Version of article from TSPS chapter 9 newsletter 

Chain!

We have heard many arguments from critics over the last few years berating professional land surveyors for not holding existing fences or other evidence of possession as the boundary lines of real property regardless of any other evidence such as calls in deeds describing same.  The mere existence of this evidence of possession, even if of unknown nature, is enough to supersede any other evidence of the original boundary and render it irrelevant. These same critics call for “honoring” iron rods, pipes or other objects, merely because they exist and were found somewhere near the corner in question, as the boundary corner.  They make these assertions even in a case where these iron rods, pipes and other objects are in direct conflict with all other evidence including the elements contained in deed calls and even if these iron rods, pipes and objects are of unknown origin.  These critics hold out this type of evidence as conclusive as to location of boundaries of real property solely on basis of their mere existence or past existence.

I find these assertions specious, appealing only to those who would rather rely on a superficial and cursory attempt to locate and evaluate evidence rather than commit themselves to an exhaustive search for the facts that would support a rational and informed conclusion.

First, for the purpose of confining this discussion to a local perspective, we will examine some recent cases that reached the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court level in Texas.

In the Supreme Court case (1) Minh Thu Tran v. William Macha, “Neighboring relatives shared the use of a driveway for many years, thinking it belonged to one of them when in fact it belonged to the other. The court of appeals held this mutual mistake and mutual use transferred title by adverse possession.”