Strange but true.

[notnutnut]

So, before I email Arthur C Clarke, your answers to this,two years of civil litigation, boundary dispute and overwhelming evidence (disclosed) to our favor with only continually evolving wittiness statements from the other side a circuit judge,on the first trial day says he can only work off the 1925 map information and declines to see our prepared evidence.Am I missing something ?
Help please.

[puternut]

Good Luck with the e-mail

Arther C Clarke died 4 years ago.

Also UK answers are not valid in US Courts?

[notnutnut]

Thanks puternut,I was only jesting about Arthur C.I'm in the UK not the US by the way.I'll keep digging 'cause it still seems very odd to me !

[buildersmate]

You haven't replied to your original question yet.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Civil/Question1190994.html

[notnutnut]

buildersmate,I don't understand your last posting 'you haven't answered your last question yet' ? Is this not a contradiction in terms whatever ? However, I would say that your postings are among some of the other regular contributors that I would say are very useful to me so forgive me if I've missed the obvious and carry on the good work.(and thank you !)

[buildersmate]

Alright, try 'you haven't commented on the answer provided to your earlier question'. The two questions would seem to be linked.
The 1925 map would perhaps be viewed as the reference point by the judge because the deed presumably includes this map to demonstrate the extent of original ownership. The term 'adverse possession' has only been around since about 1980 (I think) but that doesn't mean that proprietors of land have only been able to occupy for a period, then claim proprietorship since 1980.
I suspect that this ownership claim relates back a long time ago, perhaps 50 years or more?

[buildersmate]

hmm, badly worded again (which you are bound to pick up on.
Try '............. but that doesn't mean that it is only since 1980 that ownership of land by possession for a period of time has been possible (1980 was the date at which 12 years was defined as being the minimum necessary period of time).

What is the date sequence (approx) over what you are seeking to do here? Are you DIY for the legal challenge?

[notnutnut]

Once again thanks buildersmate (including the upgrades to your answer) The property in question was purchased in 1955 with the boundaries unchallenged until 2009 ? Not DIY so far !

[FredPuli43]

The judge will have had his reasons. Did you not establish why your evidence was not admitted?
It may be that it was irrelevant to the key issues in the case or it may be simply inadmissible; litigants in person are peculiarly adept at trying to introduce irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. It may be material which should have been disclosed to the other side and which the judge would not allow in at a late stage. The likelihood is that it was not relevant. Undisclosed material usually results in a costly adjournment, with the offending party bearing the costs, for the other side to examine it, but there are limits to the extent which the court will allow such delay.

[notnutnut]

FredPuli43,first of all thank you,this scenario baffles me.I asked counsel why not evidence admitted and was told that he was only interested in map lines prior to a time before either claimant or defendant were born,(I'm not a litigant in person) All my evidence was fully disclosed to the claimants well before trial date.At 23.30 on the day before trial our solicitor says he received a faxed statement from a claimants witness and in direct contravention to our previously stated wishes re.we do not consent to the late adducement of evidence makes an 'oral application' to vacate a three day trial !!! So,here we are with a new judge (the previous one retired in October I think) who allegedly can only read maps.Three years and thousands of pounds later ! Any help or direction please.

[FredPuli43]

So your counsel will have resisted the application, and asked for costs thrown away to be noted when it was granted, no doubt. Does your counsel have a view on treating the 1925 map as material or fundamental?

[notnutnut]

FredPuli43,maybe I didn't state my case clearly enough,I'm saying my counsel did not resist anything as I requested him to do,HE admitted the statement ! The 'materiel or fundamental' bit is beyond me I'm afraid ? Please keep it coming,it's much appreciated,thanks.

[FredPuli43]

Your counsel may well have allowed the statement in but might still complain that its late introduction necessitated that the case be taken out, in which case he would have costs noted, since it was the fault of the other side that caused that.
Material simply means relevant to proving or disproving that which has to be proved in the case, or going to show that a witness ought not to be believed (i.e 'goes to credit', such as by showing bias or bad character). Fundamental means that the piece of evidence is essential in the case; for example, the original will would be fundamental in a probate case.

[notnutnut]

Thank you both,Fred,once our counsel was told 'no consent' by me then was it not the judges decision alone that could admit it ? The witness statement that was admitted was from someone who was seriously discredited at the start of this case in '09.Methyl,the late evidence was not deeds and map if that;s what you mean.I don't understand the 'someone who can read' bit. Land Registry title plans for this area coincide EXACTLY though.Thanks !

[FredPuli43]

Correct ,objection or no objection, the judge decides what evidence is admitted but either side can ask that costs, wasted by the other side's causing an adjournment, be noted as thrown away so that they don't have to pay those, whether or not the other side wins the case.

[buildersmate]

Back on the case again.
I can't comment on court proceedings - that's more Fred's department. I can really only comment on land law related to boundaries.
If you have a title deed that incorporates a 1925 OS map to show the extent of the land ownership, it generally shows a line, often in red, to show the legal boundary.
If there is a fixed physical feature on the ground that can be identified that corresponds with a feature on the map, then it is possible to align the legal boundary to the physical boundary - a field boundary, for example, can be traced to evidence of a slightly raised bank of the old hedge-line or evidence of ancient stumps.
Often there isn't any feature left on the ground.
What are you trying to do here? - get a judge to fix a boundary dispute, presumably? What is the width of the difference between your claim and the other litigant's claimed position, on the ground.

[notnutnut]

Good evening,before I respond to your latest postings I'll have a quick look for previous judges orders re. costs awards old maps etc.I'm no expert at all in these matters,just that I've had to do all this to prevent my mother being robbed by the claimants.As far as 1925 mapping goes could I assume that claimants and defendants maps should match and that the the objective would be to transfer this line to the land in question ? Does the fact that the Land Registry title plans concur exactly have significance ? Can ariel images be used as evidence to counter map based evidence ? I did post somewhere a question relating to the issue of if I disclose a greater degree of detail in my postings could it in any way prejudice the admisibilty of my evidence or the case itself ? I'll be back soon,as always your help is appreciated !

[buildersmate]

No, you cannot assume that claimants and defendents maps coincide. Part of the reason why I know a bit about this is exactly because of a problem with the LR caused over this. A piece of land had been registered at LR many years ago using a very approximate (non-OS) map; LR had translated this onto OS-mapping data. A neighboring piece of land was registered much later (10 years ago) using another very approximate map attached to a deed; LR merely assumed alignment of ownership between the two plots. However fencing between the two plots (and hence the local 'agreement' between two landowners on where the physical boundary was) was in a different place to legal boundary by about six feet. One landowner then built a garage close to the physical boundary. Because LR now uses aerial photography produced by OS and this is very accurate (LR won't say, but I reckon it is accurate to less than 0.5m), said landowner with the garage is then accused by LR of building over on the neighbour's land - because they mapped it as such. All because the original deed plans were inaccurate.

Back to my earlier comment about physical features on the ground. If there is a definite physical feature on the ground that is shown on the OS-mapping data, then aligning physical and legal boundary is easy. If there isn't, then a problem may exist.

You still haven't told us what the issue is that means your mother feels a neighbouring landowner is encroaching on her land - other than it is about interpretation of a 1925 OS map. If this neighbour has been operating up to a fence-line which has been in existence for many years, given that LR boundaries are defined as 'General Boundaries' and do not claim to show the exact alignment of legal / physical boundaries, ownership up to the fence may now be his. Once again I ask, how wide a strip are we talking about?