adverse possession fence line

The fence was on the neighbors land, so that made it his fence not the OP's. So he can move it without any notification to the OP.

Bob

i suspect that what happened is that the OP bought property and the previous owner or a surveyor or perhaps realtor...or any combination of them decided to try and claim the land with the spring/run. the owner of record (i assume), the neighbor who moved the fence back to match his plat or deed (probably older than the OP's plat or deed), had fenced off the land as he saw fit, practical to his needs...or someone else in history fenced it off just short of the spring. sometimes it is not practical to have livestock turn a spring or run into a muddy mess if they have access to other water, so why not run the fence short of the mess. since the fence was short of the actual property line, perhaps someone else decided they might try to claim this land as perhaps the actual owner didn't use it as much as someone thinks they should have.

if the actual owner had asked permission to move the fence, he acknowledges another's claim to the land. by doing as he wishes, he is possessing the land in addition to owning it. if he had not moved the fence, he would have needed to provide other evidence that he was possessing the land if the matter goes to court. he cannot allow anyone to "possess" the land without question by using the water as they wish.

from the OP's perspective, they cannot ask permission to use the water and land or they acknowledge another's claim to it. they have a deed or plat that says it is theirs and they need to act as if it is.

it is a touchy situation to remedy. no one can really approach the other seeking solution and acknowledge the claim of ownership of the other. if someone asks the other to sell it, they then admit they don't own it. i guess the only solution is for one to seek to eject the other. when it goes to court, a judge will determine if the conditions for adverse possession have been met by the OP. i am not sure how it works if someone has met the conditions and never taken it to court and then sold it to another. i don't know if the OP could gain the benefit of an adverse possession that was not finalized by color of title and ejection of the owner of record as the OP's possession would not be continuous.

i don't agree with the concept of possession and ownership being separate and i think that element of law from common law does nothing but to serve lawyers and greedy folks who wish to take land from others.

__________________
this message has probably been edited to correct typos, spelling errors and to improve grammar...

"All that is gold does not glitter..."

Your example was nothing like the case being discussed, which is why I ignored it

Et Tu Palani:

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

OP, I just don't understand why you want to claim ownership of someone else's land. They've paid taxes on the land. They paid for the land. You purchased the neighboring property and used their property. You used their property without their permission. Now you want to say it's yours. How in the world is that right?

__________________
Moms don't look at things like normal people.
-----DD

There is a difference between "old" law and "new" law. People who go with "new" law eventually find that the first of 10 planks is what they have signed on board with

the remaining 9 "new" laws being

In hindsight possibly "old" law that is less progressive and modern even though it has quirks still may have redeeming features.

Guess this may sound a little naive; but, since "none of the fence lines matched any of the markers", why on earth did you buy that land? (There was an immediate and obvious conflict and it does not sound as though it was weighted in your direction.)

__________________
I am what I am! Acknowledging this is the beginning; and my growth is yet to end. http://motdaugrnds.com/farmsales ~~~~~ http://motdaugrnds.com

Modaugrnds certainly has a valid point but Palani already pointed out the answer - OP relied on his/her lawyer and possibly the real estate agent or maybe title insurance. Now seven years down the road, that reliance has been shown to be in error. Most people only buy a few properties. They go through enormous effort to select the perfect one within their desires and budget. They do the best they can but it's so easy to be swindled on an aspect of the whole when the whole seems to embody what you want. I am totally in sympathy with OP on this. There's a new fenceline where none was before and the only stable data ringing in his/her ears as to legal advice was that the fence could not be moved. It's complicated because the fence cuts off a spring he relied on for seven years. There was no prior notice such as a No Trespassing sign, a Cease and Desist letter, a courtesy visit from the neighbor - nothing. OP was honest here - there was a discrepancy which wasn't resolved. Well, now it's gonna be. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Somebody took responsibility and did something. The ball is now in OP's court. Tomorrow is Monday. The court records room is open. So are the lawyers and surveyor's offices.
So get some chocolate cake, OP (not from Big Rockpile's bakery) and get out all your land transaction documents and read them about 20 times! Some folks on here are amazingly competent with google maps so there's additional data now that wasn't available seven years ago. And there's always the option of a visit to the neighbor (cookies or a bottle of wine in hand as a peace offering) wherein the subject may be broached in a friendly way by you or you have an immediate hostile reaction by him/her/them (knowing that guilt is the fuel for hostility).
We had a sort of similar situation on here awhile ago so there is a possibility a third party is involved. Maybe the other owner got a government grant for fencing off the spring? Strange things happen. For example, I own both sides of a big creek. My neighbor (the one who probably stole my hunter's deer stand and came on my land and poisoned my dog) actually got a big government grant for fencing his horses and cattle away from a stream he didn't even own. Nobody contacted me about this at any point. I only accidentally found out when I was inquiring about such a grant.
Another suggestion is, when you visit the surveyor, ask how much it would cost to have him and his crew (or perhaps a respected member of his crew) come out and walk you around your land plus remark your boundary lines. I did this when I first got my land. The surveyor and his crew discovered that one of my neighbors had moved several surveyor staubs so it looked like my access road ran over the neighbor's land. It's a felony or misdemeanor to move surveyor's stakes but of course the point of stealth attacks is to subvert the law. The stakes were relocated with a good deal of cussing, orange spray paint and orange ribbons but the crafty neighbor simply hired a bulldozer guy and moved the road. Put gates and signs up, came after me with a shot gun etc.
All of which is TMI no doubt but pertinent if you have a specific problem you never had before like somebody moving a whole entire fence with no explanation. The question then is in present time and space. Not what should you have done in the past but what to do today and hence forward?
Maybe the best thing to do now is drill one of those sideways wells so you still have use of the spring?

Navotifarm
You should note that the lawyers said that they could not move the fences. Maybe that is because they are on someone else's land and therefore can not be touched by the Op. No where does it say that they can't put up their own fence on the line or that the owners of the fence can not move them if they want to.

Painterswife, you are absolutely correct. I did note that this lawyer did not say why, which is a crux of the matter as you point out. I totally agree with you. In one of of earlier posts I noted that this was an oral communication seven years ago, so perhaps OP remembers wrong. Or incompletely. The inference retroactively here is that the lawyer instructed OP not to move the fence. Well, if the fence had conveyed to OP with the property, he could move it so it's logical to infer he couldn't move it because it was not his.
When I had my survey updated, I paid the surveyor extra to put things like that on there. I have seen very detailed survey plats in the court records showing things on adjoining poperties like fence lines, sheds, dog pens. In the case of the dog pens, the survey prepared is for a property up for sale in an area where zoning calls for a 20-foot set back. So the dog pens, which were in existence at the time of the survey, are an encroachment. They are on the person's property but encroach on the setback. The person who had the survey done then ran a road along the boundary line, also encroaching on the set back. For my mind this was really stupid because not only are there two law suits waiting to happen but also a city person won't want to buy a lot with a clear view across his access road of ugly dog pens. And the dog pen guy is upset because he was way back alone in the woods where he thought he'd be private. Well, he's private still but the developer has made him highly visible by stripping the land and putting that road there when he (well both of them) could have had a shelter of trees and bushes. In this case, the zoning regulations may really good sense so subverting them brought harm to both sides.
I also said that legally OP may be a goner. We don't know if that spring was the only source of water or for what or how long the fence was there or why. The real issue is, it's a problem affecting a homesteader who could be any of us. The question is, what is the highest and best way of dealing with a person who struck below the belt without warning? Or who DID give warning in clear print on a plat recorded in the court and on OP's deed but just failed to follow up for an hiatus of seven years. Why now? Something has changed. OP has to change, too. Me too! I am spending time on OP's problems instead of my own! Good luck, OP! Please report as you venture into this fascinating new minefield of your formerly placid existence!

There's no "conflict" unless someone was TOLD the fences WERE the property lines.
There are no laws that say all fences have to be on property lines

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Consuetudo est altera lex. Custom is another law.

This is a very good point. Our property line on one side runs to the center of a creek. The fenceline is about ten feet this side of the creek because if the cattle go down there they make a mess and eventually they head for the highway. There is no question, though, that the fence is ours or that our property goes down to the creek.

I just can't get my mind around the fact that someone knows the fenceline is inside the neighbor's property, and still gets mad when it is moved to the line, and still thinks he should be able to claim the land which he knew was not his, or that some so adamantly try to defend that notion.