Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate File 59 on reestablishing historic boundary monuments laid on table after testimony about survey errors
Summary
Senate File 59, a bill that would provide a process to reestablish historic land monuments and reduce survey-related boundary disputes, was laid on the table after testimony from landowners, a county resident and the Minnesota State Bar Association; authors will work with bar counsel on statutory language.
Senate File 59, a bill proposing a remedy for property-boundary disputes by reestablishing historic monuments, was presented to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on Feb. 12 and was laid on the table for further work after committee counsel and stakeholders identified legal drafting issues.
Sponsor Senator Green said the measure responds to constituent complaints that modern surveys and GIS mapping have shifted property lines away from monuments set in the 19th and early 20th centuries. "What this bill is doing is... to have those monuments reestablished and avoid what I think people have been bringing to me, which is to say it's gonna cause a lot of litigation," Green said. The sponsor said the intent is to reestablish monuments that have been moved erroneously in recent years, not to disturb long-established monuments.
Alan R. Olsen, a Polk County landowner who testified in person, described his family's property history and the effect of a new survey on lot lines and septic/well locations. Olsen said his family homesteaded the property in 1894 and that his parents purchased the land in 1959; he said a newer survey showed buildings and features on different parcels, creating permit denials and bank loan refusals for a neighbor. "Why should we have to pay an attorney to straighten this out?" Olsen asked the committee.
Kevin Dunleavy, representing the Minnesota State Bar Association, told the committee the association had reviewed the proposal and identified drafting problems. Dunleavy cautioned that Minnesota has two different land-title systems—Torrens and abstract—and that text from a Torrens-related statute should not be simply grafted into the abstract system. He pointed counsel to existing abstract-survey statutory language (transcript referenced section 559.16 and 559.23) as a more appropriate location for a fix and warned that GIS and GPS tools are not substitutes for a certified survey.
Committee counsel said the sections of the bill within the committee's jurisdiction were sections two and three and recommended work with the bar and county surveyors to craft language that correctly fits the abstract and Torrens statutory frameworks. Senator Green said he expected to work with the Bar Association and asked for time to revise the bill.
After discussion the committee laid Senate File 59 on the table to allow the sponsor and stakeholders to refine statutory language and to return with revised drafting. Committee members emphasized the goal of avoiding unnecessary litigation while preserving clear remedies for property owners.
