Drawing the line over perambulating boundaries

The Feb. 6 column by Tom Weber regarding perambulating town lines was informative and humorous. Unless someone has been involved in town government, it is doubtful they have ever been exposed to the word “perambulate.”

It is true that this statute seems silly, and it is ignored by nearly all town officials. Because it has not been carried out, there is often little physical evidence on the face of the earth as to where many town lines are.

No great harm will be done in repealing this archaic statute that has become even more ridiculous because of the lack of physical evidence that would have marked town lines had the law been observed from its inception. The selectmen and women would surely become lost.

However, it is important that the original intent and reasoning behind this statute be given serious thought. As Weber pointed out, the perambulation law first appeared in Maine in 1868, “following a property line dispute between the Small family and the Lufkins.” This important clue as to why someone came up with this statute makes sense to surveyors and others who deal with property boundaries, especially those descriptions calling for the town line to be a boundary.

Further investigation reveals that only the two towns that share a common boundary can agree as to where that boundary line is. Landowners on either side of a town line cannot establish the location of the town line, which is also their common line.

It becomes obvious that when the exact location the town line has been lost, and two abutting landowners dependent on the location of that town line disagree as to its location, there is potential for a boundary dispute. This can only be resolved by correctly locating that town line on the face of the earth.

It surprises me that an individual who owns land bounded by a town line that was ambiguous has not taken the issue to court and sued the town for not living up to its responsibility.

Now the intent of that 1868 legislature begins to make sense. By requiring the selectmen to perambulate the lines within a reasonable time period, it was hoped that the physical evidence along that line would be preserved and not lost with the passage of time. Now we know the law as written has failed. However, the original intent and purpose of such a law still exists in 2003, maybe even more so, because most towns no longer have physical evidence for 100 percent of their town lines.

In the debate over repealing the perambulation statute, it is important that serious thought be given as to why the law first appeared, why is hasn’t worked and what should take its place to make sure towns meet their responsibilities. For those who feel the law is not necessary because town lines are duly recorded at the registry of deeds, one only need consult any surveyor to learn that often the registry of deeds information does little to locate a boundary line on the face of the earth. Hence, surveyors often recommend a boundary agreement between abutters. When the abutters are towns, only the towns can settle the issue as to exactly where the town line is or will be located.

The towns have a responsibility to determine where these lines will be. With modern surveying techniques, it may be easier to reconstruct the location of those lines on the face of the earth, at any time in the future, once the abutting towns have agreed on the location and permanent mounting has been put in place.

Even though the repeal makes sense, it is important that the Legislature come up with a plan that will give the towns a reasonable amount of time to accomplish what they have failed to do for nearly a century and a half. The need is still there.

Richard N. Bedard lives in Columbia Falls.