Full opinion text
OPINION BROTMAN, District Judge: INTRODUCTION Before the court is an action in trespass, libel, slander, slander of title, intentional interference with business relations, and to quiet title to Parcel 6p and Parcel 7a, Estate Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, by Newfound Management Corporation, plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff petitions for permanent injunctive relief against Irvin A. Sewer, Lucinda Anthony, Earle Sewer, Violet Sewer, Jasmine Sewer, Lorel Sewer, Judith Callwood, Leon Call-wood, and Lome . Callwood (collectively known as the “Sewer defendants”), and co-defendant Cedric Lewis. The underlying issues concerning the boundaries and title to nine parcels of property on the East End including 6p and 7a were tried to the bench from October 3 to October 5, 1994 pursuant to V.I.Code Ann. tit. 28 § 372. On October 6,1994, plaintiff submitted supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On October 7, 1994, defendants submitted the same. A jury trial on plaintiffs other claims will follow the entry of a decision on these preliminary matters. The present land dispute between descendants of old St. John families and a mainland real estate development corporation, New-found Management Corporation (“New-found”) is truly bitter. In the late 1800s, two families owned the ruggedly beautiful Hansen Bay section of the East End of St. John with its commanding views of bays and the sea. At that time, the land in question belonged to members of the George and Sewer families but had little monetary value; almost one hundred years later, Newfound has purchased sizable tracts of the East End and the land’s value has increased manyfold. On the steep, thickly overgrown hillsides where family members once farmed and burros still graze, further development is likely. Land recording practices and a perplexing mixture of unsurveyed land, conflicting surveys, uncertain genealogies and unprobated estates complicate the title and boundary issues presented to the court. Until the late 1950s, no one had surveyed the perimeters of various parcels on the East End. Prior to that era, deeds and estate documents conveying property merely referred to parcels by using place names or combined letter and numerical designations. These designations appeared on nineteenth-century Danish tax records that listed East End property owners, corresponding holdings and stated acreage measurements, as well as on deeds and other agreements between landowners. The absence of more specific identifying information muddles further the existing disagreements concerning ownership and boundaries of St. John properties. This opinion will seek to locate the disputed parcels, define boundaries and determine title according to the proofs submitted to the court at trial. After a careful, detailed review of the entire record, including expert testimony and exhibits presented by the parties, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Historical Background: The 189U and 1918 Agreements 1. In 1893, two families, the Georges and the Sewers, owned the properties in question, part of Hansen Bay in the East End Quarter on St. John. When the families disagreed concerning the sale of specific piece of property, a member of the George family, Wellington George, asked a Danish surveyor, I. Anderson, to divide the proper- ty so as to avoid such disputes in the future, PL’s Ex. 15. 2. On October 19, 1893, Anderson surveyed the property in the presence of two members of each family. His survey was not intended to reflect the exact acreage held by each family; it merely provided an agreed upon boundary. He established compass bearings for the A-B, B-C, and C-D lines. After Anderson drew the boundary, the Georges possessed approximately 66$ acres and the Sewers approximately 78$ acres. PL’s Ex. 15. 3. Anderson marked the boundary line with stone piles at points B and C and placed two more stone piles on the boundary between C and D. PL’s Ex. 15. 4. Such a survey, using only a compass, was a common practice when a surveyor sought to roughly divide low-priced land. Charles B. Breed & George L. Hosmer, The Principles and Practice of Surveying 110 (8th ed. 1946). 5. The George-Sewer line divided the property with the George family’s holdings north of the line and designated Hansen Bay No. 6a. The Sewer family land lay south of the line and was designated Hansen Bay No. 6b. PL’s Ex. 15. 6. Two primary agreements memorialized the identification and transfer of East End Hansen Bay properties, specifically the 1894 and 1913 Agreements. These properly recorded agreements described land ownership interests and many early transfers of property between St. John property owners. These agreements set forth the initial transfers upon which later conveyances depended. 7. In the 1894 agreement recorded in Book U, pages 183-189, the families agreed that Anderson’s survey would bind them. Thus the descendants of William George owned the northern parcel and descendants of Eve Marie Sewer owned the southern parcel. PL’s Ex. 15. 8. When the families executed the agreement they recognized that Anderson’s survey was imperfect. Their agreement stated: Whereas the Surveyor was not able to measure the estate properly, as such would cause great expenses and take long time, entirely out of propotion to the value of the estate, it was agreed that the sketch, made by the Surveyor on the 19th October 1893, and the boundary he then fixed, should be binding for all parties, [grammatical and spelling irregularities in original] PL’s Ex. 15. 9. The 1894 agreement split the Sewer holdings to the South, called 6b, into 3 parcels: Martin Sewers’ holdings labeled 6c (stated acreage of 4$ acres), Richard Stevens’ holdings labeled 6d (stated acreage 9% acres), with the remaining acres (stated acreage 64$ acres) held in common by the Sewer heirs. PL’s Ex. 15. 10. The 1894 agreement also divided a section of George family property known as Longbay No. 1, sited north of the Anderson line, into two properties: Parcel 6e, owned by the George family and comprising 6$ acres, and Parcel 6f, owned by the Sewer family and comprising ljé acres. Pl.’s Ex. 15. 11. In 1894, the heirs of Eve Maria Sewer transferred by quitclaim deed to Martin Sewer, their one-fifth claim in Longbay No. I. 12. An intervening agreement, in 1898, further divided the portion of Longbay No. 1 owned by the George family, parcel 6e. Four George heirs signed a quitclaim deed conveying a section of the parcel, subsequently designated 6-0, to Alphonso Roberts. The deed was recorded at Book 3-H, Page 472, No. 139. The stated acreage conveyed was 3/6 of parcel 6e’s 6% acres. Pl.’s Ex. 21. Other William Henry George heirs, including Martha George, Emanuel George and James Wellington George, held the remaining portion of Parcel 6e, totalling approximately three acres. 13. Then, in 1913, the Sewer and George families, as well as other East End landowners, entered into the second significant agreement, recorded at Book 3-1, Page 11, No. 272-276, which further clarified the ownership of various parcels of land in the East End. Pl.’s Ex. 16, 173. The 1913 Agreement assigned the George family holdings, formerly described in the 1984 Agreement as parcel 6a, the designation “6”. Similarly, the Agreement assigned the Sewer family holdings, formerly described as parcel 6b, the designation “7”. 14. In addition, the 1913 Agreement characterized descriptions of acreage as mere approximations. The 1913 agreement stated that: It is true that the above mentioned [acres] are only given as guess and approximately as no measuring ever has been made, and the acreage thus spoken of can consequently be less — or more but the difference can not be so great, that we could own [substantially more]. We could think it possible, that some of the land in the East End of St. Jan never has been entered in the Matrieul, as the land was considered worthless and also now partly is considered of hartly any value---- It is understood, that the acreage, mentioned above is only calculatory and approximately and may be found different, when any measuring should be made. There is however no misunderstanding amongst us with regard to the boundaries, [grammatical and spelling irregularities in original] PL’s Exs. 16, 173. 15. The 1913 agreement further described Longbay No. 1 as “6o” divided into five parcels. Accordingly, in 1913, Longbay No. 1 — parcel “6o” consisted of 3/é acres owned by Alfonso Roberts, l!é acres owned by Martin Sewers, 3 acres owned by Ann Marie George, James Wellington George and Mary Elizabeth Boynes. PL’s Exs. 16, 173. The court will next set forth findings of facts that locate each parcel of property and identify ownership interests. The court considers nine parcels, 6-0, 6-0-1, 6-0-2, 6f, 6y, 6z, 10, 6p and 7a, respectively. B. Parcel “6o”, now known as Parcel 6-0, a portion of Longbay No. 1 Location and Title 1. The heirs of Alphonso Roberts executed a deed conveying to Raymond and Barbara B. Dobbs that portion of Longbay No. 1 known as “6o” in 1953. PL’s Ex. 5,191. The deed was recorded at Book 4-E, Page 506, No. 142. PL’s Ex. 5. 2. The deed identified the property as “6 0:6f” as well as “6o of Hansen Bay” and indicated that the property was “3jé acres, more or less, being the property :'.. formerly owned by Alphonso Roberts” consistent with the 1913 agreement. Pl.’s Ex. 5. 3. Louis Harrigan, a surveyor, first surveyed this property in 1956. His map designated the Roberts property “parcel 6-0” measuring 7.25 acres. Pl.’s Ex. 124. Harrigan’s survey measured the acreage of the Roberts parcel at almost twice the size as its recorded acreage, 3'Jé acres, at the time of the 1913 Agreement. According to the 1913 agreement, the entire parcel of Longbay No. 1, including Roberts parcel, was only 8 acres. 4. The Harrigan survey boundaries were referenced in the next conveyance of the former Roberts property from the Dobbs to Alliston and Flor De Lis B. Roddy in 1957. The warranty deed contained a metes and bounds legal description and was recorded at Book 4r-N, Page 112, No. 874. Pl.’s Ex. 1. 5. Subsequently, title to the former Roberts property was transferred five times. Pl.’s Exs. 2, 3, 120, 4, and 10. In 1959, Alliston and Flor De Lis B. Roddy conveyed their interest in parcel 6-0 to William F. Callahan and Carmel Callahan by warranty deed recorded at Book 5-E, Page 285, No. 2108. Pl.’s Ex. 2. In 1962, William and Carmel Callahan conveyed their interest in parcel 6-0 to Harry Cameron, Grace Cameron, Robert Carney and Carol Carney by warranty deed recorded at Book 6-1, Page 164, No. 1333. PL’s Ex. 3. In 1967, Carol Carney conveyed her interest in 6-0 to Robert Carney by quitclaim deed recorded at Book 9-G, Page 134, No. 60. PL’s Ex. 120. In 1969, Robert Carney, Harry Cameron, and Grace Cameron conveyed parcel 6-0 to Newfound Corporation by warranty deed recorded at Book 10-M, Page 69, No. 5979. PL’s Ex. 4. Finally, in 1989, Newfound Corporation conveyed parcel 6-0 to Newfound Limited Partnership by warranty deed recorded at Book 35-X, Page 221, No. 2724. PL’s Ex. 10. 6. Each time the property was conveyed, except the final transfer, the deeds referenced the Harrigan survey. The last transfer, in 1989, was between plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest, Newfound Corporation, and Newfound Limited Partnership, of which plaintiff is the general partner. The 1989 transfer referenced a 1987 re-survey by surveyor Marvin Berning. PL’s Ex. 10. Marvin Berning had also completed a re-survey in 1969. PL’s Ex. 125. 7. Berning’s 1987 survey, referenced in the final transfer between Newfound Corporation and Newfound Limited Partnership, measured Parcel 6-0 to be a total of 8.06 acres whereas the 1969 survey measured the parcel to be 8.0 acres. PL’s Exs. 125, 45. 8. When Berning surveyed the former Roberts property in 1969 he relied on testimonial and field evidence to identify Harrigan’s lines. While researching property boundaries, Berning spoke to Amos Sullivan, an “old-timer” who had lived north of the Roberts property. Mr. Sullivan showed the approximate boundaries to Berning, noting that for over fifty years the entire Roberts parcel had been fenced. Although Berning took his measurements using the concrete boundposts placed at corners by Harrigan in 1956, Berning followed the ancient fenceline rather than Harrigan’s straight lines. As a result, Berning’s survey calculated the parcel’s acreage at eight acres rather than Harrigan’s 7.25. PL’s Ex. 125. 9. Plaintiff presented no well-articulated reason or evidence to explain why the 1969 and 1987 Berning surveys differed. 10. Parties stipulated that plaintiff holds record title to Parcel 6-0, Estate Hansen Bay A, No. 6 East End Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, as shown on the survey filed as P.W.D. No. D9-4311-T88. Joint Pre-Trial Order at 6 (June 14, 1994). C. Parcel 6-0-1, a portion of Longbay No. 1 1. Location a. The reader will recall that the 1894 agreement divided Longbay No. 1 into two parcels, 6e and 6f. Then the 1913 agreement further divided Longbay No. 1 into the Martin Sewer parcel (6f), the Alphonso Roberts parcel (now 6-0 from 6e) and three more acres held in common by Mary Elizabeth Boynes, Ann Maria George and James Wellington George (also of 6e). A 1915 Danish land list records the owners and their respective Longbay No. 1 holdings as Martin Sewer (l/t acres), Alphonso Roberts (Z% acres), Mary Elizabeth Boynes (1 acre — now known as 6-0-1) and Ann Maria George and James Wellington George (2 acres held in common). Pl.’s Ex. 17. b. Mary Elizabeth Boynes was the sole owner of her mother’s, Martha George’s, interest in the George land (6e). PL’s Ex. 22. Her brothers and sisters had conveyed their interest in the property to her in 1913. PL’s Ex. 22. Mary Elizabeth Boynes died in 1944, leaving three children, Vitalia Boynes, Florence Boynes, and Eldora Boynes who inherited their mother’s interest in Longbay No. 1. PL’s Ex. 129. c. Marvin Berning filed a survey of the property in 1971 which measured the total acreage at 3.58 acres. PL’s Ex. 171. At trial, Berning testified that he relied on evidence gathered from residents and field work to locate the parcel. Amos Sullivan, the resident to the north, showed him the western boundary of Boynes property in 1969. Berning also testified that the north and south bounds of the property were fenced. In addition, Berning relied on information he gathered from a field visit with Vitalia Boynes. She described the southeastern boundary of 6-0-1 as running “up the gut to the locust tree and from there up to the corner of Roberts’ property” and the western boundary as bounded by Martin Sewer’s parcel 6f. (T. 2, p. 149-50). Furthermore, a Sewer family member, Bernard Williams, showed Berning the location of the southeast comer. PL’s Ex. 171. After consulting with the Department of Public Works on St. Thomas, Berning renamed the Boynes parcel 6-0-1, a designation reflecting that it was historically part of Longbay No. 1 and adjacent to the former Roberts parcel now known as 6-0. (Tr. 2, p. 53-54). However, parcel 6-0-1 was never within parcel 6-0. d. Berning’s 1971 survey followed monuments — trees and fencelines — to plot the southern boundary line of parcel 6-0-1. PL’s Ex. 171. He set four boundposts as witness posts to existing monuments on the ground. Subsequently, in 1974, another surveyor, Louis Harrigan, surveyed the property to the south, now known as 6p and retraced 6-0-1 southern boundary line (6p’s northern boundary) from boundpost to boundpost rather than along Beming’s 1971 survey line. As a result, Harrigan’s line did not follow the original title line Berning memorialized in 1970. In 1987, at Newfound Corporation’s request Berning revised the southern boundary of 6-0-1, to avoid a conflict with Harrigan’s drawing of the same line. PL’s Ex. 46. In so doing, Newfound reduced the size of parcel 6-0-1 by .01 acre. Beming’s re-survey in 1987 calculated the parcel’s acreage at 3.57 acres. PL’s Ex. 46. At the time Newfound requested this change, Newfound was not sole owner of the property although the record does not adequately identify any other owner(s) at that time. 2. Title a. On November 21, 1972, Vitalia and Florence Boynes conveyed one-third of their interest in the property to Newfound Corporation by warranty deed recorded at Book 14-E, Page 219, No. 5157. Pl.’s Ex. 9. b. In 1989, Vitalia Boyne’s daughter, Sonja Christian, who was her mother’s and Florence Boynes’s, sole heir, conveyed the remaining two-thirds of the ownership interests in 6-0-1 to Newfound Corporation as well as her ownership interest in another parcel designated 6-0-2. The quitclaim deed was recorded at Book 14-E, Page 219, No. 5157. Pl.’s Exs. 6, 7, 8. See, infra, Parcel 6-0-2. A few months later, Newfound Corporation in turn executed a limited warranty deed conveying its interest in 6-0-1 to plaintiffs partnership, Newfound Limited Partnership recorded at Book 37-B, Page 505, No. 80. PL's Ex. 11. Both of these conveyances were made in accordance with the later 1987 Berning survey with the adjusted southern boundary. Pl.’s Ex. 46. c. The parties stipulated that plaintiff holds record title to Parcel 6-0-1, Estate Hansen Bay A, No. 6 East End Quarter, St. John, U.S.V.I., as shown on the survey filed as P.W.D. No. D9-4313-T88. Joint Pre-trial Order at 6 (June 14, 1994). D. Parcel 6-0-2 1. Location a. In 1898, soon after the 1894 Agreement divided Longbay No. 1 into two parcels, 6e and 6f, the parcel 6e was further divided into the 3% acres property owned by Alphonso Roberts and a three acre remainder. The 1913 Agreement reflects this division of property and records that Ann Maria George, Mary Elizabeth Boynes, and James Wellington George held the three acre remainder jointly. Pl.’s Exs. 21, 135. b. By 1915 the three acre remainder had been partitioned with Mary Elizabeth Boynes holding one acre and Ann Maria George and James Wellington George holding the additional two acres in common. PL’s Ex. 17. See also Parcel 6-0-1, supra. Then in 1921, after her husband Emanuel Nelson George’s death, Ann Marie George conveyed her one acre interest in 6e to Mary Elizabeth Boynes. PL’s Exs. 12, 135. According to plaintiff, this deed was misplaced and not recorded until 1982. Thus, after these two conveyances, Mary Elizabeth Boynes held two acres of the three acre remainder of 6e. c. The 1921 deed conveying Ann Marie George’s property to Mary Elizabeth Boynes describes the one acre parcel of 6e as contiguous with Mary Elizabeth Boynes’ parcel located to the West. d. At Newfound Corporation’s request, Marvin Berning surveyed the Ann Marie George parcel in 1988, identifying its boundaries and calculating its acreage at 2.28 acres. See PL’s Ex. 47. Berning named the parcel 6-0-2 with the approval of the Office of Public Works and recorded the survey as P.W.D. D9-4848-T89. (Tr. 2, p. 59). Berning selected the name 6-0-2 to reflect the parcel’s historical location within Longbay No. 1. The land now known as parcel 6-0-2 was never located within the bounds of 6-0 or 6-0-1. e. Berning relied on a number of facts to locate 6-0-2. As noted in the 1921 deed, Mary Elizabeth Boynes purchased a contiguous parcel from Ann Marie George. Because the property was bounded by other identified parcels to the North, West and South, Berning deduced that the Ann George property had to lie East of the first Mary Boynes parcel. Indeed, 6-0-2 as surveyed is adjacent and to the West of 6-0-1. f. In performing his survey, Berning relied on statements from at least two persons to locate and set perimeters for parcel 6-0-2. Berning relied on information he learned from a site visit with Amos Sullivan to locate the shared 6-0-1/6-0-2 boundary. During a visit in 1969, Mr. Sullivan identified the eastern boundary of 6-0-1 to locate the shared boundary. See parcel 6-0-1 supra. Berning also visited the site with Harry Emanuel Sewer, the grandson of Martin Sewer, who indicated that Mary Elizabeth Boynes lived on the hill above the locust tree depicted on plaintiffs exhibit 199. (Tr. 2, p. 55). According to Berning’s testimony, Sewer reported that the Boynes property shared a common boundary with him when his family owned 6Y and that as a young boy, he and Mary Elizabeth Boynes used to talk to each other over the fence. (Tr. 3, p. 42). Thus, Sewer’s statements substantiated Berning’s conclusion that 6-0-2 was bounded on the North and East by a trail along the ridgeline that had been fenced. (Tr. 3, p. 37-8). g. To determine the southern boundary of 6-0-2, Berning relied on a 1982 survey by Louis Harrigan of a parcel Harrigan labelled “10” and filed as P.W.D. No. D9-2468-T83. Pl.’s Exs. 26, 47. See parcel 10, infra. 2. Title a. In 1913, Ann Marie George held an ownership interest as a tenant in common in the three acre remainder of parcel 6e. The 1913 Agreement documents her ownership interest. Pl.’s Ex. 16, 173. b. In 1921, Ann Marie George conveyed a one acre parcel, her interest in the three acre remainder, to Mary Elizabeth Boynes. This deed was misplaced and not recorded until 1982 at Book 23-V, Page 91, No. 2984. Pl.’s Ex. 12. e. When Sonja S. Christian inherited her mother and aunt’s estates (Vitalia and Florence Boynes) pursuant to court order, she inherited their mother’s (Mary Elizabeth Boynes) title to parcel 6-0-2 pursuant to territorial court order. Pl.’s Exs. 6, 7. d. In 1989, Sonja S. Christian conveyed parcel 6-0-2 to Newfound Corporation by quitclaim deed recorded in Book 34-M, Page 125, No. 3997. Pl.’s Ex. 8. Shortly after this transfer, Newfound Corporation conveyed its interest to plaintiffs partner, Newfound Limited Partnership, by limited warranty deed recorded at Book 37-B, Page 505, No. 80. PL’s Ex. 11. e. Parties have stipulated that plaintiff holds record title to parcel 6-0-2, Estate Hansen Bay A, No. 6 East End Quarter, St. John, U.S.V.I., as shown on the survey filed as P.W.D. No. D9-4848-T89. Joint PreTrial Order at 6 (June 14, 1994). E. Parcel 6f 1. Location a. The 1894 Agreement divided Longbay No. 1 into two parcels 6e comprising 6/é acres and 6f comprising Vk acres. PL’s Ex. 15. See Findings of Facts, Historical Background, supra. One month after this agreement, the heirs of Eve Maria Sewer conveyed parcel 6f to Martin Sewer by warranty deed. PL’s Ex. 20. The deed explicitly referenced the George and Sewer families’ agreement identifying the parcel sold as a portion of Longbay No. 1. b. Martin Sewer’s deed described the legal boundaries of 6f as follows: “North and East boundary. The south boundary of Longbay no. 1. West. The bay. South. The boundary of Christian Hugh. Viz: Longbay No. 2.” As the description indicated, parcel 6e (the remainder of Longbay No. 1) bounded 6f to the north and east. This description is consistent with plaintiffs depiction of the various properties and their relationship to each other on the composite map (Appendix A). The composite map shows that the parcels components that constitute 6e, namely 6-0, 6-0-1, 6-0-2, and an unknown remainder, are north and east of 6f with Christian Hughes’ former property 6p to the south. c. Berning performed his original survey of parcel 6f in 1970, calculating the acreage at 1.36 acres, and recorded his survey as P.W.D. No. G9-1668-T70. Pl.’s Ex. 172. When Berning first surveyed parcel 6f, Amos Sullivan was present and pointed out the entire boundary of the property. Berning testified that Sullivan “knew exactly where it was.” (T. 3, p. 60) Sullivan indicated that the western boundary was the bay, the northern and southern boundaries were fenced and located two tamarind trees marking the eastern boundary. d. Sullivan’s identification of parcel 6fs boundaries was consistent with historical documentation, including the Roberts deed which described parcel 6f as contiguous and south of the Roberts parcel (now known as 6-0). In addition, Berning’s survey measured the acreage of parcel 6f, concluding that the acreage of the surveyed property was close to the stated acreage of parcel 6f recorded in the 1894 Agreement. (T. 2, p. 61). Since the stated acreage was so close, Berning surmised that when Anderson surveyed Longbay No. 1 in 1893 and divided it into parcels 6e and 6f, Anderson cut out and measured 6f, the Martin Sewer piece, rather than surveying the much larger parcel 6e. (Tr. 2, p. 46). Although the court generally has regarded acreage as an identifying tool with caution, in the context of Anderson’s action regarding this parcel, the court adopts Berning’s conclusion. e. In 1974, after Berning filed his original survey, Louis Harrigan, surveyed an adjacent parcel, 6P, directly south of 6f, including a survey of their common boundary. Pl.’s Ex. 160; See, parcel 6-0-1, swpra. According to Berning’s testimony and notes on his survey map, Harrigan’s survey measured the northern boundary of 6P (the southern boundary of 6f) from boundpost to boundpost rather than along a fenceline as Berning’s survey of 6f had indicated. Pl.’s Ex. 46; Tr. 3, p. 62. This difference resulted in a net increase in parcel 6fs acreage of .01 acre. Defts’ Exs. Dl-0, Dl-P. After conferring with Newfound, Berning conformed his survey to reflect Harrigan’s survey of the common boundary. In 1987, Berning performed a re-survey of 6f, measured at 1.37 acres and filed the survey as P.W.D. No. D9-4313-T88. Pl.’s Ex. 46. The re-survey memorialized Harrigan’s redrawing of the common boundary of 6f and 6p. When Newfound gave Berning permission as a landowner to alter his original 1970 survey’s southern boundary to accommodate the Harrigan survey, New-found was not the sole owner of 6f. 2. Title a. In 1894, Martin Sewer purchased 6f, a l}é acre portion of Longbay No. 1, from heirs of Eve Maria Sewer including William H. Sewer, Peter C. Sewer, Catherine M. Sewer Beverhoudt, and William “McBean” (probably MeClean not McBean). This warranty deed was recorded at Book 3-H, page 471, no. 138. PL’s Exs. 15, 20. b. The 1913 Agreement lists Martin Sewer as the owner of a l]é acre parcel of Long-bay No. 1. PL’s Exs. 16, 172. The Agreement is recorded at Book 3-1, Page 6, No. 275-276. Adelaide Williams, Martin Sewer’s sister, signed the 1913 Agreement acknowledging that Longbay No. 1 had been divided and Martin Sewer’s title to parcel 6f. PL’s Ex. 16. e. At trial, Newfound submitted family genealogies in chart form to reflect conveyances by Martin Sewer’s heirs to Newfound. PL’s Ex. 194. The charts suggest that Martin Sewer had five children who would have been distributees upon his death. The five children were Samuel Sewer, Conrad Sewer, Mortimer Sewer, Ruth Sewer Roberts and Daisy Sewer Stevens. Defendants did not offer any evidence to rebut these genealogical charts or challenge Newfound’s conclusion that Martin Sewer’s estate descended by operation of law to his issue alone. Indeed, Sewer stated at his deposition that Martin Sewer’s interest in the land passed “through heritage” to a “whole host of [heirs].” PL’s Ex. 152 (Irvin Sewer’s Dep. at 11 (September 24, 1991)). d. Martin Sewer’s son Samuel Sewer had at least eleven children: Samuel Sewer, Jr., Antonio Sewer, Olive Sewer, Lucia Sewer Jones, Geraldine Hassel, Lionel Sewer, Merrill Sewer, Cresida Sewer, Rufina Sewer, Philip Sewer, and Dyett Sewer. Of these children or their issue, only two, Merrill Sewer and Philip Sewer, did not convey their interests, if any, in parcel 6f to Newfound Corporation. PL’s Exs. 85, 87, 90, 91, 93, 95, 100, 163, and 168. The other children executed quitclaim deeds in favor of Newfound Corporation which were recorded. e. Martin Sewer’s son Conrad Sewer had at least ten children: Randolph Sewer, Alphonso Sewer, Felix Sewer, Blanche Frazer, Roy Sewer, George Sewer, Chrissie Sewer, Agnes Sewer, Albina Sewer, and Evaline Sewer. Of these children or their issue, five, Felix Sewer, Blanche Frazer, Roy Sewer, Albina Sewer, and Evaline Sewer, did not convey their interests, if any, in parcel 6f to Newfound Corporation. Of the five who may have retained an interest in parcel 6f, one of them, Felix Sewer, deeded his interest to defendant Irvin Sewer and defendant Violet Sewer Mahabir. Irvin and Violet Sewer recorded their interest. PL’s Ex. 169. The other five children signed quitclaim deeds in favor of Newfound Corporation. PL’s Exs. 88, 96, 97, 98, and 99. These conveyances were recorded. f. Martin Sewer’s son, Mortimer Sewer, had at least one child, Emanuel “Harry” Sewer who signed a quitclaim deed in favor of Newfound Corporation. PL’s Ex. 94. The conveyance was recorded. g. Martin Sewer’s daughter Ruth Sewer Roberts had at least three children, Desmond Roberts, Cecil Roberts, and Grace Roberts. Each of them, or their issue, conveyed his or her interest, if any, in parcel 6f to Newfound Corporation by quitclaim deeds which were recorded. PL’s Exs. 83, 86 and 89. h. Martin Sewer’s daughter Daisy Sewer Stevens had at least three children, Stanley Stevens, Gladstone Stevens and Archibald Stevens. Gladstone and Archibald Stevens conveyed their interests, if any, in parcel 6f to Newfound Corporation by quitclaim deeds. PL’s Exs. 84, 92. These deeds were recorded. Newfound has represented that Stanley Stevens died childless, and, in the absence of contrary evidence, the court concludes that any interest he may have possessed would have passed to his brothers or parents. F. Parcel 6y 1. Location a. In 1912, members of the George family engaged two surveyors, J.E. Lindquist and G. Bornn, to measure a thirty-acre parcel of George land to benefit one of William Henry George heirs, Henrietta George Sewer. PL’s Ex. 69, 195. The surveyors described the parcel and its boundaries in detail. Its boundaries included the shoreline of Privateer Bay and a cliff to the east, a plot of land belonging to Martin Boynes, George land and a pond to the north, a tamarind tree at the summit overlooking Long Bay, marked by a boundpost, at its northwest comer, the eastern boundary fence of Richard Stevens land to the west, a boundpost at the southwest corner, and, finally, a line “proceeding in an easterly direction down a small ravine to a spot on Stony Bay”. PL’s Ex. 69. Lindquist and Bornn’s survey was recorded in 1913. b. Henrietta George Sewer immediately transferred the parcel to Richard Benjamin Stevens, whose name appears in the 1913 Agreement as owner of parcel “6y,” a parcel of “Nr. 6” (the George family property), totalling 30 acres. PL’s Exs. 70, 16, 173. c. Marvin Berning testified that Virgin Islands Engineering and Surveying completed the re-survey of 6y in 1974, P.W.D. B9425-T74, after he no longer worked for the company. He also testified that he reread the deeds, the description of the original Lindquist and Bornn survey, compared acreage, and analyzed the boundaries in light of his knowledge of adjacent properties. Beming concluded that parcel 6y’s boundaries, as surveyed in 1974, were correct. (Tr. 2, p. 63). d. In addition, two old-timers confirmed the location of 6y in their conversations with Berning. During his testimony, Berning stated that Anton George, whose family had been partial owners of 6y at one time, actually showed him a portion of the northern boundary of 6y west of 6z, see parcel 6z, infra, that was fenced. George located the fenced boundary in the same place where the 1974 re-survey of record depicted it. (Tr. 2, p. 64). On another occasion, Berning went on a site visit with Harry Sewer. During the site visit, Berning reported that Sewer located Mary Elizabeth Boynes’ property, known as 6-0-2, at the summit of the hill. Berning asserted that Sewer said her property was adjacent to Sewer’s “old property.” Berning understood Sewer’s reference to mean that Boynes’ property bordered on parcel 6y, property in which Sewer had an interest at one time. (Tr. 2, p. 55). 2. Title a. In 1912, Henrietta Sewer conveyed parcel 6y to Richard Benjamin Stevens by warranty deed recorded at Book 3-H, Page 453, no. 115. Pl.’s Ex. 70. b. Upon his death in 1927, Stevens devised parcel 6y to three children, conveying twenty acres to his daughter Christina (also known as Christiancia), and five acres each to son Joshua and daughter Consuela. Pl.’s Ex. 54. c. In the 1980s, after Christina and Joshua’s deaths, their heirs petitioned the court to determine ownership interests in the undivided property. Christina’s interest passed to her son, Harry Sewer and to her daughter’s estate, the estate of Lillian Powell, in equal parts as tenants in common. Lillian Powell’s estate also was resolved by a petition for disposition in favor of her husband, Thadeus Powell and brother, Emmanuel, who shared her interest equally in parcel 6y as tenants in common. Pl.’s Ex. 56. Thus, Thadeus Powell had an undivided one-quarter interest in the Christina Stevens estate and Harry Sewer had an undivided three-quarters interest in her estate. Similarly, Joshua Stevens’ heirs, Viola Smith, Godwin Stevens, Louisa Duzant and Mathilda Marsh took one-quarter interests as tenants in common. Pl.’s Ex. 55. (i) Through Christina Stevens (a) Harry Sewer conveyed by warranty deed his interest in the Christina Stevens’ estate in 6y to Newfound Corporation recorded at Book 32-E, Page 326, No. 2179. PL’s Ex. 72. (b) Harry Sewer and Thadeus Powell conveyed by warranty deeds their respective interests in Lillian Powell’s estate to another entity, Gulf Caribbean Development Corporation. PL’s Ex. 71, 73. The deeds were recorded at Book 37-Z, Page 33, No. 3809 and Book 32-E, Page 323, No. 2178, respectively. The court notes that Thadeus Powell’s stated interest in the property as noted on the deed appears incorrect in light of the territorial court’s disposition of Lillian Powell’s estate. PL’s Ex. 56. According to court documents Powell’s interest before the conveyance was only an undivided quarter interest in Christina Stevens’ estate not a %th interest as described on the conveyance. PL’s Ex. 73. (c) In turn, Gulf Caribbean Development Corporation conveyed by limited warranty deed its interests in parcel 6y through Harry Sewer and Thadeus Powell to Newfound Corporation and recorded the deed at Book 32-G, Page 381, No. 2188 in 1987. PL’s Ex. 78. (n) Through Joshua Stevens Each of the Joshua Stevens heirs, Viola Stevens Smith, Godwin Stevens, Louisa Duzant and Mathilda Marsh, conveyed his or her interest in parcel 6y by warranty deed to Newfound Corporation. The deeds were recorded at Book 32-E, Page 11, No. 2174, Book 32-E, Page 320, No. 2177, Book 32-E, Page 317, No. 2176, and Book 32-E, page 314, No. 2175, respectively. PL’s Ex. 57, 58, 59, 60. (iii) Through Consuela Stevens Francis (a) Richard Stevens’ third beneficiary, his daughter Consuela Stevens Francis (“Consuela”), held the remaining undivided interest in parcel 6y at the time the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands declared her incompetent in 1980 and appointed her daughter, Enid Francis, guardian ad litem. PL’s Ex. 190. (b) In Enid Francis’ petition for the appointment of a guardian, Francis alleged that Consuela had been mentally and physically incapable of conducting her own affairs for two years but also asserted that Consuela had contracted to sell her undivided interest in parcel 6y to Newfound Corporation for $30,000.00 and 120 shares of Newfound Corporation stock. At the time of the petition, Newfound had paid Consuela $4,000.00 of the purchase price. Pl.’s Ex. 190. Consuela’s children consented to the petition with the exception of one son whose whereabouts were unknown. Pl.’s Ex. 190. (c) After Enid Francis’ appointment as Consuela’s guardian on November 10, 1980, she signed a warranty deed, conveying Consuela’s interest in parcel 6y to Gulf Carribean Development Corporation on November 23, 1981. This deed was recorded at Book 32-E, Page 329, No. 2180. Pl.’s Ex. 61. (d) Gulf Caribbean Development Corporation then conveyed by limited warranty deed its interests in parcel 6y through Consuela Stevens Francis to Newfound Corporation. The deed was recorded at Book 32-G, Page 381, No. 2188. Pl.’s Ex. 78. (e) Finally, in 1989, Newfound Corporation conveyed parcel 6y by limited warranty deed to plaintiffs partner, Newfound Limited Partnership Management. The deed was recorded at Book 37-B, Page 505, No. 80. PL’s Ex. 11. (f) In the joint final pre-trial order the parties stipulated that plaintiff holds record title to parcel 6y. See Joint Final Pre-trial Order at 6 § 6(e) (June 14, 1994). G. Parcel 6z 1. Location a. In 1879, Isabella Electra Sewer sold a parcel of land to Martin Henry Boynes described as a small lot of land situated in the east end quarter named Privateerbay bounding to the East by the pond, to the south by extrimity of the pond on a direct line; West to a large Rock and from that direct North to a large Rock in the gut and from that Rock west in the gut a direct course East bounding with Mr. Henry George on the ridge [irregularities in the original]. PL’s Ex. 128. The deed was recorded at Book U, Page 279, No. 31 in 1899. PL’s Ex. 128. b. Both the subsequent 1912 and 1915 land lists and the 1913 Agreement confirm Boynes’ purchase of the land, designating the parcel “6z” and approximating its acreage at 10 acres. PL’s Exs. 16, 17, 31, 173. c. Marvin Berning testified that, in 1969, his associate conducted an original survey of parcel 6z’s boundaries in the company of representatives of the adjacent landowners. (Tr. 2, 62-63). Once the surveyor prepared the survey map, three family representatives signed the survey map approving of the boundaries as drawn. The survey map was filed as P.W.D. No. B9-243-T69. An examination of the survey map reveals that Ivan George “for [the] heirs of George family,” approved the northern boundary, Antonio George “for [the] heirs of George family” approved the eastern boundary, Joshua Stevens “for [the] heirs of Richard B. Stevens” approved the southern boundary, and lastly, Loredon Boynes, “for [the] heirs of Martin Henry Boynes” affirmed the perimeter of parcel 6z. The parcel’s approximate acreage as surveyed was 17.85 acres. PL’s Ex. 65. d. Berning also testified that he recently resurveyed 6z to further subdivide the parcel. (Tr. 2, p. 62). In so doing, he confirmed the accuracy of the prior survey. He stated that while the description in the deed transferring the property from Isabella Sewer to Martin Boynes was rather limited, he accepted the 1969 survey perimeter because the landowners agreed upon the boundaries. (Tr. 2, p. 63-64). 2. Title a. In 1969, Martin Boynes’ heirs, Lore-don Boynes, Florence M. Boynes, Vitalia Boynes, James A. Boynes, Anton E. Boynes, Eldora Boynes, Miles H. Gumbs, and Thadeus W. Gumbs, conveyed their interests by warranty deed to Leo Barbel, Miguel Fuertes, Aubrey Nelthropp, and George C. Parrott in 1969. The conveyance was recorded at Book 11 — C, Page 58, No. 1310. PL’s Exs. 63, 129. b. Leo Barbel, Miguel Fuertes, Aubrey Nelthropp and George C. Parrott conveyed their interests in parcel 6z by warranty deed to Newfound Corporation recorded at Book 14-R, Page 2667, No. 2965. PL’s Ex. 64. c. Finally, in 1989, Newfound Corporation conveyed its interest in parcel 6z by limited warranty deed to plaintiffs partner, Newfound Limited Partnership who recorded its interest at Book 37-B, Page 505, No. 80. PL’s Ex. 11. d. In the joint final pre-trial order the parties stipulated that plaintiff holds record title to parcel 6z. See Joint Final Pre-trial Order at 6 § 6(f) (June 14, 1994). H. Parcel 10 Location and Title 1. The designation “parcel 10” refers to a survey prepared by C.A. Hamilton & Associates in 1982 and filed as P.W.D. No. D92468-T83. The George family retained C.A. Hamilton & Associates to survey a portion of Longbay No. 1, the James Wellington George’s property. PL’s Exs. 26, 40. (Tr. 2, p. 168). The survey calculated the acreage of the parcel at 1.975 acres. 2. According to the 1913 Agreement, James Wellington George held an undivided interest in the portion of Longbay No. 1 with Ann Marie George and Mary Elizabeth Boynes as tenants in common. PL’s Exs. 15, 16 & 173. The stated acreage of the parcel was three acres. 3. Subsequently the property was partitioned. Mary Elizabeth Boynes had acquired two of the three acres between 1913 and 1921. PL’s Ex. 12. Thus, documentary evidence shows that after the partition, James Wellington George was the owner of a one-acre parcel. PL’s Ex. 12, 16, 17, 21,135. 4. The entire perimeter of parcels 6-0, 6-0-1, 6-0-2, and 10 was fenced except for the eastern boundary which follows an old trail on the ridge. PL’s Ex. 26. This physical evidence may suggest that the fenced property was the parcel known as 6e in the 1894 Agreement. PL’s Ex. 15, 26. (Tr. 2, p. 157-58; Tr. 3, p. 36, 4<M5). I. Parcel 6P Location and Title 1. As early as 1867, Longbay No. 2 appears as a distinct piece of property on Danish land lists. Christian Hughes, born 1791, held record title to the property measured at four acres. PL’s Ex. 29, 32. Longbay No. 2 is also known as 6p, reflecting the 1894 Agreement’s division of the East End and the parcel’s designation on the 1913 Agreement. Pi’s Exs. 31, 16, 173. 2. Martin Sewer’s deed for parcel 6f identifies the location of 6p. The property of Christian Hughes, known as Longbay No. 2, was located south of Longbay No. 1, sharing a common boundary with Martin Sewer’s 6f, a portion of Longbay No. 1. Pi’s Ex. 20. 3. Pursuant to the 1913 Agreement all parcels designated by a six were located north of the George-Sewer line and parcels designated by a seven were south of the line. PL’s Ex. 16. Therefore, parcel 6p must have been located north of the George-Sewer line. 4. This court entered a consent judgment in a related case, Eric Christian, Sr., as Administrator of the Estates of James George Sewer, Prob. No. 398-1980, on June 2, 1994. The terms of the consent judgment awarded title to defendants Cedric Lewis, the representative of the Estate of Bernard Williams, and defendant Irvin Sewer, for the heirs of Martin Sewer. Since the location of the parcel is in question, the court instructed the defendants to arrange for the parcel to be surveyed. To the court’s knowledge, no surveyor has been engaged thus far to perform the survey. J. Parcel 7a 1. Location a. The 1894 Agreement designated the land south of the George-Sewer line as Sewer family land, consisting of 78)6 acres. PL’s Ex. 15. As a result of the second Agreement in 1913, land south of the George-Sewer line received a new designation “7”. PL’s Ex. 16. The Agreement further divided parcel 7 into four sections, 7a (24% acres), 7b (14)6 acres), 7c (4% acres), and 7d (34)6 acres). Parcel 7a is listed as belonging to the “Sewer family.” Id. The north boundary of the parcel was the George-Sewer line. Since parcel 7a was merely the remainder of the Sewer property and it was not conveyed to others, no deed sets forth a description of the property. b. This parcel of land has not been surveyed. The court’s order of June 2, 1994 in Eric Christian, Sr., as Administrator of the Estates of James George Sewer, Prob. No. 398/1980, provides for the owners of the parcel to engage a surveyor. Unfortunately, to the court’s knowledge, the owners of the parcel have not engaged a surveyor to perform the required perimeter survey. c. To seek to locate the bounds of parcel 7a the court must turn to conveyances documenting the transfer of property adjacent to the parcel and other documentary and testimonial evidence. Of these adjacent parcels, parcel 7b, known as ‘Water Rock” lay to the west of 7a. The eastern boundary of parcel 7a according to old-timer Harry Sewer’s testimony as reported by Berning, consisted of a number of boundaries with different parcels. To the northeast lay parcel 7c owned by Martin Sewer. Immediately adjacent and to the south of 7c lay parcel 6m, a parcel known to Harry Sewer as the “Well Parcel,” that adjoined the Salt Pond. Further south to the east lay Salt Pond. According to Harry Sewer’s reported statements, the pond was historically split in two, with the western portion belonging to parcel 7a and the eastern portion belonging to parcel 7d, Richard Steven’s property (Tr. 2, p. 69-71); PL’s Ex. 16. Finally parcel 7a was bounded to the north by the George-Sewer line and the sea provided a likely natural boundary to the south. See generally Appendix A. d. The best evidence of parcel 7a’s boundaries presently before the court comes from the original deed identifying parcel 7b (parcel 7a’s western boundary) and the testimony of Harry Sewer, that supports Berning’s interpretation of the western bound and verifies field evidence Berning identified as the eastern bound. PL’s Ex. 36; (Tr. 2, p. 69-71). e. Beginning with parcel 7a’s western boundary, the 1902 original deed identified parcel 7b calling it ‘Water Rock” and measured it at 10 acres. PL’s Ex. 36. No further description appears on the deed. During his field visit with Berning, Harry Sewer defined Water Rock as the isthmus south of point B of the George-Sewer line, extending to the west from the ridgeline. (Tr. 2, p. 70). Subsequently, in September 1994, Berning searched the site described by Sewer. He testified that he found old barb-less and barbed fence lines extending south from point B and to the southwest along the ridge pointed out by Sewer. (Tr. 2, p. 70-71). f. The court finds that the combination of the natural topography, Sewer’s statements and the presence of fence remnants, particularly unbarbed wire fence, is persuasive evidence on which a surveyor could validly rely to set parcel 7a’s western boundary. g. Complicating matters, there exist two surveys of portions of 7b, that extended the western boundary of 7b over the ridgeline into the area probably belonging to parcel 7a. Floyd George surveyed portions of parcel 7b he named parcels No. 1 and 3. He completed and filed maps of both portions in 1965. Pl.’s Ex. 177, 179. h. As a result of the subsequent conveyances that referenced Floyd George’s surveys, the court finds a portion of parcel 7b totaling, according to Berning’s calculations, 3.9 acres was conveyed out of parcel 7a. See Appendix A; see also PL’s Ex. 198 (exhibits). Berning’s composite sketch of parcel 7a’s bounds set the total acreage at 17.9 acres. That part of parcel 7a appears to have been conveyed out, through property transfers relating to parcel 7b, has certain implications to be addressed in the following title section. i. Turning to the eastern boundary, the only proofs presented to the court are Harry Sewer’s statements that corroborate Berning’s placement of 7c to the east of parcel 7a. During his field investigation, Beming located fencelines along the southern and western boundary of the “Well Parcel” or parcel 6m and along the western boundary of parcel 7c north to the George-Sewer line. See Appendix A. Sewer verified that Beming had properly located parcel 7e. (Tr. 2, p. 69). j. Since the record does not contain deeds relating to parcel 7c or 7d, both of which might help locate the eastern boundary of parcel 7b, the court cannot make a further finding with regard to parcel 7a’s likely eastern boundary to assist a future surveyor. 2. Title a. This court’s June 2nd order in the Eric Christian action awards title to parcel 7a to defendants Cedric Lewis, as representative of the Bernard Williams estate, defendant Irvin Sewer, and Newfound as tenants in common. The court’s order does not mention explicitly Violet Mahabir Sewer’s interest in the property. Nevertheless, since defendants’ interest in this parcel descended through Martin Sewer and Adelaide Williams, as brother and sister, and both Irvin and Violet Sewer hold an interest through a Martin Sewer heir, Felix Roberts, the court will, sua sponte, recognize Violet Sewer’s interest in the property. The court notes that plaintiff concedes certain ownership interests of Cedric Lewis, Irvin Sewer and Violet Sewer. See PL’s Ex. 198 (argument). b. The percentages of ownership are at issue and must be determined. Ownership of parcel 7a vested in Martin Sewer and Adelaide Williams in equal shares. See generally PL’s Ex. 15. The estate of Bernard Williams asserts title claims through Adelaide Williams while Newfound and Irvin and Violet Sewer assert their interests through Martin Sewer. (i) Through Adelaide Williams (a) Adelaide Williams and her successors-in-interest conveyed half of her interest in parcel 7b, known as Water Rock, through a series of recorded deeds. See PL’s Exs. 142, 165,166 and 175 (parcel No. 1) and PL’s Exs. 133,141,144,177 (parcel No. 3). The bounds specified in the deeds transferred portions of parcel 7a in addition to a parcel 7b. PL’s Exs. 175, 176. (b) The court finds that Adelaide Williams successors-in-interest’s conveyances caused a de facto partition of parcel 7a along Floyd George’s parcel 3’s eastern boundary. PL’s Ex. 177. As a result of these conveyances involving parcel No. 1 and No. 3, the court finds that successors-in-interest of Adelaide Williams have conveyed to third parties 21.7877% (3.9 acres of 17.9 total acres) of Adelaide Williams’ ownership interests in parcel 7a. As a result, the estate of Bernard Williams’ ownership interest in the remaining total acreage of parcel 7a equals 28.2123% (50% — 21.7877%). (c) Since the estate of Bernard Williams’ interest is diminished, Newfound and the Sewers will share, in equal parts, the residual percentage of the Adelaide Williams interests. (21.7877/2 = 10.8938%) (ii) Through Martin Sewer (a) As the court set forth above, see generally Findings of Facts, Part E(2), supra, plaintiff documented and recorded its ownership interests in parcel 7a through a series of conveyances. PL’s Exs. 101-118, 44, 74. Accordingly, plaintiff holds 86.36363% of the identified interests in the Martin Sewer estate. (b) Defendants Irvin and Violet Sewer hold 2.0% of the identified ownership interests in the Martin Sewer estate through Felix Sewer, Martin Sewer’s grandson. See Findings of Facts, Part E(2), supra. (c) Since the court’s consent order reflected that no other party has an interest in parcel 7a, plaintiff and Irvin and Violet Sewer will proportionately share the remaining Martin Sewer interest. To calculate what percentage of unattributed property should be allocated to Newfound and Irvin and Violet Sewer, the court performed the following operations: 86.36363 + 2 = 88.36363 (88.36363 = 100% of property owned by Newfound and Irvin and Violet Sewer); 86.36363/88.36363 = Newfound’s interest = 97.7366% of the whole; 2/88.36363 = Irvin and Violet Sewer’s interest = 2.2634% of the whole. (d) The court finds that plaintiff holds 97.7366% of Martin Sewer’s interest in parcel 7a. (e) The court finds that Irvin and Violet Sewer hold 2.2634% of Martin Sewer’s interest in parcel 7a. (iii) Final Ownership Percentages (a) Since Martin Sewer had a 50% interest in parcel 7a, Newfound possesses ownership interests in 97.7366% of 50% of the total acreage and Irvin and Violet Sewer possess ownership interests amounting to 2.2634% of 50%. Both Newfound and the Sewers also gained an percentage (10.8938%) of Adelaide Williams interest in parcel 7a by virtue of the de facto partition. (b) Thus, by adding up each total ownership interest by party and dividing by the total amount of available interests, the court finds that Newfound holds 72.42031% of parcel 7a’s ownership interests. (97.7366 + 10.8938 = 108.6304/149.9999 = 72.42031.) The court further finds that Irvin and Violet Sewer hold 8.77147% of the ownership interests (2.2634 + 10.8938 = 13.1572/149.9999 = 8.77147) and that Bernard William’s estate holds 18.80821% (28.2123/149.9999 = 18.80821) of the ownership interests. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case requires the court to resolve legal issues which primarily relate to 1) identifying and locating real property and 2) the conveyance or ownership of real property. To identify or locate parcels of property the court must look at the original documents, such as deeds or survey reports, defining a parcel. By analyzing legal descriptions within deeds, comparing surveys and surveyor’s reports, the court evaluates the legal description, weighing its contents, and related surveying documents to locate the parcel on the ground. To determine whether property has been conveyed or transferred properly, the court considers whether the parties have transferred title to land pursuant to the Virgin Islands’ recording statutes. The legal analysis required to determine questions of ownership and title in this case is somewhat more discrete than the analysis necessary to identify a parcel’s location. Because there are numerous parcels at issue, repetitive legal questions arise concerning the location of property on the ground and the evaluation of surveying practices. To avoid duplicative analysis, in determining each parcel’s boundaries, and to focus the reader’s attention on the detailed facts at issue, the court has set forth the generally applicable law regarding these common underlying issues in the following preliminary sections. Specifically, these sections summarize law relating to locating property, surveying concepts and the surveying traditions in the Virgin Islands. While both parties have raised other subsidiary issues during the course of this litigation, the court has focused primarily on resolving questions of fact and law relating to location and title. As the court deals with each parcel, the court will note the subsidiary questions of law which arise with respect to each specific parcel and which require resolution by this court. I. GENERAL SURVEYING PRACTICES A. Background Research The court will first set forth basic principles of surveying based on its review of relevant treatises and case law as well as the expert testimony offered at trial by the parties. A surveyor should strive first to locate and examine all historical records, deeds, prior surveys, maps and drawings in preparation for conducting an original survey. See, generally, Curtis Brown et al., Boundary Control and Legal Principles 371-74 (3rd ed. 1986) [hereinafter “Boundary Control”]; Walter G. Robillard & Lane J. Bouman, Clark on Surveying and Boundaries § 4 (5th ed. 1987) (hereinafter Clark on Surveying) If the surveyor is not performing an original survey then the surveyor must also carefully review the original survey, as well as subsequent surveys or drawings. The purpose of thoroughly researching the history of a parcel of land is to ensure that the surveyor will be able to incorporate the most complete and accurate data into his or her survey. If a surveyor does not complete such research, the surveyor might perform the survey without having the benefit of essential information. For instance, the surveyor might not adequately search for crucial monuments or might misinterpret other field or documentary evidence. Brown, Boundary Control at 371. In addition, if a surveyor knows that his or her survey will be used in a particular manner, a surveyor should review relevant documents and field surveys of adjacent parcels of land to ensure that his or her particular survey will be reliable and consistent with other existing surveys, so as to discourage litigation. Id. at 374. B. Field Surveys After a surveyor has completed a comprehensive review of all available records, deeds and prior surveys, the surveyor begins the field survey. Once in the field, the surveyor has a duty to make a diligent search for all monuments referenced directly or indirectly in the deed or property description that either occur naturally or were put in place by prior surveyors or other persons. Id. at 371. Monuments have special significance because monuments indicate the location of property at issue on the ground. The search for monuments must continue until the monuments are located or until there is an explanation for their absence. Id. at 372. If necessary, the surveyor should consult former surveyors, landowners, residents, or other knowledgeable parties to determine monument sites or obtain other information tending to show where a piece of property should be located. Id. Testimony of neighbors and informed residents concerning boundaries is an important source of information for resurveys. Maplesden v. U.S., 764 F.2d 1290, 1291 (9th Cir.1985). As stated in one treatise, “[a] diligent, thorough, and complete search for all evidence is the fundamental essence of land surveying.” Brown, Boundary Control at 372. Through these investigative efforts, the surveyor attempts to reach his or her goal: the “location of land boundaries in accordance with the best available evidence” even though the best evidence may be “mere hearsay or reputation.” Id. at 372-3; see Part 11(B) infra on determining the order of importance of conflicting descriptive elements in a conveyance. C. The Centrality of the Original Survey Since the physical position of monuments referenced in a conveyance reflect the original boundaries of a particular parcel, a subsequent surveyor must attempt to conform his or her survey as closely as possible to the prior surveyor’s work. Hence treatises and courts frequently recite an admonishing maxim, namely that a surveyor must follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor. See Rudolph Galiber’s Testimony (Tr. 1B, p. 35.), Marvin Berning’s Testimony (Tr. 2, p. 112-114). The purpose and result of this principle is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the survey as well as ensuring the continuity of boundaries over time. Accordingly, “[t]he general rule governing the determination of boundary lines by resurvey is that the intent of the new survey should be to ascertain where the original surveyors placed the boundaries,” not to determine new modern boundaries. Thein v. Burrows, 13 Wash.App. 761, 537 P.2d 1064, 1065 (Wash.App.1975); see, also, U.S. v. Champion Papers, Inc., 361 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.Tex.1973) (boundary dispute involving 135-year-old survey resolved by the court’s attention to totality of the evidence including evidence of the parties’ intentions). II. DETERMINING THE INTENT OF PARTIES TO A CONVEYANCE While a surveyor must aspire to walk in the exact steps of an original surveyor, sometimes a surveyor may be unable to find monuments placed by the original surveyor because the monuments may have been obliterated or lost. When a surveyor is unable to follow the precise “footsteps” of his or her predecessor, then a surveyor must attempt to track the original surveyor’s work using whatever recoverable evidence that exists. See, generally, Robillard, Clark on Surveying § 14 (section on tracking a survey); 11 C.J.S. § 61. Ultimately, a surveyor may only be able to “say with a great degree of certainty, ‘this is where the surveyor walked.’ ” See, Brown, Boundary Control at 294. A. Original Survey Lines or Lines of Possession? When a surveyor has difficulty retracing the original surveyor’s steps, either because field evidence is missing or conflicting, certain principles guide his or her evaluation of existing field evidence. First, because original lines control other information contained in the conveyance, a surveyor should determine whether or not a line of possession, such as a fence, marks the location of the original survey line. See Robillard, Clark on Surveying § 16.17. For instance, if the possession line is marked by an old boundary fence erected at approximately the same time as the original surveyor ran the lines, the fence may memorialize the survey line itself. Brown, Boundary Control at 372. A surveyor’s determination that a line of possession corresponds with an original survey line should be made according to the best evidence available which may include testimony of residents and the evaluation of the age of fencing or