# Pond Property Line question?



## TatnallCountyHunter

A question regarding private ponds:

If there was an oval shaped pond with the proptery line going straight down the middle can property owner A fish, in a boat, on property B's side of the pond? 

I have heard that you can.


----------



## CAL

Here there is a pond with 3 owners property on it.People fish all over the pond!


----------



## Twenty five ought six

No one can answer the question without examining the deeds (and plats and other supporting documents) and reviewing the history of fishing on the pond.

There is not a blanket answer.


----------



## Throwback

The pond does not negate the line. The line is the line. To go over that line one would need permission from the owner. 


T


----------



## champ

Not really. The states laws regarding littoral rights indicate that if the water is passable by boat it is more or less open for him to cross the line. Now for him to get out and wade, or step onto your side of the shore he would be in offense.


----------



## Throwback

champ said:


> Not really. The states laws regarding littoral rights indicate that if the water is passable by boat it is more or less open for him to cross the line. Now for him to get out and wade, or step onto your side of the shore he would be in offense.





which law is that?


T


----------



## JustUs4All

champ said:


> Not really. The states laws regarding littoral rights indicate that if the water is passable by boat it is more or less open for him to cross the line. Now for him to get out and wade, or step onto your side of the shore he would be in offense.





Throwback said:


> which law is that?T



I too need to read this littoral rights law.  

Adverse possession might work, covenants that run with the land will certainly work, but littoral rights is a new one for me.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Put a fence on the property line.


----------



## MudDucker

There is a Georgia Supreme Court case dealing with Ocean Pond that basically states that just because water covers it, does not mean that you can trespass on the land of another.  So unless there was some agreement or easement created, the answer is no.  Remember, the devil is in the details!


----------



## Swamprat

In Florida navigable water is considered lands of the State.

Plenty of lakes where property lines extend to the center but you can't stop folks from using or going over your portion in a boat.

Lykes Brothers had a big lawsuit after they tried to block access for Fisheating Creek where it ran thru there property.


----------



## Throwback

Swamprat said:


> In Florida navigable water is considered lands of the State.
> 
> Plenty of lakes where property lines extend to the center but you can't stop folks from using or going over your portion in a boat.
> 
> Lykes Brothers had a big lawsuit after they tried to block access for Fisheating Creek where it ran thru there property.




Navigible waters in GA was determined not on any piece of water that a canoe would float in, but if it could be useful for commercial traffic. IIRC this was determined in the 1800's or early 1900's.  That is basically the bigger rivers, such as altamaha, lower chattahoochee, lower flint, oconee, etc. 

In other words, one can't get in their canoe on one point of a hundred acre lake where their property line goes 10 feet into the lake, and hunt/fish on the other side of the lake, owned by another person, because they own a sliver a quarter of a mile away. 

There are times that deeds, agreements, etc might make this different, but generally speaking, the line is the line. 




T


----------



## MudDucker

Here is the Georgia case on pond rights:

LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984)

322 S.E.2d 494

LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC.

41211.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1984.


   GREGORY, Justice.

   This is an action to enjoin a trespass brought by appellee,
the Ocean Pond Fishing Club, Inc. against appellant, James
Lanier. Ocean Pond Fishing Club, Inc. is a private fishing club
composed of approximately ninety-nine shareholders. Between 1902
and 1914 the club, by virtue of a series of warranty deeds,
purchased almost all of the land in and around Ocean Pond, a
natural lake of approximately 880 acres in Lowndes County.
Throughout the years, the club has maintained the lands and
waters of Ocean Pond for the exclusive use of its members and
guests. The club goes to considerable expense to preserve the
pond and its surroundings including, among other things, the
harvesting of nongame fish, fertilization and the employment of a
full time game warden. In 1977 the appellant purchased a lot on
Ocean Pond. Appellant's lot extends approximately one-fourth acre
below the high water mark of Ocean Pond. Two individuals other
than appellant own property which extends below the high water
mark of the pond. For five years repeatedly appellant boated and
fished in the waters of the pond above land owned by appellee.
When club officials requested that he refrain from doing so,
appellant responded that he claimed the right to do so and
intended to continue unless enjoined.

   The trial court found that appellee has good record fee simple
title to the land and waters designated as the property of Ocean
Pond Fishing Club, Inc. on a certain plat prepared in 1974. The
court further found that even if appellee did not have good
record title, legal title had been established by prescription
and by acquiescence in the boundary lines established by the 1974
plat. The trial court permanently enjoined appellant from
fishing, swimming, boating or otherwise going upon the lands and
waters of appellee. (The injunction, of course, did not preclude
appellant from fishing, swimming, boating or otherwise using that
portion of the pond above the property owned by him as depicted
on the 1974 plat.) From this order appellant brings this appeal.
We affirm.

   1. In his first enumeration of error appellant contends the
trial court erred in finding appellee has sufficient legal title
or possession
Page 550
of the pond to maintain an action to enjoin a trespass. Appellant
argues the warranty deeds in appellee's chain of title contain
vague and indefinite descriptions and no evidence was introduced
at trial to locate these descriptions.

   At trial William Branch, a registered surveyor with over 30
years experience, testified that in 1974 he took the deeds in
appellee's chain of title which were admitted in evidence before
the judge and was able to locate, mark and establish a boundary
line which was agreed upon by all adjacent landowners, including
appellant's predecessor in title. This was the same land around
and under the lake as depicted on the 1974 plat. Two title
attorneys, both members of the State Bar of Georgia testified.
One was of the opinion that appellee had good legal title to the
lands claimed by it and the other testified he would be unable to
certify title because of what he considered to be vagueness of
the descriptions in the deeds. We need not reach the questions of
prescription or acquiescence as there is evidence to support the
trial court's finding that appellee has good record title. We
find no merit in this enumeration of error.

   2. In his second enumeration of error appellant contends the
trial court erred in enjoining him from boating, fishing, or
otherwise going upon land and waters of appellee. Appellant
argues that as the owner of property adjoining a natural lake he
has rights of reasonable boating, fishing and swimming over the
entire surface waters so long as he does not interfere with the
similar rights of other adjoining landowners. This is the civil
law rule. See 57 ALR2d 569, 592 (1958). But Georgia follows the
common law rule. The common law rule is that the owner of a bed
of a nonnavigable lake has the exclusive right to the use of the
surface of the waters above and may exclude other bed owners and
fence off his portion. State Hwy. Department v. Noble, 114 Ga. App. 3,
8 (150 S.E.2d 174) (1966). The owner of a nonnavigable lake
also has exclusive boating rights and one who puts his boat in
the lake of another without permission is a trespasser. Bosworth
v. Nelson, 172 Ga. 612 (158 S.E. 306) (1931). A continuing
trespass may be enjoined in equity. Daughtrey v. C & D
Sportswear Corp., 239 Ga. 482 (238 S.E.2d 37) (1977).

   The appellant contends the relative rights of the parties to
this appeal are controlled by our recent decision in Stewart v.
Bridges, 249 Ga. 626 (292 S.E.2d 702) (1982), but we find that
case inapposite to the issue here. It did not involve trespass,
but involved water rights, that is, the right to the use of the
water itself. The trial court in this case did not determine
water rights but rather enjoined appellant from trespassing upon
portions of the lake surface owned by appellees. Appellant is
free to use that portion of the lake surface which he owns. Water
rights are not in issue.

   Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Smith,
J.,
Page 551
not participating.

                       DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1984.

   Equity. Lowndes Superior Court. Before Judge Horkan.


----------



## ted_BSR

Are you and your neighbors not getting along?  I think it is waters of the state.  As long as your foot doesn't touch the bottom, you can float it.


----------



## Twenty five ought six

ted_BSR said:


> Are you and your neighbors not getting along?  I think it is waters of the state.  As long as your foot doesn't touch the bottom, you can float it.



Did you bother to read MudDucker's post?

If so, how could you possible come this conclusion?


----------



## Throwback

ted_BSR said:


> Are you and your neighbors not getting along?  I think it is waters of the state.  As long as your foot doesn't touch the bottom, you can float it if you want to get locked up.




OCGA 52-7-3

(26) "Waters of this state" means any waters within the territorial limits of this state and the marginal sea adjacent to this state and the high seas when navigated as a part of a journey or ride to or from the shore of this state. This definition shall not include privately owned ponds or lakes not open to the public.

T






T


----------



## champ

(The injunction, of course, did not preclude
appellant from fishing, swimming, boating or otherwise using that
portion of the pond above the property owned by him as depicted
on the 1974 plat.). High water mark is the key here. If there were "Flowing water" there might be a Riparian rights encroachment. 
 If this were indeed an infraction then every watershed in Jackson Co. would be tied up in civil litigation.


----------



## MudDucker

champ said:


> (The injunction, of course, did not preclude
> appellant from fishing, swimming, boating or otherwise using that
> portion of the pond above the property owned by him as depicted
> on the 1974 plat.). High water mark is the key here. If there were "Flowing water" there might be a Riparian rights encroachment.
> If this were indeed an infraction then every watershed in Jackson Co. would be tied up in civil litigation.



The mention of the high water mark had very little to do with the decision.  The decision basically held that if you own the land under the pond, you own all rights to the water over the land.  This same law has been applied to the streams in North Georgia where private owners who own the stream bed have cut off access to those who wish to float down them.  Personally, I don't think the Ocean Pond case went that far and that a different decision might be made for flowing water, but there is no such decision at this point.

Beware!


----------



## ted_BSR

Throwback said:


> OCGA 52-7-3
> 
> (26) "Waters of this state" means any waters within the territorial limits of this state and the marginal sea adjacent to this state and the high seas when navigated as a part of a journey or ride to or from the shore of this state. This definition shall not include privately owned ponds or lakes not open to the public.
> 
> T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



Sorry I lump wetlands and streams/ponds in with waters of the state because the USACE has jurisdiction over them too, including ponds.


----------



## ted_BSR

Twenty five ought six said:


> Did you bother to read MudDucker's post?
> 
> If so, how could you possible come this conclusion?



Yeah, but the judge doesn't know the difference between ownership and jurisdiction.  The USACE has jurisdiction over that pond if it is significantly connected to navigable waters, which 99.9% of ponds are.  Anyway, this all varies from one corps distric to another, and it really depends on what kind of day the Agency Representative is having, and how mad you have made them.


----------



## Twenty five ought six

ted_BSR said:


> Yeah, but the judge doesn't know the difference between ownership and jurisdiction.  The USACE has jurisdiction over that pond if it is significantly connected to navigable waters, which 99.9% of ponds are.  Anyway, this all varies from one corps distric to another, and it really depends on what kind of day the Agency Representative is having, and how mad you have made them.




Overlooking for the moment the highly debatable point of whether the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of the water, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ownership rights of the land underneath that water.  That is determined exclusively by state law, as are the rights to navigable and non-navigable rivers.


----------



## JustUs4All

ted_BSR said:


> Yeah, but the judge doesn't know the difference between ownership and jurisdiction.  The USACE has jurisdiction over that pond if it is significantly connected to navigable waters, which 99.9% of ponds are.  Anyway, this all varies from one corps distric to another, and it really depends on what kind of day the Agency Representative is having, and how mad you have made them.



The USACE's representative may come and exercise its jurisdiction over the waters on my land if he wishes.  If he is in the midst of a bad day and attempts to dictate to me who may use my waters for recreational purposes, his day will worsen.


----------



## Throwback

Twenty five ought six said:


> Overlooking for the moment the highly debatable point of whether the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of the water, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ownership rights of the land underneath that water.  That is determined exclusively by state law, as are the rights to navigable and non-navigable rivers.



This. 
if it is navigible waters, you can go there. If non navigible, you can't go past the property line. 

navigible basically means the bigger rivers that can float commercial traffic. 


T


----------



## ArmyTaco

Fish it!


----------



## JustUs4All

If warned off, Fish it and go to jail.


----------

