PETER WILDEBOER AND ANNA WILDEBOER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN HACK, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Peter and Anna Wildeboer appealed a boundary dispute judgment against them. The trial court ruled in favor of John Hack based on the original survey lines of Lauderdale Harbors, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the original survey must control even when a junior survey shows dimensional errors.
The original survey lines must prevail and control property boundaries, even when a resurvey shows dimensional errors in favor of a property owner in the new survey. The trial court correctly applied this principle, and the plaintiff's surveyors used the correct method by relying on the original survey stakes and evidence.
“In making a resurvey, the question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that resurveys must locate original survey lines, not correct them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Hack owned lot 3 and the west half of lot 4 of block 10 in Lauderdale Harbors. The Wildeboers owned lots 1 and 2 of block 1 in Samarkand Isles, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boundary Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
This appeal is to review a final decree in favor of the appellee, John Hack, who was the plaintiff below, in an action against Peter Wildeboer and Anna Wildeboer, his wife, the defendants below, appellants here. The action involved a boundary dispute.
The parties will be referred to by the ‘designations in the lower court.
The plaintiff was the owner of lot 3 and the West half of lot 4 of block 10 of Lauderdale Harbors, Section A. The defendants were the owners of lots 1 and 2 of block 1, Samarkand Isles. Samarkand Isles was a resubdivision, including lots 1 and 2 of block 10 of Lauderdale Harbors. The plats show that the east line of lot 2, block 10, Lauderdale Harbors was the same as the east line of lot 1, block 1, Samarkand Isles. The dispute arose over the location of the boundary line between lot 1, block 1, Samarkand Isles, which was the property of the defendants, and lot 3, block 10, Lauderdale Harbors, the property of the plaintiff. Two surveyors testified for the plaintiff and two for the defendants. The plaintiff’s witnesses testified that they based their opinions upon stakes and other evidences found on the lot lines of the original survey of Lauderdale Harbors, while the witnesses for the defendants based their testimony on an independent determination from a quarter section corner. Defendants’ witnesses located the disputed line approximately 3.48 feet further east than did plaintiff’s witnesses.
The testimony of the witnesses and the decision of the court raised the question of whether or not a junior survey should attempt to correct the descriptions in an older survey, or whether the surveyor, in making the junior survey, should determine where the lines were actually established in the older survey.
The lower court, in effect, held that the lines of the old survey should prevail even though a resurvey showed there was error in the dimensions of the lot in favor of the property owner in the new survey over the property owner in the old survey.
It was stated by Florida Supreme Court in Kelsey v. Lake Childs Co., 93 Fla. 743, 112 So. 887, that an original, actual survey of public lands of the federal government, on the faith of which rights have been acquired, control other surveys subsequently made by the government which affect such rights.
In the case of Akin v. Godwin, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 604, 607, the Court said:
“In making a resurvey, the question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 2d Ed., Sec. 411, page 495; Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corporation, 114 Fla. 32, 153 So. 308; LeCompte v. Lueders, 90 Mich. 495, 51 N.W. 542; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396, 13 N.W. 2d 384. As stated in 8 Am.Jur., Boundaries, Section 102, page 819: ‘The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases, must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it.’ It is generally held, therefore, that a resurvey that changes lines and distances and purports to correct inaccuracies or mistakes in an old plat is not competent evidence of the true line fixed by the original plat. See Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396, 13 N.W. 2d 384; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 9 S.Ct. 203, 32 L.Ed. 566; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177, 178.”
We have examined the record, including the testimony of the witnesses, and conclude there was sufficient testimony for the chancellor below to determine that the professional witnesses of the plaintiff used the correct method in determining the property lines of the parties in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., and PLEUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calder v. Hillsboro Land Co., 122 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…rvey actually made by the United States government and according to which it sold the land, controls as between parties to an action of ejectment covering such land. Miller v. White, 23 Fla. 301, 2 So. 614.” See also Wildeboer v. Hack, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 29. In determining boundary lines, the law recognizes, named in the order of their importance, natural monuments, artificial monuments, distances, courses and quantity. The Court stated in Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 305, 62 U.S. 305, 16 L.Ed. 125: “In…
-
Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund OF the State OF Fla. v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. The purpose of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, and not to dispute the correctness of the original survey or to control it. Wildeboer v. Hack, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 29. Asserted error in the original survey and the effect of the funning of an erroneous meander line as it related to discrepancies existing between that line and the shore of the body of water meandered have been considered upon a number of occasions…
-
Crenshaw v. Holzberg, 503 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…survey will prevail over conflicting lines in a junior survey. The authors [*1278] of C.J.S. Boundaries, § 61, emphasize that that rule is true “particularly where the junior is bounded with express reference to the elder....” See Wildeboer v. Hack, 97 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); Gibson v. Wright, 179 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). We therefore conclude that the trial court was correct in holding that the official plat recorded in Lee County Plat Book 1, page 8, being expressly referred to by the Collie…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1888)
- Kelsey v. Lake Childs Co., 93 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1927)
- Akin v. Godwin, 49 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1950)
- Otto H. Kahn v. Del. Sec. Corp., 114 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1934)