial. I am probably thinking about it too much.

Please stop begging the question by presupposing that your survey markings accurately portray and legally define the common boundary line of the respective adjoining properties!

As I have attempted to explain, subsequent conditions, agreements (verbal and/or tacit), usage, the passage of time, etc., etc., frequently result in readjusting property lines created by instruments of conveyance.

 

[LdiJ]

Please stop begging the question by presupposing that your survey markings accurately portray and legally define the common boundary line of the respective adjoining properties!

As I have attempted to explain, subsequent conditions, agreements (verbal and/or tacit), usage, the passage of time, etc., etc., frequently result in readjusting property lines created by instruments of conveyance.

A Local attorney has given the OP differing advice.

 

[Litigator22]

A Local attorney has given the OP differing advice (?).

What ''legal advice''?

Recommending that the OP paint a purple line in the woods and stand over it daring the neighbor or his cow to cross it? What might be a reasonable fee for that bit of woodsy guidance?

What's more, if the OP truly consulted with an attorney regarding issues pertaining to a division line, he or she would surely have been made aware of the existing fence line. And as such was professionally obligated to inform the client of the legal doctrines of (1) Boundary by Acquiescence * and (2) "Boundary (division) by Estoppel ** no matter how remote the legal consequences. And especially given that visual inspection of the established fence indicates that it has been in place for some lengthy period of time!
_________________

[*] See: Kentucky's Boundary Line Fence Act - (In part: "When a division fence exists by agreement, acquiescence, compulsion, etc., emphasis added) KRS 256.030; 042; Abell vs. Reynolds 191 SW3rd 1

[**] See: Embry vs. Turner (Kentucky Court of Appeals) 185 SW3rd 209

 

[quincy]

What ''legal advice''?

Recommending that the OP paint a purple line in the woods and stand over it daring the neighbor or his cow to cross it? What might be a reasonable fee for that bit of woodsy guidance?

What's more, if the OP truly consulted with an attorney regarding issues pertaining to a division line, he or she would surely have been made aware of the existing fence line. And as such was professionally obligated to inform the client of the legal doctrines of (1) Boundary by Acquiescence * and (2) "Boundary (division) by Estoppel ** no matter how remote the legal consequences. And especially given that visual inspection of the established fence indicates that it has been in place for some lengthy period of time!
_________________

[*] See: Kentucky's Boundary Line Fence Act - (In part: "When a division fence exists by agreement, acquiescence, compulsion, etc., emphasis added) KRS 256.030; 042; Abell vs. Reynolds 191 SW3rd 1

[**] See: Embry vs. Turner (Kentucky Court of Appeals) 185 SW3rd 209

Because Curious2134 said his house was built in 1993 - only 30 years ago - it is likely that a previous owner or owners are still around who might have relevant information (documents, perhaps) that can clarify ownership of the strip of land beyond the fence.

It is possible that the use of the strip of land by the neighboring property for their cows was a permissive use, granted to the neighbors by the original owner of the 1993 house. If the strip of land is found to be used by permission of a previous owner, rather than adversely possessed, permission to use the land can be withdrawn.

I think it would be worthwhile for Curious to check in with the previous owners of both properties to see if they can shed some light on how the fence came to be positioned as it has been and under what circumstances.