Mike while I appreciate your answer, I am still having trouble figuring out how you the order of the things I asked about. Part of what might be happening is that I think you may be confusing when the acquired an option and thus "secured" the property (in the Fall) with when they finally took possession (in the Spring.) Also, you've changed so much of your position so drastically, that I am not sure I am accurately putting it back together. So as to try and make sure we are on the same page, I've tried to put
my understanding of your position on these issues into a simple chronology:
Pre-Option. You believe there were no written plans, no drawings, no maps, no surveys, and CBM and HJW had not staked the land or the course.
Option (Dec/Nov.) You believe that CBM acquired an option without either party having surveyed or staked out the approximate borders of the parcel.
Pre-purchase (Dec/Nov06 to May/June07) You believe, that even while planning the course, NGLA never staked or surveyed the approximate boundaries of the property or survey the boundaries.
Purchase (May/June07) After the planning was already complete and land purchased, you believe that CBM and HJW finally to staked and surveyed the boundaries of the course.
Post-Purchase You that NGLA began constructing and clearing the golf course.
Do I have it correct?
A few questions:
- You've been insisting for years that couldn't possibly have planned the course course before clearing it. You now seem to be saying the opposite? Do you now believe the course was planned before they cleared the property?
- When exactly do you believe the property was first surveyed "for golf purposes?" (And what does that mean, anyway?) If before the purchase, then how did they know where to survey "for golf purposes" if they had never marked off or surveyed the boundaries?
- Do you actually believe that the agreed to a transaction involving real property without every identifying, marking, or surveying the land in question?Some comments and questions specific to your post:
But also like you, and I hope I'm reading you correctly, I don't think the property was surveyed for golf purposes by Raynor or anyone else prior to securing it.
You are not reading me correctly. The Globe article indicates that maps with elevations had been created and sent abroad. I don't know what exactly these were (contours, centerline elevations, rough sketches with elevation estimates, or something else) but according to the article something had already been done along these lines, and it was for "golf [course] purposes" else why send them abroad to the advisors?
I also don't think anyone staked out the original 200 acre agreement. Since no one had any plans (including the owner) for the 450 acre parcel, what would be the point? Its not like it's going anywhere and you'd have to do all that work again after the hole boundaries were finalized.
"The point" would be to
identify the parcel subject to the option. Generally, identifying the property subject to the option isn't just a good idea, it is a legal requirement.
"The point" would also be to give CBM an idea of the boundaries of parcel for when they were out there planning the golf course. How do you suppose CBM could have known if he was even within the agreed upon area if he had not staked out the boundaries?
And they would NOT have to do all the work over again. They'd only have to adjust the borders where changes were to be made, if any.
For an out and back routing, he show little concern for drawing within the lines and it looks to me as though the boundaries were plotted in sections as the holes and routing evolved during construction.
Drawing within the lines? Haven't you been saying that there were no lines whatsoever? And haven't you been writing that the planning was complete before the lines were drawn?