Hierarchy of monuments in boundary

I'm hung up on a conflict between a stream and a rebar.?ÿ

With rare exception, at least part of the outer boundaries of a tract adjacent to natural monuments would be determined by accepting artificial monuments set by a surveyor.

@kscott

At my age nothing suprises me anymore and I think the?ÿhierarchy above is wrong. ?????ÿ

The BLM doesn't seem to agree either. Page 12

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/940/BLM_Boundary_Law_Studyguide.pdf

Why do so many surveyors seem to miss the caveat that Priority of Calls is a guideline when there is a conflict between elements within a description?

And if there are no natural "monuments" in a description to conflict with artificial surveyor placed monuments, then artificial monuments are higher on the list?

I've seen many a discussion where many folks seem to miss this, and not review their boundary analysis within the context of their particular situation.

Priority of calls is not black and white, nor the word of God.

?ÿ

The so-called priority of calls are rules of construction (meaning an aid to interpretation), not rules of property. They do not establish a property right.

Rules of construction were developed to aid courts in resolving Deed interpretation disputes. They generally apply in the case cannot agree on where the Deed description places the boundary. For example, A owns a large tract and Deeds some to B. A and B disagree on what the Deed means with respect to the boundary location. A Court may use the rules of construction to interpret the Deed description or they may use other evidence they consider superior.

The book writers latch onto the rules of construction because they are fairly straightforward and make good book material. Other boundary rules arenƒ??t so straightforward and black and white so are harder to write about.

If A and B have been out of the picture for decades and the current dispute is not one about how to plot the Deed then the rules and evidence will likely lead to whether the boundary has been established in a location not exactly in compliance with the Deeds. In such a case the rules of construction are not as relevant.

Similar misleading paragraphs in most of the texts.?ÿ All the author is trying to say is that if the description is detailed and based on a detailed survey with monuments set, then you better look at that first.

Unfortunately, some take away from it that artificial monuments can't be used unless said detailed survey description exists; and some take it to mean the artificial monuments described in the survey must be held above all else in this situation.?ÿ Which has led to pincushions and incorrect interpretations of deed language bordering water bodies.

The fact that the texts have a hard time clearly expressing how to interpret deeds from the court decisions only emphasizes the challenge of interpreting the deeds themselves.?ÿ

What did they agree on??ÿ Might be the acreage, regardless of a detailed metes & bounds description.

I believe what he's referring to here when he says "artificial monuments fixed by the surveyor" is the original monuments set by the "first surveyor".

In Brown, second edition, referring to the section titled "Control Between Conflicting Monuments"

"The above order of importance of monuments is subservient to the principle: 'the lines as marked and surveyed by the original surveyor are considered most clearly showing the intentions of the parties to a deed.'?ÿ Any monument considered marking the original lines as surveyed may be elevated in importance and outrank an otherwise superior monument."

?ÿ

So I am documenting the priciples and case law guiding a decision regarding a conflict between a natural monument (waterway) and artificial monuments (rebar).

I believe what he's referring to here when he says "artificial monuments fixed by the surveyor" is the original monuments set by the "first surveyor".

"The above order of importance of monuments is subservient to the principle: 'the lines as marked and surveyed by the original surveyor are considered most clearly showing the intentions of the parties to a deed.'?ÿ

Your comments sound like you have a particular set of circumstances that need review/analysis.

I'm interested (as I'm sure many others are too) what your particular "facts/evidence" are/is. What's the scoop, without giving away the farm, so to speak?

Typically, the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) method would probably start you off in the right direction. If you're reviewing (appellate) cases, make sure you have the correct issue of each case, else you're analyzing the wrong thing. And many issues of case law that appear to be property/boundary related are anything but.

I would be a bit leery of pointing to "authoritative texts or sources" about Priority of Calls/Rules of Construction as the lynchpin of your argument. If that's the best you've got, then maybe we can help filter through the evidence and get you hitting homeruns?

Interesting.

Like others have said, this is only when monuments are in conflict.

With that being said, in the 1987 edition, in section 14.21, he writes the following:

?ÿ

?ÿ?ÿ When there is a conflict in the calls of a metes and bounds survey, the courts have generally accepted?ÿ?ÿ the following ranking of priority:

1. Lines actually run in the field;

2. natural monuments;

3. artificial monuments;

4. courses;

5. distances;

6 area or quantity.

This ranking is not an absolute rule of law, in that a clear intent of the parties can alter the ranking as can a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

I was probably premature in posting this as it yet to be resolved.

The basic facts are a parcel originally described as bounded by a ditch bank. There is a plat dated at the same time as the split which indicates pins set and the property line is labeled as the ditch bank. I don't know if the description or the plat came first. The dimensions given on that plat fall about 10 feet from the ditch bank, now piped but the location documented by several surveys as well as aerial photos. There is no evidence that the ditch was moved prior to being piped. A dispute has risen between owners, each of which have had surveys done, one accepting pins located at the dimensions of the old survey, and the other accepting the ditch.

The respective attorneys for the parties agreed that I should settle the matter and the court has so ordered. I am documenting my decision by reference to case law and principles of surveying. I was surprised when I ran across the hierarchy in the old Clark book.

?ÿ

I don't think that a ditch is a natural monument.

@not-my-real-name Maybe not. This was a drainage ditch, mayby 20' wide and 8' deep and may have been natural or man-made. It was not a small irrigation ditch.

Sounds like the only evidence of where the ditch was originally located are the pins and map used in the description.?ÿ In addition, the ditch has seen some sort of altering construction activity if it is now piped.?ÿ So there are two pieces of evidence that the ditch bank may have been moved.?ÿ No evidence presented that the ditch bank is in the same place as the time of the deed.

Even if the ditch is considered a natural monument, a manmade change in the course would leave the line in its original position (absent any of the exceptions to that rule).

Interesting case. To go with the ditch bank I would want some affirmative evidence that it hasn't moved.

The ditch is a disturbed monument. It sounds like you have evidence of the location at the time of parcel creation. That would probably trump the (advisory) dimensions of the deed...