McGhee v. Young
1992 WL 260730, 606 So. 2d 1215 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When there is a discrepancy between a property boundary as described by metes and bounds in a deed and recorded plat, and the boundary as marked by physical monuments placed on the ground by the original surveyor, the location of the physical monuments is controlling.
Facts:
- Archie and Evelyn McGhee own lot 2 in the Rustic Hills development, which adjoins lot 1, owned by Evelyn Young.
- An original surveyor subdivided the land, placing 4" by 4" concrete monuments in the ground to establish the lot boundaries.
- The deeds for both lots contained metes and bounds descriptions that were intended to correspond to these monuments and referenced the plat of Rustic Hills.
- A conflict exists between the boundary line as defined by the metes and bounds descriptions and the line as marked by the physical monuments found in the ground.
- The boundary line according to the metes and bounds descriptions in the deeds and plat cuts through Young's home, garage, and septic tank drain field.
- The boundary line corresponding to the location of the physical monuments runs approximately equidistant from each party's home, along a fence line.
Procedural Posture:
- The McGhees filed a complaint for ejectment against Evelyn Young in the local trial court in Martin County.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Young, determining that the legal boundary was the line corresponding with the physical monuments.
- The McGhees, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Young is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a property boundary dispute, does the location of physical monuments placed on the ground by the original surveyor control over a conflicting metes and bounds description contained in the parties' deeds and the recorded plat?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, J.
Yes. When there is a discrepancy between a boundary as described in a deed or plat and the boundary as marked by monuments placed by the original surveyor, the monuments control. The court adopted the reasoning from Tyson v. Edwards, which holds that the true survey is what the original surveyor physically did on the ground by setting monuments. The paper plat or survey is intended only as a map of what exists on the ground. Therefore, boundaries originally located and set by monuments are primary and controlling, even if inconsistent with plats that purport to portray the survey. It is better to redraw lines on paper to conform with physical occupancy than to uproot property owners who relied in good faith on the monuments. The court distinguished this case from Rivers v. Lozeau, which involved the misplacement of an unchangeable government survey line, whereas this dispute concerns the initial creation of internal lot lines by a private surveyor.
Dissenting - Schwartz, Alan R., Associate Judge
No. The dissenting judge believes the case should be governed by the precedent set in Rivers v. Lozeau, not Tyson v. Edwards. On that authority, the judge would reverse the trial court's decision, implying the written description should control.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that physical monuments are the highest and best evidence of a boundary line, superseding conflicting written descriptions in deeds and plats. It establishes a clear hierarchy of evidence in boundary disputes, providing stability and predictability for landowners who rely on physical markers. By distinguishing between the initial creation of subdivision lines and the location of pre-existing government survey lines, the court clarifies the scope of this rule. This precedent protects the reliance interests of property owners who have built improvements based on physically monumented boundaries, preventing harsh outcomes that would result from strictly adhering to potentially erroneous paper records.
Unlock the full brief for McGhee v. Young