The following testimony was then proffered:
Ben Brann Jr. told me (Hulett) that he was going to clear his property. He suggested that we take a tree line north of our property, give a dozer driver a compass, and have him drive south one-half mile to the south line of our property. The dozer driver then did that.
Patrick Lemley testified that he was a licensed surveyor and that Brann hired him to do a survey. Lemley testified that the original GLO plat of this area is from November 1854.
He testified that he conducted his survey according to the guidelines set out in the Bureau of Land Management’s manual, meaning that his survey was as close to the original
government survey as modern science would allow. Lemley testified at length regarding the procedures that are used in conducting a GLO survey.
However, Lemley also testified he was hired to base his location of the boundary on the original General Land Office surveys, which made slight adjustments based on the Earth’s curvature and the lie of the land. In locating the Hulett-Brown [sic] boundary line, Lemley said he relied only on the G.L.O. surveys, ignoring any monuments, prior surveys, agreements, and similar evidence. He said it is important for land descriptions to stay close to the G.L.O. survey lines because small variations can, over time, become large.
Lemley acknowledged a surveyor’s principle that “proportional measurement cannot be used to change long-standing corners” and stated that he had not been hired to find the east line of Hulett’s land, but rather to produce a G.L.O. survey of the line.
He did not dispute testimony by Fletcher that numerous surveys, established monuments, and existing corners vary from the G.L.O. surveys.
Hard to choose the category...maybe HUMOR would have been better.
DDSM :-O
A Dozer operator with a compass, what could go wrong?
I like the part where he was hired to produce not find the line. Sounds like evidence of the line was completely ignored; and a full re-tracement was done without regard of the original monuments still in place.
Wow. :'(
I'm at a loss.
Brann v. Hulett 2013 Ark. App. 687 (Dave)
Dave,
As I respect your opinion, I humbly ask you to read this case. There is more going wrong than a Cat mounted compass.
DDSM
Thanks Mapman...I'm at a loss too. I'm doing a little digging trying to find copies of the surveys .
DDSM
> "According to Lemley, the difference between his survey and Fletcher’s occurred because Fletcher divided the distance between the section corners in half, rather than the correct method of measuring a forty-chain first half mile and leaving the deficiency for the last half-mile. The line that Lemley found was approximately 110 feet west of Fletcher’s line on the north end and 96 feet to the west on the south end. Lemley acknowledged that he ignored monuments that did not agree with the GLO survey. "
Sounds like a bunch of crap, to me.
Yes.that baffled me too.
Brann v. Hulett 2013 Ark. App. 687 (Dave)
I read the case after I posted that.
It left me lying on the floor babbling with drool coming out of my mouth. It's going to cost me a lot in Therapy to recover.
Lemley did a good job of bamboozling the trial and appellate courts in this case.
GLO Plat
I just looked at a few of Lemely's early plats, and much to my dismay, they have a copyright notice on them. That is not allowed in Arkansas.
I appears to me that the court decided that nobody showed that the boundary had been established. So we start over, go back to the original GLO. I can't see where the original GLO corners existed either, but the court seemed to accept the survey claiming it. Either somebody didn't find and document the right evidence or the lawyers didn't present it correctly, or both.
Basically either a boundary is established or not. If the boundary is established then it shouldn't be disturbed. If the boundary is not established then the paper description is raised to the top. Here the court said the boundary wasn't established so there you go.
"We agree with appellants’ basic argument that, where the court explicitly found that boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession were not proved, the survey based on the original GLO survey and guidelines should prevail over a survey that does not reference the original lines."
Yepper. Also, it appears that everyone involved forgot that the BLM Manual has more than 3 chapters.....
Thanks for the responses. I have gathered the notes and plats of both the original 1820 GLO survey and the 1854 dependent resurveyed of this Township. I have emailed Mr Lemley requesting a copy of his 2009 "GLO survey" with no response. Since Arkansas standard and statutes require a survey to be filed with the office is State Land Surveyor, I requested from said office a copy , or if one was not filed, the Office contact Mr. Lemley to find out why his plat was not filed. The SLS office reported Mr. Lemley's response as "I was working for a 'firm' at that time and that it was the 'firms' fault and not his obligation".
Knowing tha Mr. Fletcher was retracing the Miller-Newell past surveys and that Miller-Newell had been surveying in this County and Township for more than 30 years, I believe the boundary HAD been established (wheeler Found 1 1/2" pipe at C-S 1/16 S5 in 1980).
I will keep y'all posted...
DDSM
Steve,
I know your post was in jest... The question is, copyright aside, is a Surveyor or "his firm" responsible in filing "the plat"?
My review of the statutes says Surveyor. NOT firm. Correct me please! Just because employees of the State Land Surveyor's Office has used this "excuse" in the past does not change the statute!
DDSM
There is alot that is not said... that being said, there is a TIME and a PLACE for what Lemley did, however, it appears that he tried to buck "City Hall". A host of other surveys, and occupation. Naw, that ain't gonna fly.
N
Dan, it is probably both, if. The firm is a corporation they are working under the COA. In my mind, if the board were. To take one to task, they should take both to task. They could then double their fine revenue.
There is A LOT of missing information in the court testimony such as the fact Fletcher found all of the monuments on his survey and did not set them. Also the supposed glo survey puts in one section corner by pushing out a 16th corner a bearing and distance and ignoring the existing monument there. It also ignores 2 additional known quarter corner monuments in the area to use the section corners on the the other side to proportion the other section corner in which it then uses to single proportion the corner that was used by the court. I was asked my opinion on this case by an interested party and can tell you that our state land survey office said that they believe this court ruling is correct even though it calls for the acreage to be the most important part of the description and glo plat and in my opinion has serious flaws. Not to mention alot of misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. I have personally seen these plats and associated field notes and the ruling is much worse when you know all of the facts than if you just read there abbreviated version which has some erroneous facts in it.
Shoot me an email...I would like to know any firsthand details.
DDSM
Have you looked over the plats?
I've reviewed the plats and corner perpetuations found per the State Land Surveyor's office, the original and dependent retracement GLO plats and notes. I have requested information from Mr Lemley and discussed this case with Mr Kittler (currently with the SLS office) and with Mr Green (former State Land Surveyor). I guess I need to contact Mr Fletcher?
Any input you have would be appreciated.
DDSM;-)