dmyhill, post: 359520, member: 1137 wrote: I can't speak for him, but I am often called out to stake the deed line, knowing full well, due to my knowledge, that the boundary is over there. There is not, in WA state (that I know of), any mechanism for me to place my stakes at the boundary rather than the deed line. IF I can find original, undisturbed monuments, I could hold those, but that is rarely the issue.
If you have suspicions that what you are staking is not the actual boundary line, and after you go through the whole research and investigative process as Evan has described and you still are not comfortable that you have a defensible connection between the deed and long standing occupation then you may have a problem. In my opinion, we are the ones that can help solve this problem by attempting to direct clients down the path to an amicable solution. We have this power. You can encourage the clients to do a boundary line agreement. This is really the only way to clear it up short of going to court.
Edward Reading, post: 380248, member: 132 wrote: As someone who was lucky enough to have Mark Ager as a professor, I could not agree more. I feel extremely lucky to have learned boundary surveying from him. Mark had a great knowledge of boundary law, but was a real "dirt surveyor" not an academic. While we are lauding OIT profs, I have to say that Earl's replacement, Dennis Findorff, is THE best teacher that I have ever had in my life. Having him for a class was "Like trying to drink from a fire hose". He had an amazing intellect and passion for surveying. He moved on to a higher calling and that was a great loss to the surveying profession.
I owe them both a huge debt of gratitude.
Ed
I felt extremely lucky that my path through OIT was during Dennis Findorff's time and echo everything you said.
olin edmundson, post: 380291, member: 10885 wrote: If you have suspicions that what you are staking is not the actual boundary line, and after you go through the whole research and investigative process as Evan has described and you still are not comfortable that you have a defensible connection between the deed and long standing occupation then you may have a problem. In my opinion, we are the ones that can help solve this problem by attempting to direct clients down the path to an amicable solution. We have this power. You can encourage the clients to do a boundary line agreement. This is really the only way to clear it up short of going to court.
Absolutely. However, we have to acknowledge that the system isn't perfect, and one of the worst parts of it, is that (in my part of the country) resolution involves review by the bureaucracy.
dmyhill, post: 380950, member: 1137 wrote: Absolutely. However, we have to acknowledge that the system isn't perfect, and one of the worst parts of it, is that (in my part of the country) resolution involves review by the bureaucracy.
I almost blurted out RCW 58.04.007
But then my search lead me to Bob Zierman's Boundary Dispute Law Blog and the answer was as clear as mud: It depends.....
:blush:
I just noticed that the OP was about Bob's Blog; back in February...
I also looked up AGO 2005 No. 2 - Mar 7 2005 and it confirms my original conclusion: clear as mud...
[sarcasm]Ain't surveying fun?[/sarcasm]
1 more, from "The Gipper":
RADAR, post: 380959, member: 413 wrote: I almost blurted out RCW 58.04.007
But then my search lead me to Bob Zierman's Boundary Dispute Law Blog and the answer was as clear as mud: It depends.....
The counties have essentially ended the use of 58.04.007. Up until a few years ago, a BLA(greement) was cheap and fast. They were taken advantage of, certainly, and for a number of other reasons, "charter counties" have made them very difficult to obtain. They prefer the BLA(djustment) or LLA...and it is surely only coincidence that the municipalities make good money off those, as well as provide employment for the bureaucracy.
